Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Performance and Good Practice Guide

The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (HB/CTB) Performance and Good Practice Guide replaced the old HB/CTB Performance Standards Guide on 1 April 2008.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) published this guide to coincide with the introduction of changes that impact on local authorities’ (LAs') HB/CTB services. In England, this includes the delivery of the proposals in the 2006 Local Government White Paper Strong and Prosperous Communities and the transfer of HB/CTB reporting responsibilities from the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) to the relevant audit bodies in England, Scotland and Wales.

The purpose of the guide is to:

• provide some context and set out how DWP will work with individual LAs
• give detailed guidance on the performance indicators for HB/CTB and DWP’s expectations in relation to them
• provide information on the performance and management information data that will be available on the DWP website to support benchmarking and self-assessment
• outline assessment and inspection changes
• provide good practice guidance to help LAs manage their benefits services effectively and efficiently.

How to use this guide

The guide is divided into three main parts:

• Part One – The Performance Framework – provides background information, guidance on the performance indicators (including technical guidance) and information on how DWP will work with LAs on performance-related matters. It also contains links to good practice to help LAs maximise performance against performance indicators or match up to the Audit Commission’s description of what a benefit service should deliver.
• Part Two – Good Practice – contains all the good practice. We have used a signposting system in this part to enable you to quickly find good practice that will help you to identify more efficient ways of working or key performance drivers.
• Part Three – Helpful tools and checklists – contains useful resources.

We have produced the guide as an electronic version only i.e. as web pages and as PDFs so that we can update it regularly and provide helpful links to other sources of information.

PDF versions of each main section and sub sections for Parts One and Two are available so that LAs can print off the parts of the guide if they need to.

Contact us with your comments

We hope LAs will find this guide useful and are keen to receive your feedback. If you have any suggestions for new material or ideas on improving the guide, please email your comments, with the subject heading 'Performance and Good Practice Guide' to: performance-framework@dwpi.gsi.gov.uk

Abbreviations

• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F
• G
• H
• I
• J
• K
• L
• M
• N
• O
• P
• Q
• R
• S
• T
• U
• V
• W
• X
• Y
• Z

A

top of page

B

top of page

C

top of page

D

top of page

E

top of page

F

top of page

G

top of page

H

top of page

I

top of page

J

top of page

L

top of page

M

top of page

N

top of page

O

top of page

P

top of page

R

top of page

S

top of page

W

All information on this site was correct at publication and is subject to © Crown Copyright

Part One - The Performance Framework

This section provides background information and guidance on the performance indicators (including technical guidance), as well as information on how DWP will work with LAs on performance-related matters.

It also contains links to good practice to help LAs maximise performance against performance indicators, or match up to the Audit Commission’s description of what a benefit service should deliver.

Signposting

We have used a signposting system in Part Two of the guide to help you quickly find good practice that either helps improve efficiencies and/or drives good performance.

You can go straight to this information by following the appropriate links in the good practice key drivers boxes that appear at the top of each section of good practice.

Key system

We have also used a simple key system using graphic symbols to help you identify which element of good practice is being covered.

• Good practice that helps to improve efficiencies
• Good practice that drives good performance
• Good practice that both helps to improve efficiencies and drives good performance

You can see all of the key performance and all of the efficiency drivers on the following pages:

• Helping to improve efficiencies
• Key drivers of good performance

This section is divided into the following parts:

• Chapter One: The new performance framework for Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB)
• Chapter Two: The HB/CTB performance indicators - technical detail
• Annex One: Performance Framework for local government in England
• Annex Two: Information to help set performance levels against HB/CTB Performance Indicators
• Annex Three: Management information using the Housing Benefit Operational Database (HoBOD) to manage and benchmark performance
• Annex Four: Overview of the Audit Commission's key lines of enquiry

Chapter One: The new performance framework for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit

This section describes how the new local performance framework impacts on the HB/CTB framework for local authorities.

The changes will take account of:

• the local performance framework for local authorities working alone or in partnership in England which was set out in the Local Government White Paper (Strong and Prosperous Communities) published in October 2006 - including the commitment to reduce the number of performance indicators against which Local Authorities (LAs) will report (see Annex One for further information on the local performance framework in England)
• the transfer of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI's) responsibilities for reporting on HB/CTB administration and performance to the respective audit bodies in England, Scotland and Wales
• the improvements LAs have delivered in the administration of HB/CTB in recent years and the need, looking forward, for DWP and LAs to continue to work together to deliver benefits services that meet the needs of customers.

You can read through the chapter in full or use the links below to go directly to a specific section.

• Performance indicators
  
• How DWP will collect and use performance information
  
• Performance Development Team Support
  

top of page

Performance indicators

For DWP, a priority for the administration of all benefits is to pay customers the right benefits at the right time and this is reflected in the Department's Strategic Objectives 6. ¹

Across Great Britain, LAs have significantly improved the standard to which they administer HB/CTB. Processing times for new claims have improved from an average of 62 days to 33 days in the period between 2001 and 2007. Losses due to fraud have nearly halved between 2002 and 2007.

However, despite these improvements wide variations in performance remain with many customers having to wait longer than five weeks for their claims to be decided. In addition, although there has been a reduction in fraud there has been an increase in error, particularly customer error. DWP estimates of the £19bn spent on HB/CTB in 2005/6, 1.4% was underpaid and 5.5% was overpaid.

For the next three years (until March 2011), DWP priorities for HB/CTB will be to ensure that all LAs provide an effective and efficient benefit service that is protected against fraud and error.

To reflect these priorities DWP has set two HB/CTB performance indicators for use from April 2008 covering:

• The number of changes to customers' HB/CTB benefit entitlement that are processed by the LA in a year (the Right Benefit Indicator)
• The average time taken in calendar days to process all new claims and change events in HB/CTB (the Right Time Indicator).

These two indicators replace the 18 performance measures against which all LAs were previously required to report performance.

The two indicators will apply in England, Scotland and Wales. (In England they are included in the suite of 198 national indicators). The two indicators are described in detail in Chapter Two.

Setting levels of service

Although DWP has not set national targets for these indicators, the objectives are for those LAs who are performing well to maintain their performance and for those who are doing less well to make improvements. (In England, however, targets may be agreed for an area through Local Area Agreements (LAAs) - see Annex One for more on Local Area Agreements.)

To maintain or improve performance, DWP expect LAs to set their own levels of service not only against the performance indicators but also across a range of activities that support those indicators, such as responding to queries and dealing with requests for reconsideration or recovery of overpayments.

Information to help LAs set their level of service against the performance indicators is set out in Annex Two.

top of page

How DWP will collect and use performance information

DWP will collect performance data for the two performance indicators through the Single HB Extract. It takes data directly from LA benefit systems and will eventually replace all paper management information returns to DWP. The Single HB Extract provides case level detail on new claims, change events and reviews and reduces the burden associated with clerical returns.

The Single HB Extract will collect a range of information which amongst other things will inform policy, help combat fraud and inform on performance across Great Britain. DWP will make performance data and other key management information generally available on the HoBOD - facilitating benchmarking.

Annex Three of this guide describes more fully why DWP collects the information and how it will be made available.

DWP will analyse performance data for the two indicators and may offer support and/or take action if it becomes concerned that an LA is performing less well than the majority of LAs or if there is a sudden deterioration in performance, liaising with the relevant Government Office, devolved administration and/or audit body, as appropriate.

DWP expects to continue its current practice of sending (routinely) all Chief Executives details of their LA's performance against the two performance indicators in the context of performance across Great Britain.

DWP will share information on performance as appropriate in each country with Government Offices (GOs), the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales and the relevant audit bodies to help inform assessment, inspection and audit programmes.

DWP will also use management information available through the Single HB Extract to help diagnose areas of activity which may be contributing to poor performance against the indicators. Where concerns about performance arise DWP may make contact with LAs to discuss the matter, working closely with the audit bodies and/or devolved administrations as necessary and, in England, through consultation with GOs. Also, DWP may offer free consultancy support from its Performance Development Team (PDT).

Assessment and Inspection

From April 2008, the audit bodies will set their own work programmes for assessing and reporting on HB/CTB services. The approach they take will reflect the different arrangements that are in place in the country in which they operate.

In England

From April 2009, decisions on whether to carry out an inspection will be mainly determined by risk assessment work carried out for the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA). The CAA will replace the Comprehensive Performance Assessment and other current assessment and inspection regimes for local authorities.

The Audit Commission will use DWP data, subsidy claims, and local information to determine whether there is a likelihood of a future failure of the benefits service and the impact on local people, particularly people whose circumstances might make them vulnerable.

To carry out the inspection of HB/CTB services the Audit Commission will use key lines of enquiry. All LAs, not just those facing inspection, will find the key lines of enquiry a useful tool when planning service delivery. We have also highlighted in the good practice section of this guide links between the good practice and the key lines of enquiry.

In preparation of the Audit Commission taking over the inspections they have conducted pilot inspections of benefit services at nine councils to test and inform their inspection framework. The results of these pilot inspections and a web tool with case studies can be found on the Audit Commissions website: www.audit-commission.gov.uk/benefits/np.

Annex Four provides an overview of the Audit Commission's key lines of enquiry in relation to HB/CTB.

In Scotland

Audit Scotland will introduce new HB audit arrangements consisting of a rolling programme of risk assessments for all benefit services in Scotland and focused audits, to be carried out when LAs are not planning to, or are making insufficient progress in reducing the risks identified.

Audit Scotland will make use of the Audit Commission's key lines of enquiry to inform its audits and when it reports to the Accounts Commission. Reports will focus on the risks identified and the LA action required to reduce them. These reports will be published and copied to the DWP Secretary of State.

In Wales

The Wales Audit Office (WAO) has developed a risk assessment model to fully integrate HB/CTB into the Wales Programme for Improvement (WPI). In this, the WAO has ensured that the risk assessment is aligned to audit work already undertaken in monitoring HB grant claims or national fraud initiative as well as maximising the use of councils' data returns to DWP. The model enables the WAO to assess risks against four aspects of HB/CTB namely: Claims Administration, Security, User Focus and Resource Management.

Risk assessment of HB/CTB has been undertaken at each council during winter 2007/2008. The outcomes of these risk assessments will inform the programme of inspection activity from April 2008.

Going forward, it is intended to incorporate the risk assessment of HB/CTB into councils' individual annual Joint Risk Assessment processes and timings.

Assessment and inspection follow-up action

If a report on HB/CTB is issued by an audit body that suggests a need for follow-up action, DWP will liaise with the relevant audit body and the relevant GO/devolved administration to decide what action should be taken. This co-ordinated approach could include a range of activities such as seeking an improvement plan from the LA in question, offering support from the Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs) or from elsewhere within the local government sector, GOs, the Performance Development Team or, in extreme cases, formal direction of a LA. DWP retains statutory powers ² that permit the Secretary of State to issue directions to an LA to improve its performance.

top of page

Performance Development Team Support

The Performance Development Team (PDT) comprises 15 performance specialists and works with individual and groups of LAs to help them become more efficient and improve performance.

The team's help is paid for by DWP but LAs have to invest the time and resources needed to achieve improvements. LAs are responsible for delivering improvement plans. In return for our investment, the Performance Development Team simply asks that authorities keep DWP informed of progress so that it can be sure improvements in the delivery of public services are realised.

The PDT is available to assist LAs in areas such as:

• working with councils to eliminate delay and duplication from their processes and increase their effectiveness and efficiency.
• helping councils explore the feasibility of sharing HB/CTB services to generate economies and efficiencies.
• assisting councils that want to improve their management of HB/CTB overpayments so that loss is minimised through more efficient and effective prevention and recovery action.
• developing partnerships with groups or individual councils to help them plan, implement and manage specific projects, for example:
  • home working
  • management of overpayments
  • direct payments
  • e-business.

¹ DWP Strategic Objective 6 - Pay our customers the right benefits at the right time supported by indicators for:

• proportion of benefit expenditure overpaid or underpaid due to fraud and error
• time taken to process new claims to benefits and changes in circumstances, including Housing and Council Tax Benefits.

² Social Security Administration Act 1992

Chapter Two: The HB/CTB Performance Indicators - Technical detail

This section describes the two national performance indicators in more detail and sets out important definitions and calculation methodologies.

As performance against these measures will be derived from the Single HB Extract it is important that benefit assessors input correct data to the LA's benefit IT system. To help with input dates and codes for the Single HB Extract we have developed guidance: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Circular: 2008/09 Single HB Extract - Guidance for LAs (161KB) .

You can read through the chapter in full or use the links below to go directly to a specific section.

• The Right Benefit Indicator - Changes in HB/CTB entitlements within the year
  This section looks at the Right Benefit indicator, its purpose, measurements and calculations, definitions and data collection.
• The Right Time Indicator - Delivering a prompt service to customers
  This section looks at the Right Time indicator, its purpose, measurements and calculations, definitions and data collection. It also explores start dates, completion dates, changes of circumstance and change events.

top of page

The Right Benefit Indicator - Changes in HB/CTB entitlements within the year

Indicator

The number of changes of circumstances which affect customers' HB/CTB benefit entitlement that are established and processed by the LA in a year.

Purpose

To ensure that customers receive the correct amount of HB/CTB. This will contribute to reducing both child and pensioner poverty and will reduce incorrectness, thereby saving taxpayers' money. The total cost of HB/CTB is £19bn of which we estimate that 1.4% is underpaid and 5.5% is overpaid. Statistics show that over 70% of the HB/CTB that is incorrectly paid each year results from changes of circumstances which occur after the start of the claim, which were not notified by customers or identified or actioned by the LA.

Therefore the most effective way of reducing the amount of incorrectness in the HB/CTB system is to ensure that customers notify LAs of changes in their circumstances and LAs proactively identify and action changes. An LA that effectively establishes and actions most of the changes of circumstances that occur will be successful at reducing incorrectness.

Measure

The aim of the right benefit indicator is to measure the number of changes in customers' circumstances which affect their HB/CTB entitlement that each LA establishes. The indicator will include changes that lead to an increase in entitlement as well as changes that lead to a decrease in entitlement. In general, the more changes that an LA is able to establish and process, the better its performance.

The indicator only covers claims that are already in payment and does not include the number of unsuccessful benefit claims, nor does it attempt to capture new claims arising from take-up activity.

The number of changes of circumstances that occur within each LA's caseload will depend on the size of the caseload. To allow comparison across LAs, the indicator will be defined as the number of changes per thousand caseload.

The number of changes per thousand caseload is likely to be sensitive to the make-up of the individual LA's caseload. For instance, a caseload with a large proportion of pensioner cases would be expected to undergo fewer changes of circumstances than a caseload with a large proportion of working age standard cases. To allow each LA to benchmark itself against other LAs, DWP will apportion the 408 LAs into a number of groups. The caseloads of all the LAs within each group would be expected to generate a similar number of changes per thousand caseload.

Calculation

Numerator: total number of changes identified leading to an increase in the customer's benefit entitlement amount plus total number of changes identified leading to a decrease in the customer's benefit entitlement amount plus total number of terminations of benefit entitlement

Denominator: number of customers within caseload divided by 1,000

Example

LA1 identifies 1,572 changes of circumstances in a year.
LA1 has a caseload of 2,470 customers.

LA1's performance will be recorded as:
1,572 / 2.47 = 636.4

LA1 is part of LA group D and can compare its performance against the other LAs in group D.

Definitions

The indicator only covers claims that are already in payment. Changes include those that result in an increase in benefit, which would have resulted in an underpayment if left unactioned, and those that result in a decrease in benefit, which would lead to an overpayment if left unactioned. The latter includes a termination of benefit entitlement.

Data collection

From April 2008, DWP will use the HBMS monthly extracts to collect performance data for the right benefit indicator. This means that initially it will only be possible to take account of one change in entitlement from one extract to the next. The intention is to use data collected through the Single HB Extract once DWP is satisfied as to the quality and completeness of that data. The Single HB Extract will capture all changes in entitlement throughout each month.

Performance data for the right benefit indicator will be published on the Housing Benefit Operational Database (HoBOD). This will include:

• the total number of changes of circumstances that each LA has established and processed which led to a change in entitlement, both in total and per thousand caseload
• the total number of those changes which led to an increase in entitlement
• the total number of those changes which led to a reduction in entitlement (including terminations)
• the number of changes, increases and reductions broken down into the six risk groups
• the LA grouping that each LA belongs to, for benchmarking purposes.

top of page

The Right Time Indicator - delivering a prompt service to customers

Indicator

The average time taken in calendar days to process all new claims and change events in HB/CTB.

Purpose

The indicator is designed to ensure that LAs deal promptly with both new claims for HB/CTB and change events which affect customers receiving those benefits. If customers receive a prompt service from their LA there are positive outcomes across a range of government priorities such as reducing the number of people living in poverty, reducing homelessness and supporting people into work.

Calculation

Numerator: total number of days taken to process all new claims and change events decided in the reporting period

Denominator: number of new claims and change events decided in the reporting period

Example

An authority processes 640 new claims and 2,000 change events in a quarter and these take 40,000 days to process. The average processing time for that authority would be 40,000/2,640 = 15.2 days.

Note: all rounding is arithmetical to a single decimal place.

Definitions

Claim for HB/CTB

A claim means an effective or defective claim made:

• on a paper claim form approved for the purpose and provided free of charge by the LA or DWP, e.g.:
  • HCTB1
  • HCTB1(PC)
  • HBRR1
• via an LA input document received from Jobcentre Plus through the Customer Management System
• via the input document (LACI) - claim made via The Pension Service (from October 2008)
• on an electronic claim form approved for the purpose and provided free of charge by the LA
• by tele-claim
• in a form otherwise acceptable to the LA.

Change event

A change event means any notification received during the course of a benefit award (and other than as part of or in the course of the making of a new claim) from the customer or third party which leads to a superseding decision on a claim. A notification can be received:

• in writing
• by Electronic Transfer of Data (ETD) from Jobcentre Plus or The Pension Service
• via the Housing Benefit Database Matching Service
• electronically
• by telephone
• during the course of a visit or interview, including video links
• as part of a fraud investigation
• following contact initiated by the LA, e.g. a diary date or an intervention.

Include all changes except:

• automatic uprating of the HB/CTB applicable amounts and social security benefits
• annual Council Tax increases or batch increases
• revisions to decisions, e.g. following a reconsideration or appeal
• revisions following management checks.

Start date

The date the claim or change notification was received at the designated office:

• electronically
• date stamped at post opening or at a reception point
• during the course of an interview or visit
• recorded as made or notified over the telephone

For changes notified following an intervention by the LA the start date should be the date that the customer or third party initially responds to the request for information. For further guidance on what to use as the start date see the paragraphs on specific events below.

Exceptions:

• advance claims - use the Treat As Made date determined by the LA
• Council Tax payable not known due to late valuation - use the date the Council Tax payable is notified to the benefits section
• advance notifications of change of circumstances - use the date the change takes effect.

Completion date

The completion date is the date a:

• decision is made on a new claim
• superseding decision is made following the notification of a change.

Data matches

Processing times will be calculated as follows:

• When an LA has to contact the customer or a third party to establish correct information, the count for processing times will start when the customer or third party responds and confirms that there has been a change. Subsequent action, such as seeking further information, will be included in the time taken to process the change.
• When the data-match arrives before a corresponding notification from the customer or third party already held by the LA has been dealt with, the processing time will count from the receipt of the original notification from the customer or third party.
• When no contact with the customer or third party is necessary, for example, the LA can check the information independently the time taken to process will be from the receipt of the data-match.
• When the data-match leads to a revision of the original decision because information which corresponds with the data-match is already held (e.g. LA input error), the data-match will not count towards the indicator.
• When the LA makes further enquiries and receives no response from the customer or third parties and decides to terminate the claim following a period of suspension the count will start from the day after the customer was asked to respond by (the end of the suspension period).

Processing times for bulk National Fraud Initiative notifications should be dealt with in the same way.

Change of circumstances notified during a fraud investigation

Changes reported or confirmed by the customer as part of a fraud investigation, for example at an interview, should be included in the indicator. The date the change is reported or confirmed should be your start date. Similarly, changes reported during but independently of the fraud investigation should be acted upon in the normal way and included in the indicator.

Change events arising from diary dates

If contact with the customer or third party is necessary to obtain further information the time taken to process the change will start from the date the customer first responds. If further information is required the time taken to obtain it will be included in the processing time.

If the diary date can be actioned without further contact with the customer or third party, for example the information can be obtained from the DWP Customer Information System, the time taken to process the change will start from the diary date.

Interventions which go unanswered

When the LA initiates contact with the customer, i.e. there has been no other notification of a change of circumstances from the customer or third party, and there is no response from the customer, the LA will suspend and eventually terminate the award of benefit. Time taken to process will be from the day after the end of the suspension period (the end of the suspension period being the day the customer was due to respond to the LA) to the date a decision is made to terminate the claim. If the LA terminates the claim on the day after the suspension period ends, time taken to process equals one day.

Data collection

Data required to measure processing times is collected by the Single HB Extract and will be displayed on HoBOD.

Annex One: The local performance framework for local authorities working alone or in partnership in England

Information in this annex has been provided by the Department of Communities and Local Government.

From April 2008, the number of performance indicators against which local authorities need to report will reduce drastically to 198. This set of indicators support the national priorities set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2007, and will cover all those national priorities which local authorities are responsible for delivering either on their own or in partnership. These indicators will be used to measure performance in all areas over the next three years. We are developing a system to make available in one place data on the National Indicator Set, reducing the reporting requirements on local authorities and the number of duplicate requests for information which they receive.

Work on this has been progressing, and this system (known as the Data Interchange Hub) will be available in April 2008. The majority of the National Indicators will be directly reported into the data interchange hub by Government Departments (based in many cases on information already provided by Local Strategic Partnership partners, then quality assured and published by the departments). For these indicators, no additional collection, calculation or reporting of data will be required by local authorities.

New Local Area Agreements will form the heart of the new framework - although performance will be measured in a place against all 198 indicators, new Local Area Agreements will be the only vehicles for agreeing shared targets with central government. Each Local Area Agreement will have up to 35 national priority targets. Local partners can also agree additional targets in their Local Area Agreement to support improved local delivery, but these will not be subject to performance monitoring by Government. Local Area Agreements will be underpinned by a duty to co-operate to determine Local Area Agreement improvement targets on particular named public sector bodies, and a duty to have regard to those targets they have agreed in the course of their business.

Assessment of performance in localities will be carried out by the local public service inspectorates working together. The Audit Commission and six other inspectorates are joint developing an outcome-focused, proportionate and risk-based Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) which will be introduced from April 2009. Each year's CAA will have four elements: an area risk assessment; a scored use of resources judgement; a scored direction of travel judgement and publication of performance data for each area against the set of national indicators.

The National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy aims to provide a stronger focus on supporting local authorities and their partners, achieving the improvement targets agreed through Local Area Agreements and meeting ambitious efficiency targets for local spending. It will support a devolved approach with a strong role for sectors and will build on the proposals set out in the Local Government White Paper Strong and Prosperous Communities. It will include proposals for:

• building effective systems to prevent underperformance and address it effectively when it occurs;
• aligning improvement support behind the new performance framework;
• strengthening local government sector's leadership of improvement agenda; and
• simplifying the improvement system.

A key aim is to ensure that action is co-ordinated and appropriate for the level of underperformance identified, with greater levels of resource being channelled through Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships.

The local performance framework is designed to respond quickly and effectively to underperformance in local authorities and partners: initiating action to drive rapid and sustainable improvement, focusing on key problems (including isolated areas in generally high performing local authorities), ensuring action is as effective as possible by co-ordinating action and growing the role of the sector in supporting improvement and tackling performance issues. Wherever possible, action will focus on sector-owned and -driven activity. Where this is not effective, GOs will play a key role in working with bodies that have a role in challenging and supporting improvement to ensure appropriate action is taken. Government retains its powers to formally intervene where problems are severe.

For further detail on the new local performance framework, please refer to An introduction to the local performance framework - delivering better outcomes for local people.

Annex Two: Information to help set performance levels against the Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit performance indicators

This section offers guidance on:

• Performance against the right benefit indicator
• Performance against the right time indicator

Once you've read this section, follow the links on the right for good practice to help maximise performance against these indicators.

Performance against the right benefit indicator

As the right benefit indicator is new there are no established levels of performance which LAs can refer to when deciding where to pitch their level of service.

The number of changes of circumstance reported to, or identified by, an LA is related to the number of changes that occur in its caseload, which is a consequence of the characteristics of the claims present in that caseload. This means that establishing a low number of changes may be considered poor performance for one LA but good performance for another LA, even if their caseloads are of a similar size.

To help LAs manage their service we have provided below our assumptions about the likely range of performance against the new right benefit indicator. The figures for the new indicator are based on the range of performance that was observed across the 12 months from October 2006 to September 2007. The figures show the ranges of the number of changes that were processed per live customer across six risk groups. ¹

An LA can get an idea of the total number of changes that they could get expect from their caseload by multiplying the numbers below by the average number of customers that they have at any one time in each of the risk groups. ²

Performance against the right time indicator

The right time indicator combines, for the first time two activities, new claims and change of circumstances processing, in one measure. The indicator also includes a wider range of changes than previously covered by the Best Value performance indicator for speed of processing changes of circumstances.

By the end of the 2006/2007 over half of all LAs were processing new claims, on average, in less than 30 days and almost half were processing changes in less than 10 days. We estimate that average performance against the new indicator will be 15.7 days at the start of 2008/09.

To assist LAs with setting their levels of service DWP has made assumptions about the likely range of performance against the new right time indicator. The figures for the new indicator are indicative as DWP does not yet have sufficient data to make accurate assumptions.

¹ The Housing Benefit Matching Service provides LAs with data-matches and a risk-scored review list from their caseload every month to assist with the identification of changes which may have gone unreported. The risk group into which each claim falls identifies the likelihood that there may have been an unreported change of circumstances resulting in a change to entitlement. Higher risk groups (1 and 2) are more likely to have experienced changes which may reduce their entitlement. The lower risk groups (5 and 6) have significantly less frequent changes which may affect their entitlement.

² The number of decreases and the number of increases refer to different LAs. Therefore, the figures will not necessarily add up.

Annex Three: Management information using the Housing Benefit Operational Database (HoBOD) to manage and benchmark performance

During 2008 changes will be made to the DWP HoBOD to reflect the reduction in the number of performance indicators and measures from April 2008. The HoBOD database can be accessed through the DWP website.

As DWP will be collecting a wide range of claims processing data through the Single HB Extract in addition to that needed to measure performance against the two performance indicators it will continue to make the data available to Local Authorities (LAs). This annex discusses data collection in more detail and provides some basic information on how the data could be used by LAs for benchmarking performance.

You can read through the chapter in full or use the links below to go directly to a specific section.

• Data collection
  
• How the data is used
  
• Performance and key management information held on HoBOD
  
• How LAs can use the data
  

Data collection

The majority of the management information will be extracted, on a monthly basis through the Single HB Extract. The Extract collects case level administrative data and will provide DWP with much greater detail than the clerical forms Stats 121,122 and 124 which it replaces from April 2008.

LAs will be required to submit a quarterly clerical return, the Housing Benefit, Recoveries and Fraud (HBRF) return, to report overpayment recoveries and fraud investigations, as it is not yet possible to collect that information through the Single HB Extract. More information about the Single HB Extract is available on the Housing Benefit Data Services website.

LAs will need to ensure that benefit assessors are inputting correct processing information when entering claims/changes on the benefit IT system so that the management information collected via the Single HB Extract is accurate. The DWP has produced guidance (see Circular A5/2008 (161KB) to assist benefit assessors with completion of the performance related fields for the right benefit and right time indicators.

top of page

How the data is used

DWP will use the management information to:

• develop and evaluate policies
• forecast HB/CTB expenditure
• provide Ministers and Parliament with statistical information
• inform the distribution of the HB/CTB administration subsidy
• analyse performance.

The data relating to claims processing will be used primarily to calculate performance against the right benefit and right time performance indicators. However, other key management information can be derived from the Single HB Extract and this will be available on HoBOD along with the performance indicator data.

top of page

Performance and key management information held on HoBOD.

As far as possible information will be displayed so that LAs can compare post-April 2008 data with earlier data. The information will also be broken down where possible into:

• working age and pensioner client groups
• standard claims and passported claims
• tenancy types.

top of page

How LAs can use the data

As performance against both the right benefit and right time indicators will be affected by the characteristics of each LA's caseload the management information could help you identify similar LAs against which to benchmark your performance.

For the right benefit indicator DWP will apportion the 408 LAs into a number of groups. The caseloads of all the LAs within each group would be expected to generate a similar number of changes per 1000 caseload. These groups will be available on HoBOD from April 2008.

The caseload information on HoBOD will also enable LAs identify LAs with similar caseloads and populations for benchmarking performance against the right time indicator.

High level benchmarking with other LAs against the performance indicators could also be the first step towards using process benchmarking as an effective way of improving performance by adopting more efficient practices identified by other LAs.

The good practice section of this guide contains further information on how process benchmarking can lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness.

Annex Four: Overview of the Audit Commission's key lines of enquiry

Information in this annex has been provided by the Audit Commission.
You can read through the annex in full or use the links below to go directly to a specific section.

• Introduction
• Key lines of enquiry overview
• Judgement One – How good is the service?
  
• Judgement Two – What prospects are there for improvement?

Introduction

The HB/CTB Performance Standards which were first published in 2002 have served to focus LAs on making improvements to their benefit service and have provided a framework for DWP to set performance targets and priorities. From April 2008 this framework will cease to exist, leaving LAs to determine how best their benefit service can be managed to meet the needs of the local population and to contribute to local strategies.

The two performance indicators will provide the headline measures by which LAs will be judged by DWP and the audit bodies but they are not the only aspects of the benefit service that could come under scrutiny.

In its annual use of resources assessment, as well as considering how effectively and efficiently the LA delivers its services, the Audit Commission will focus on the effectiveness of the LA's counter-fraud activity, including internal fraud and recovery of overpayments.

Equally, the Comprehensive Area Assessment will allow the Audit Commission to judge to what extent the benefit service is meeting the needs of the vulnerable members of its community and the risks of it failing.

The Audit Commission has developed key lines of enquiry for use in the inspection of benefit services which reflect the Department's expectations for all aspects of HB/CTB. LAs will find the lines of enquiry useful when reviewing and drawing up plans for their benefit service.

This section provides a high level overview of the key lines of enquiry and provides links to relevant good practice.

Audit Scotland agrees that the key lines of enquiry reflect the elements it would expect to be found in all benefit services in Scotland. The key lines of enquiry will be used in the inspection process, but inspections will focus on areas of risk identified by the risk assessment process. Only those key lines of enquiry appropriate to the particular risks identified will be pursued.

The WAO will be developing the inspection programme based on the outcomes of the initial HB/CTB risk assessments. It is expected that a range of inspection activity will be undertaken focussing on parts of the HB/CTB benefits process, either at individual councils or on a 'thematic' basis across Wales, although 'full' inspections will also be possible.

The WAO is currently developing its inspection methodology but it is likely to reflect the Audit Commission's questions, focus and sources of evidence set out in its key lines of enquiry.

The WAO is likely to consult on four key questions:

• Is it clear what the service aims to achieve?
• Is the service meeting the needs of the community and/or users?
• Is the service delivering outcomes for users and the community?
• Is the service delivering value for money?

In considering these, the WAO will also form a view on the council's prospects for improvement in these areas.

top of page

Key lines of enquiry overview

The Audit Commission will make two judgements when carrying out an inspection firstly 'how good is the service?' and secondly 'what prospects are there for improvement?'

Below each subject the Audit Commission will ask a number of questions as follows.

The Audit Commission website describes fair and good levels of service against these questions. The following paragraphs give a summary of the aspects of the benefit service covered within each judgement and links to good practice which you may wish to draw upon to help your service match up to the Audit Commission descriptions.

top of page

Judgement One - How good is the service?

What has the service aimed to achieve?

This first question allows the Audit Commission to provide a high level view of the key objectives for the benefits service including the extent to which those objectives take account of the:

• needs of the local community and users
• regional and national priorities
• wider corporate strategies and priorities for improvement.

These objectives should be reflected in strategy document and delivery plans. For more information see good practice on Service Aims.

Is the service meeting the needs of the community and/or users?

This wide ranging question is used to establish that the LA is meeting its objectives, complying with statutory requirements and supporting the national priorities of paying the right benefit at the right time.

The line of questioning also explores whether the LA has fully addressed issues of:

• accessibility
• diversity
• take-up
• customer care
• communication.

Supporting payment of the right benefit at the right time

The Audit Commission will consider how well the LA has performed against the national indicators. For more information see good practice on how to maximise performance against both the right benefit indicator and right time indicator.

The Audit Commission will also consider a range of other activities in their line of questioning that support the principle of right benefit and right time. These activities include:

• keeping the gateway secure by thorough checking of evidence on new claims (See good practice on Checking new claims)
• carrying out management checks to ensure staff are processing claims accurately (See good practice on Management checks)
• pursuing overpayment recovery to deter non-reporting of changes (See good practice on Pursuing overpayment recovery)
• carrying out counter-fraud activities to identify customers who set out to defraud the system (See good practice on Counter-fraud activities)
• using sanctions to deter fraudsters from re-offending (See good practice on Deterring serial fraudsters)
• working with other organisations (See good practice on Working with other organisations).

Accessibility

The Audit Commission will establish how well the LA has considered a variety of factors in determining how it addresses the needs of its local population, for example its locality, the availability of public transport, etc. Providing an accessible service is not necessarily about keeping caller areas open for 36 hours a week. The customers' needs might be better met through good telephone access, some evening opening, more visits and surgeries in local community centres or even video links. (See good practice on Meeting community and user needs: Accessibility)

Diversity

Under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), it is unlawful for service providers to treat disabled people less favourably than other people for a reason related to their disability. Service providers now have to make 'reasonable adjustments' to the way they deliver their services so that disabled people can use them.

We have listed in the good practice section a number of reasonable adjustments to 'physical' and 'non-physical features' that can be implemented to assist with your provision of service for disabled people. However, it is the responsibility of each authority to ensure that the law is being met under the DDA. (See good practice on Meeting community and user needs: Diversity).

Take-up

Although overall take-up of HB is historically high at between 83-88%, there were nevertheless between 520,000 and 790,000 entitled non-recipients with a median weekly amount unclaimed of just over £38.50 in 2005-2006.

In the same period, the caseload take-up for CTB was lower at 62% to 68%, which left between 2.29million and 3.01million people failing to claim a median weekly amount of £12.00. For owner-occupiers, many of whom are pensioners, take-up of CTB is even lower at 38-43%.

LAs are well placed to target take-up activity for both HB/CTB but the LA also has a role in encouraging take-up of other benefits - and this work may be most effective as part of a wider anti-poverty strategy of the authority. (See good practice on Meeting community and user needs: Take-up).

The Council Tax Benefit Take-up - A Best Practice Guide also contains useful material.

Customer care

Customers are likely to judge the LA's performance by the speed, efficiency and helpfulness with which it deals with enquiries whether by face-to-face contact, telephone or correspondence. Equally when things go wrong disputes, applications for reconsideration, appeals and complaints should be given priority and resolved at the earliest opportunity. (See good practice on Meeting community and user needs: Customer care)

Communications

Ensuring that all communications are clear and that information about HB/CTB and how to claim them is widely available will reduce the need for customers to request information or seek clarification.

Is the service delivering value for money?

This is a key consideration for the Audit Commission and with the 5 percent year on year reduction in the DWP administration grant over the three years commencing April 2008, LAs will be seeking to achieve efficiency savings.

The line of enquiry is intended to establish that the LA has a keen awareness of its administration costs and the need to achieve value for money by:

• benchmarking its costs with similar authorities
• effective management of procurement of services and IT systems
• using innovative ways of working and partnerships to achieve efficiencies
• maximising legitimate subsidy entitlement
• minimising fraud and error
• managing overpayment recovery.

See good practice on Value for money.

top of page

Judgement Two - What prospects are there for improvement?

What is the service track record in delivering improvement?
How well does the service manage improvement?
Does the service have the capacity to improve?

These three questions cover a range of issues such as leadership, improvement planning, performance management, maintaining a competent workforce and learning from experience. For more guidance on good practice in these areas, see good practice on:

• Performance management
• Maintaining a skilled and competent workforce

Part Two - Good practice

This section contains all of the good practice guidance.

Signposting

We have used a signposting system in this part of the guide to help you quickly find good practice that either helps improve efficiencies and/or drives good performance.

You can go straight to this information by following the appropriate links in the good practice key drivers boxes that appear at the top of each section of good practice.

Key system

We have also used a simple key system using graphic symbols to help you identify which element of good practice is being covered.

• Good practice that helps to improve efficiencies
• Good practice that drives good performance
• Good practice that both helps to improve efficiencies and drives good performance

You can see all of the key performance and all of the efficiency drivers on the following pages:

• Helping to improve efficiencies
• Key drivers of good performance

Please note that these are condensed versions of the Part Two documents above and we recommend that you read all documents in full to see each driver in context

This section is divided into the following parts

• Right benefit: How to maximise performance against the indicator
• Right time: How to maximise performance against the indicator
• What has the service aimed to achieve
• Keeping the gateway secure by thorough checking of evidence on new claim
• Carrying out management checks to ensure staff are processing claims accurate
• Pursuing overpayment recovery to deter non-reporting of changes in future
• Carrying out counter-fraud activities to identify customers who set out to defraud the system
• Using sanctions to deter fraudsters from re-offending
• Working with other organisation
• Is the service meeting the need of the community and or users
• Is the service delivering value for money
• Performance management
• Maintaining a skilled and competent work force

Right benefit: how to maximise performance against the indicator

This section includes good practice on:

• Introduction
• Encouraging and educating customers to report changes of circumstances
• Improving accessibility and responsiveness
• Working with others to maximise the reporting of changes of circumstances
• Maximising the use of available data and intelligence
• Data-matches
• Interventions
• Managing the process

top of page

Introduction

The key activities which minimise incorrectness in the benefit caseload are:

• encouraging customers to report changes of circumstance on time
• managing the caseload by finding and actioning unreported changes of circumstances
• managing work processes to reduce the opportunity for official LA error.

It is important that customers are aware of their responsibility to report changes in their circumstances on time to minimise error arising in ongoing claims. Encouraging and educating customers to report changes themselves reduces the requirements for intervention at a later stage and can avoid the costly business of recovering any resulting overpayment.  Therefore it is essential to educate customers so that they understand the need to report relevant changes in their circumstances to promote a culture of self-reporting of changes. All means available should be explored to promote the need to report changes.

Where customers fail to report changes, interventions are a means of identifying them by proactively reviewing claims most likely to have had an unreported change. These are normally selected through some form of risk assessment, or in response to a predicted change that has been diary-dated but not reported by the customer. 

There are a number of reasons why customers do not report changes in their circumstances. These include:

• ignorance of the rules
• confusion about what to report (especially when customers are claiming other social security benefits and tax credits)
• confusion about who to report changes to
• difficulties with language or physical access
• intent to defraud.

top of page

Encouraging customers to report changes of circumstances

Good practice includes:

• taking every opportunity to remind customers to report changes
• exploring and using a variety of methods to publicise the requirement to report changes, such as:
  • leaflets with decision letters and Council Tax bills
  • posters in LA reception areas and other suitable locations, such as:
    • libraries
    • leisure centres
    • Registered Social Landlords’ offices
    • CAB offices
    • Age Concern offices
    • pensioners’ clubs
    • neighborhood centres
    • doctors’ surgeries
    • community centres
    • the staff lounges of larger employers, for example, supermarkets or any other employer where it is known employees receive low pay or there are high numbers of staff who work part-time
  • publicity in the local press
  • issuing leaflets:
    • with local papers
    • with rent statements
    • with all correspondence to customers
    • at every visit
    • each time a customer calls at the LA’s offices
• advertising a free phone number on local radio, TV and the local press to encourage customers to report changes
• providing details of successful prosecutions in the local press
• developing change of circumstance leaflets and forms to be enclosed with any communications with customers
• providing a change of circumstances form with the HB/CTB claim form
• producing material in a range of appropriate languages for the area
• undertaking targeted mailshots
• collaborating with other LA departments and third parties such as housing associations and local landlords to reinforce the message
• offering a range of locations and/or extended opening hours to facilitate the reporting of changes of circumstances
• conducting specific road shows to improve HB/CTB take-up, taking every opportunity to remind customers about the need to report changes of circumstances
• using diary dates to alert them to predictable changes of circumstances
• contacting customers following 14 days after the diary date to offer advice and assistance with reporting the change of circumstances
• ensuring the reporting of changes of circumstances is prominent when sending out any type of benefit letter
• identifying and eliminating barriers to reporting changes
• accepting changes reported electronically or by telephone
• providing clear advice and guidance on the claim form
• sending texts to customers after the change has taken place.  Sending the text message to remind a customer prior to the change will not educate them to self-report.  You should ask the customer from the outset if they would like to be contacted by text message for any reason
• providing a range of products, for example, mouse mats, bookmarks, etc, to serve as a reminder to staff.

Improving accessibility and responsiveness

Good practice includes:

• advertising a freepost address to report changes
• accepting the reporting of changes by phone and e-mail
• providing an on-line change of circumstances form
• providing a change of circumstances form with the HB/CTB claim form
• undertaking out of hours visits
• conducting targeted outbound telephone call exercises
• providing pre-paid business reply envelopes
• extending office opening hours
• providing a changes of circumstances tear-off portion on notification letters
• using plain English in notification letters asking customers to report changes that may reduce or increase their benefit entitlement
• ensuring Visiting Officers leave changes of circumstances form with customers
• providing customers with a changes of circumstances form when they attend the LA’s offices
• working closely with The Pension Service and Jobcentre Plus to ensure changes reported to it are forwarded to the LA
• reviewing access to services for vulnerable customer groups, including:
  • the elderly
  • disabled
  • customers with language or literacy difficulties

Several LAs have reported some success with new procedures for taking changes of circumstance over the phone. While the customer is on the phone reporting the change, the LA makes an appointment for an officer to call out within the next few days to collect the necessary evidence to support the change.

Working with others to maximise the reporting of changes of circumstances

Good practice includes:

• working with key stakeholders and partners, including Registered Social Landlords, welfare groups, CAB, Age Concern, private landlords, etc, to encourage customers to report changes of circumstances
• providing relevant and appropriate training for LA staff, key stakeholders and partners on reporting changes and the consequences of changes that are not reported
• ensuring LA staff, key stakeholders and partners issue changes of circumstances forms
• providing scripts for those who have direct contact with customers to ensure
  • staff proactively ask customers about known future changes, when they will take place and set diary dates to deal with them
  • customers are continually reminded of the need to report changes of circumstances.

Maximising the use of available data and intelligence

Good practice includes:

• setting diary dates for foreseeable changes (HBMS scans with possible future changes)
• conducting regular data sweeps to identify those cases without diary dates/case controls
• scrutinising returned cheques to identify any potential impact on the customer’s claim, for example, they may have vacated their home
• reviewing self-employed cases every 3 months
• considering customers with shortfalls in their rent and considering visiting those customers within 6 months to find out how they pay the shortfall
• visiting customers within 6 months of making a claim
• issuing targeted postal reviews on a weekly basis
• reviewing child maintenance payments to identify any changes in levels of income
• subjecting all privately rented cases to a Land Registry check to see who owns the property and therefore mitigating the risk of tenancy fraud
• establishing when wage/occupational pension increases occur for any large local employer
• targeting known occupational pension increases
• identifying significant birthdays, for example, Tax Credit changes for babies one year old and non-dependants reaching 25 years old
• identifying customers who have vacated their properties
• requesting wage slips in targeted reviews even when there is no change of circumstance reported
• maximising the use of NFI results
• considering those fraud referrals received from assessment and customer service staff, including partners / third parties that do not result in an investigation

Data-matches

Referrals from the Housing Benefit Database Matching Service (HBDMS) are a useful resource for identifying unreported changes of circumstance and LA error, including data input mistakes and unactioned work. The following good practice can equally be applied to internal data-matching, and to the results of the National Fraud Initiative.

Good practice includes:

• Having a named officer responsible for co-ordinating the work
• Prioritising the clearance of data-matches to ensure that those likely to result in the highest overpayment are dealt with first. These are matches associated with non-declaration, or under-declaration, of:
  • capital
  • earnings
  • Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)
  • Income Support (IS), Employment and Support Allowance (income related) (ESA(IR))
  • Tax credits
  • Incapacity Benefit (IB) / Employment and Support Allowance (contributory) (ESA (C))
  • State Pension
• Identifying early in the sift process those cases that require fraud action. LAs should consider whether it is best use of resources to have data-matches sifted initially by their assessment or their fraud teams
• Clearing those referrals where it can be determined that:
  • the change has already been notified
  • the change has already been actioned
  • the data-match is the result of data input error
  • the address has been mismatched and it is clear that the address registered for Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit (HB/CTB) is correct
  • the customer has died
  • the customer is entitled to benefit despite temporary absence
  • the change means that the customer's income remains below the applicable amount
• Maintaining a record of progress on data-matches to make control of cases easier
• Carrying out management checks to ensure the work is being completed accurately and fully with the correct codes
• Carrying out management checks on the use of HBDMS negative return codes to identify training needs, trends or problems/issues
• Requesting lists of outstanding cases from HBDMS to keep track of outstanding work, and ensuring final results on these cases are submitted to HBDMS.

top of page

Interventions

Inevitably there will be some changes that are not reported by customers, and not identified through data-matching. Although DWP no longer set targets for interventions, recent research indicates that they are an effective means of sweeping up many of the remaining incorrect claims in the caseload.

Ensure that adequate administrative support is in place to prioritise work and identify the appropriate intervention method based on the level of risk.

Good practice includes:

• Ensuring that interventions are selected on the basis of risk using the risk-scored review list provided by HBDMS and/or local risk criteria
• Basing the local risk criteria on analysis of existing data including fraud referrals and non-fraud overpayments. LA intervention strategies must comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Act and equalities legislation. Some factors which may be considered for inclusion within a local risk analysis to determine the LA’s interventions criteria are:
  • repeated non declaration of changes in circumstances
  • frequent house moves
  • short-term fixed income cases
  • seasonal earners
  • wide variation in income
  • self employment
  • hostel dwellers
  • previous fraud referrals which were not subject to an investigation
  • previous fraud investigations
• Conducting specific checks/ad-hoc data scans to review
  • if single persons discounts are still applicable
  • if there are discrepancies  between the Benefits IT system and existing data held by the LA, for example information held on the Electoral Roll
  • customers whose reported capital is close to the threshold
  • customers who report they have capital of £12K and/or stocks and shares
  • customers who are self-employed and whose earnings/circumstances might fluctuate
  • customers who are in receipt of
    • occupational pensions
    • contributory-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
    • statutory sick pay
    • Tax Credits
    • IB / ESA(C)
  • customers who report unchanged levels of capital and earnings
  • customers who are a single parent but not receiving maintenance payments or reporting child care costs
  • registered births and deaths
  • the uprating of other welfare benefits, for example, Pension Credit, IB / ESA(C) or Disability Living Allowance
  • the occurrence of minimum wage increases
  • any financial discrepancies in right to buy applications and the source of their money
  • the existence of non-dependants by cross-checking parking permits
  • students who potentially may have changes of income, for example, university students in June
  • the financial status of non-dependants in receipt of IS
• Using partial reviews to concentrate on one aspect of the claim which is most likely to have changes
• Making best use of resources by effectively targeting activities at the claims most likely to yield unreported changes of circumstance
• Having an interventions strategy that enables staff to identify the most appropriate method of intervention in relation to the risk associated with the claim. Each of the intervention methods – visit, postal review or telephone – may be more appropriate in some cases than in others
• Reviewing new claims after 2 weeks and 13 weeks
• Visiting all addresses where post has been returned

LAs may find the following based on LAs’ experiences helpful.

Visiting

• Visiting is an effective method of intervention in high risk cases - consider whether an accompanied visit is appropriate
• Visiting helps to establish residency
• Notifying visits allow customers time to obtain the supporting evidence required. However, un-notified visits in certain cases may achieve greater results
• Visiting schedules help the visiting officer to manage time more effectively and can include reserve visits to be carried out if time permits
• Visiting cards provide reminders of a missed visit and give a contact point to rearrange the visit
• Contacting the next appointment customer on completion of the previous visit if the LA keeps a record of customers’ phone numbers
• Considering the most appropriate officers to undertake visits. Where benefit assessors carry out intervention visits, they can update claims as required immediately following the visit. This will minimise the number of follow-up requests for information and evidence, as a visiting officer who is inexperienced in assessing claims may bring back inadequate or insufficient evidence for the claim to be reassessed
• Visiting officers should be trained in:
  • assessment work enabling them to answer HB/CTB-related enquiries
  • verifying the authenticity of documents
  • risks likely to affect claims verification
  • fraud awareness
• Ensure visiting officers are fully aware of the LA's anti-fraud strategy and know when a case is likely to fall within the prosecution policy. Officers will have appropriate guidance for dealing with such cases to avoid the intervention activity prejudicing any subsequent sanctions activity.

Telephone reviews

Telephone reviewing can be used for low risk cases, and in situations requiring a speedy resolution. Customers may want assurance before disclosing their telephone numbers, but many LAs now ask for this information at the initial claim stage.  Vulnerable customers can be notified by letter of the intention to review their case by telephone.

• Making greater use of telephone reviews to capture and action as many changes as possible to remove postal delays
• Telephoning customers with predictive changes, such as an increase in IB / ESA(C) or occupational pensions from the date of the predicted change/s to report their change of circumstance in advance
• Using the phone to request further information or evidence gives officers an opportunity to explain their requirements, and ensure the customer understands what to provide
• Clearing up simple enquiries by phone will reduce processing times by eliminating time taken to send letters and await further information.

Postal reviews

• Reviewing by post may require telephone follow-up, or even a visit, if replies are not received. LAs must ensure that the time allowed for replies does not conflict with the regulations on  provision of information, suspension and termination
• Targeting postal reviews at an appropriate time of year, e.g. following the annual increase in a local employer’s occupational pensions, can be effective for lower-risk cases
• Ensuring that suspension or termination of claims is only used where reasonable. LAs should not suspend or terminate claims for benefit unless it is likely that there is no further entitlement to benefit
• Using a postal review to effectively check information contained in data-match referrals and the risk-scored review list.

Managing the process

Some incorrectness in the caseload is caused by weaknesses in administrative procedures, mistakes made by staff, and failure to action work or notified changes.

Good practice includes:

• having a strategy which clearly links to the Fraud Strategy
• setting up a dedicated Change Events team
• monitoring and analysing performance on at least a monthly basis
• breaking down performance into proactive and non proactive work so that it is clear which type of work is generating the most reductions
• carrying out management checks that clearly identify:
  • the date
  • the nature of check
  • the identity of the manager
  • any required remedial action.
  • confirmation the remedial action has been taken
• analysing the results of management checks to identify weaknesses in policies or procedures  
• using information from management checks to identify additional training required
• ensuring benefits staff receive appropriate training which is reviewed regularly to refresh their skills
• setting local targets for measuring improvement
• ensuring employees are aware of the need to maintain their declarations of interest and to notify their manager if they are required to assess or review the claims of family members, friends and acquaintance
• ensuring only authorised employees have access to fraud files.

DWP have produced two e-learning packages on error awareness: the Guide for Assessors and the Manager’s Toolkit.

The Right Benefit toolkit contains a range of communication and evaluation products and aims to help LAs plan; implement; analyse; and evaluate results of any activities undertaken to improve the levels of correct benefit within caseloads.  A link to the toolkit is shown below:  http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/security/rightbenefittoolkit.asp

Right time: how to maximise performance against the indicator

This section includes good practice on:

• Introduction
• Improving performance by managing workflow more effectively and efficiently
• Managing changes of circumstances
• Identifying and preventing backlogs
• Gathering information
• Using electronic claims forms
• Using mobile working
• Fast track process for dealing with HB/CTB claims

You can read through this section in full or use the links on the right to go straight to the key efficiency and performance drivers.

top of page

Introduction

Delays in obtaining information and backlogs of work are currently the biggest obstacle to processing claims quickly.

• Providing a well designed claim form and educating customers to provide all information to allow their claim to be processed reduces the need to ask for further information.

Local Authorities (LAs) should ensure that incomplete claims are identified quickly and all the additional information requested so as not to prejudice service to those customers who may have difficulty completing their claim form.

In many cases, further information can be easily and quickly obtained by phoning or visiting the customer. If it is necessary to write out for more information, the letter should be tailored to what is required from that customer. To reduce processing times, LAs should consider initially asking for the information within 7 or 14 days and, if it is not provided within the specified timescale, reminders should be sent immediately. However, customers must be allowed one calendar month, or such longer period as is reasonable, in which to provide the necessary information/evidence to process the claim.

Given the high volumes of work involved in Housing Benefit (HB) administration, it is particularly essential to have good management information so that workloads can be monitored closely. Good use of the management information in work flow and benefit systems will allow managers to detect problems, such as a build up of a backlog early on, allowing weaknesses in the procedures to be addressed or resources to be prioritised. Learning from historical data is also a key tool in the organisation of work and resources.

Improving performance by managing workflow more effectively and efficiently

Good practice includes:

• Holding information at team or section level about the volume of work received, work actioned and work outstanding each month, if not more frequently. Trends and patterns in workloads are monitored and work priorities and resources are adjusted to prevent and/or manage down backlogs.
• Putting in place clear systems to act on information received from Jobcentre Plus to make extended payments and to prioritise the processing of claims for customers moving into work.
• Setting targets for each stage of the process and monitor progress against them. For example, when using an Electronic Document Management System (EDMS), including:
  • scanning and indexing all incoming post in a maximum of 2 working days from the date of receipt including the day on which the post arrives. Authorities seeking to improve further, could aim to reduce this time to 1 day from the date of receipt
  • actioning a claim within 7 days of receipt at the designated office. For further improvement it is good practice to reduce this target over time
  • sending a reminder during the 1 month pending period. It is also good practice to ensure that pended cases are returned to the person who originally put them into pending
  • team leaders/managers should monitor individual's work trays to ensure the original persons availability to deal with cases that are returned to them
  • processing claims immediately when all information needed to decide a claim has been received
  • monitoring closely progress made against targets and taking action where they are not met. Where workflows show bottlenecks or delays it is good practice to analyse the reasons for this and take appropriate corrective action.
• Ensuring team leaders allocate daily work to benefit assessors to prevent 'cherry picking' of the easy to process cases, unless work is automatically allocated through a Document Imaging Processing (DIP) system.
• Analysing the trends and reasons for payments on account (POA) to identify why claims cannot be fully decided upon receipt and taking necessary corrective action.
• Generating and monitoring a monthly age-analysis report for management identifying POAs that have been in payment for more than 4 weeks and taking necessary corrective action.
• Providing training and written procedural documentation for employees involved in sifting post so that they can identify and prioritise reported changes of circumstance.
• Separating and prioritising communications advising that Income Support (IS) or Income-based Jobseekers Allowance (JSA(IB)) has stopped.
• Sifting for immediate action notifications from investigators advising that a new decision on entitlement is required.
• Having systems in place to identify those changes of circumstance not actioned before the first payday, and having targets for a stepped reduction in the number of such cases.
• Having working practices for benefit assessors that include prioritising for immediate action those notifications that advise a change of circumstance requiring a new decision on continued entitlement to HB or Council Tax Benefit (CTB).
• Ensuring members of staff have access to clear, concise and up-to-date written guidance detailing the law relating to HB/CTB and local procedures, including:
  • extended payments
  • POAs
  • sifting post to identify and prioritise changes of circumstances.

See also guidance under Maintaining a skilled and competent workforce.

• Team Leaders/Managers ensuring that procedures are followed through management checks. If procedures are not followed, remedial action should be taken to ensure efficiency and consistency of approach.
• Ensuring exception reports on claims and changes are generated in order to prevent backlogs occurring. These reports should show the length of delay and reasons for the delay.

A key element to improving performance is to ensure that business processes are as effective and efficient as they can be. It is also important that reliable management information on workflows and work outstanding is available to allow managers to make informed decisions about resource allocation and prioritising of work.

Improving the use of an LA's document management system and related processes can lead to a more efficient and effective benefit service.

Good practice includes:

• Improving the speed and accuracy of indexing documents by:
  • reducing the number of document types as far as possible
  • reviewing and changing document type descriptions to reduce staff confusion
  • using experienced staff to decide the document type to be allocated to all incoming work.
  • setting parameters within the system to acknowledge capabilities and address learning needs
• Reducing the amount of documents requiring benefit assessor work by:
  • using experienced staff to sift out any documents that do not require processing and scanning directly to customers' records. This significantly reduces the amount of unnecessary documents entering the document management system and the volume of work assessors need to consider.

top of page

Managing changes of circumstances

PDT undertook research of the old changes of circumstances performance measure (PM5) to identify examples of good practice. They did not find one definitive example but a range of activities which, combined with the above in a variety of ways, can help achieve good performance.

Such examples are:

Targets

• Ensuring robust formal target setting is in place.
• Setting team and/or individual targets.
• Monitoring 'open' interventions through management information (MI) reports.

Customer service

• Setting up a good network of local advice and contact points.
• Ensuring comprehensive training in HB/CTB for customer service staff.
• Placing a strong emphasis on ensuring that all information is collected/requested on initial contact.
• Ensuring the website contains information on changes of circumstances.
• Placing a change of circumstances form on the website for customer completion.
• Deploying staff with sound HB/CTB knowledge at the first point of contact with the customer.

Publicity

• Putting strong emphasis on the need to provide frequent reminders to customers and landlords on the need to report changes of circumstances.

Claim form

• Including a change of circumstances reminder as part of the declaration on the claim form.
• Including requests for future income changes on the claim form.

Procedures

• Scanning and indexing documents onto EDMS systems quickly and accurately.
• Identifying changes in advance (by making full use of diary dating) and contacting the customer with details of full requirements.
• Sending early reminders to customers and not waiting until the expiry deadline for the customer to provide further evidence.
• Making comprehensive procedural guidance available to all staff.

Process

• Ensuring a clear and robust process that supports the processing of changes of circumstances. See the process map below as an example.

Validate Management Information System (MIS) returns

• Validating changes of circumstances performance measurement data through random checks.
• Undertaking quality checks that incorporate changes of circumstances notifications, dates and classifications.

Training

• Ensuring comprehensive training for dealing with changes of circumstances is in place.

Management

• Ensuring a strong management and organisational structure is in place.
• Undertaking routine management and monitoring of work.

Staffing

• Retaining a knowledgeable and stable workforce.
• Putting in place contingency for peaks of work and absences.
• Empowering staff to make decisions, for example, whether to use the telephone, send a letter or use a visiting officer to gather further information.

LAs may find this suggested process map for changes of circumstances helpful.

top of page

Identifying and preventing backlogs

The reasons for the build up of a backlog can be many and varied and could be due to a gradual slippage or a sudden build up of work.

The two main causes of backlogs are:

1. A specific event or combination of events such as the temporary loss, or installation, of an IT system.
2. Productivity being less than the incoming work over a protracted period of time. This could be due to resource shortages or weaknesses in processes or the control of workflow.

Based on the experience of authorities that have had to deal with backlogs a number of general principles and generic good practices have been identified. However, such principles do not necessarily take into account all the specific local circumstances affecting individual benefits services. They are intended as guidance to inform a backlog clearance strategy rather than as a prescriptive set of rules to be followed and are not comprehensive.

• Other techniques and strategies may also be effective in clearing backlogs but the methods described below have been successful for a number of benefits services.

Good practice includes:

Identifying backlogs

• Setting a 'trigger' point based on the age of work. This method has the advantage of providing managers with an early warning that work may be slipping into backlog.
• Identifying causes of backlogs
• Anticipating the risk of a backlog being created and forming a strategy for dealing with it before it happens. For example, if an authority faces a planned disruption to the service, such as the installation of a new IT system, its strategy for minimising and dealing with any resulting backlog should form part of the implementation plan.
• Reviewing processes and identifying where fundamental weaknesses are in the claims process and taking immediate steps to address them. The control of work falls within four main stages:
  1. Receipt and 'linking' of documents with claims before passing for assessment.
  2. Examination of documents.
  3. Obtaining further information.
  4. Decision making.
• Identifying outstanding work at all the stages of the claims process. For example, the volume and age of outstanding new claims/changes of circumstances:
  • that have been received but first action has not been taken
  • that are pending cases
  • that are classed as expired pending
  • that have all information received to decide the claim.
• Monitoring this information to help identify delays in the administrative processes and trigger corrective action.

Preventing backlogs

• Setting time-based targets for each stage in the process to monitor performance and identify where any particular stage is contributing to the creation of a backlog.
• Linking documents, either electronically or clerically, quickly. In the case of EDMS scanning and indexing documents quickly as:
  • documents not scanned and indexed may not be counted in any backlog figures, therefore managers do not know the true work situation
  • assessors and customer service staff cannot see the documents and may give wrong advice or issue requests for information already held creating unnecessary work.
• Monitoring the proportion of new claims that require further information and regularly reviewing information that is provided to customers, for example with claim forms and in letters, to help and encourage customers to provide all supporting information with the claim.
• Reviewing the claim form after consulting key stakeholders, including customers, in order to see whether information given to the public about the claim process can be improved.

Strategies for clearing backlogs

• Developing a backlog clearance plan that takes into account the:
  • volume and age of the outstanding work
  • types of cases involved
  • anticipated new work over the forward period
  • resources available.
• The plan should contain a timetable for clearance with milestone targets and a projected final clearance date that also takes account of the migration of work into and out of pending.
• Monitoring progress against milestone targets and taking corrective action if the strategy is failing. It is also important to have in place a strategy for dealing with new work coming in that avoids the build up of a second backlog, a common problem faced by some LAs.

Dividing the work between 'new work' and a 'ring-fenced backlog'</