i might be barking up the wrong tree, i might even just be barking, but how do others view these targets for HB reductions on c/o/c as a measurement of the effectiveness of security measures to reduce fraud and error? (Rightsnet News today)

2 thoughts -

with targets for reductions in housing benefit entitlement to be achieved, what impact does this have on the view of housing benefit staff as to their purpose and function, and are there any grounds for public confidence that this benefit system is neutral, impartial and objective?

counting virtually any reduction that moves from any source, including those which have nothing whatsoever to do with fraud or error prevention/detection - isn't this entire measurement a classic sir humphrey load of hooey, and how much has it cost, and how the heck is it value for taxpayers money?

jj


http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/sub_client/search.cgi?template2=news/user_details2.htm&output_number=1&news.publish_option=1&news.publish=Y&sort=news.submission_date+desc&news.ID=1025134013849&start=

********************************************************************
HB/CTB Circular A20/2006
Adjudication and Operations circular
December 2006

What counts towards the target

20 The new PM gives LAs scope to decide how best to reduce fraud and error in their own caseloads by identifying as many claims as possible where entitlement has gone down. LAs that are successful at encouraging claimants to report changes of circumstance on time will now receive credit for this.

21 Under the new measure, reductions in current benefit entitlement resulting from any activity will be counted. This includes
• processing changes of circumstance reported by claimants
• processing changes of circumstance reported by landlords
• actioning ETDs received from JobcentrePlus
• actioning ETDs received from The Pension Service
• resolving data matches from HBMS
• predictive scans from HBMS or equivalent reports from your own computer
systems
• other one-off scans from HBMS or equivalent reports from your own computer
systems
• carrying out full reviews (interventions)
• carrying out partial reviews (checking individual components only, such as
earnings or non-dependants)
• undertaking LA or joint visits
• investigating fraud referrals

22 Claim terminations at the end of entitlement will count, as will reductions in CTB resulting from a reduction in Council Tax liability, such as a discount or exemption.

23 The suspension of a benefit claim, for example while supporting evidence is sought, will not count towards the new target. If an existing claim does not appear on one month’s HBMS extract, but re-appears the following month with the same (or increased) amount of benefit entitlement, we will assume that it was suspended, and it will not be counted as a reduction.

24 Similarly, an overpayment which only affects a period in the past will not count, and the new target will not measure a notional reduction that may be recorded when a claim is rejected following pre-payment checks.

25 The number of claimants reporting changes in circumstance has reduced significantly over the past two years. This trend will need to be reversed if LAs are to meet their new PM10 targets, as improved detection activity alone will not be sufficient to achieve this.

26 Because changes in circumstance (that reduce benefit entitlement) reported by claimants will count towards the new PM10, LAs will be able to meet their targets through more innovative methods which encourage either individually targeted claimants, or particular claimant groups, to report changes on time.