Response to SR 5/2009 - Review of Income Support
Introduction and general comment
Income Support replaced a disparate group of benefits with the minimum of disruption to local families who receive financial support from the States towards their day-to-day living costs. Over 8,000 households claim Income Support and have received this financial help regularly week in, week out, since January 2008. Income Support has created a single benefit system so that claimants deal with a single States department to meet all their financial needs, it operates under clear rules and guidelines that are publicly available and it has given the States the ability to respond quickly to economic situations when it is necessary to increase benefits to the most vulnerable in our society.
The Scrutiny Sub-Panel gathered a range of evidence, in both written submissions and formal hearings. It is disappointing that the written report uses the available evidence in a very selective manner, limited exclusively to quotes criticising various aspects of the Income Support system. Many of those giving evidence also reported the positive impact of the introduction of Income Support, but these views were not mentioned in the final report. Others expressed opinions suggesting that Income Support was too generous and that benefits should be reduced - again, these opinions were not reflected in the Sub-Panel’s report.
The transcripts of the hearings and written submissions can be viewed on the Scrutiny website.
As Members will be aware, the Minister is already committed to a review of Income Support in 2010. Some of the recommendations proposed by the Scrutiny Sub-Panel will be considered in that review. In the main, these relate to major items which will have significant budgetary implications.
The Scrutiny Sub-Panel has not explored the cost of their recommendations, nor made any comment as to how to prioritise their different proposals. The Income Support budget has grown over the last two years at a time at which the economic situation has put severe pressure on the funding of States’ services. Requests for additional funding for areas of Income Support must be carefully considered against the many other urgent demands on taxpayers’ money at this time. This response identifies each recommendation that is dependent on additional funding.
The Scrutiny Report makes a total of 32 recommendations. Comments on each of these recommendations are included below. They have been grouped according to the type of action that the Department will take as a result of the recommendation, as follows:
Recommendations that reflect departmental policy current at the time of the Sub-Panel’s report and do not require any further action (13 recommendations)
Recommendations that reflect departmental policy current at the time of the Sub-Panel’s report but have funding implications and are therefore being implemented progressively as funding becomes available (3 recommendations)
Recommendations that have major resource and/or policy implications and will be considered in the 2010 departmental review (6 recommendations )
Recommendations that do not have major cost or policy implications and will be further examined by the Department to identify possible actions that can be taken in 2009 and 2010 (7 recommendations)
Recommendations that are not accepted or are the responsibility of another department (3 recommendations)
To ensure that Scrutiny reports are accurate, scrutiny Sub-Panels provide draft copies of their final report (excluding the findings and recommendations) to the Minister in advance of publication, so that factual matters can be checked. In respect of this report, the Minister submitted 56 issues identified in the draft report to the scrutiny Sub-Panel. The Sub-Panel accepted or acknowledged, in some way, 14 of these issues but did not make any changes to the final report in respect of 42 issues raised by the Minister.
Some of these 42 issues are dealt with in the response to the recommendations. Other issues that are not covered elsewhere are set out in the Appendix. The Minister shares the view of the Scrutiny Sub-Panel that the communication of Income Support needs to be improved yet further and it is thus very important that all published information, including the Scrutiny Report, represents an accurate view of the benefit system.
1. Recommendations that reflect Departmental policy current at the time of the Sub-Panel’s report and do not require any additional action (13 recommendations)
General comment: The Scrutiny Sub-Panel has been undertaking this review and collating evidence since the implementation of Income Support in January 2008, and many of the issues it identifies relate to the first few months of the operation of Income Support, rather than the current operation. The Department has worked hard over the last 18 months to refine many operational areas to ensure that customers receive an appropriate service and administration runs smoothly and efficiently.
Recommendation 2
KF1: Many clients find the application process daunting and require assistance in completing the application form.
R2: The Department must make staff available to support clients through the application process.
(Report section 7.1 pages 18 to 19)
Response: This has been a major part of the Income Support adviser’s role from the inception of Income Support. New claimants always receive advice as to whether they are likely to be eligible for Income Support, how to complete the application form and the type of evidence that needs to be produced to support the application. Advice is available over the phone, in person at the Department and, in the case of housebound clients, in their own homes.
Recommendation 3
KF2: The 5-day turnaround time for IS Payments, following acceptance of a fully completed form, is an appropriate target but no evidence has been provided that this target is being met.
R3: The Minister must provide evidence of the monitoring that the Departments 5-day target to process completed claims forms is being met.
(Report section 8.0 pages 20 to 22)
Response: The Minister provided a written answer to a question from Deputy Southern on 10 March 2009, giving details of turnaround times for new applications, changes of circumstance, special payments, medical supplies, impairment components and GP payments. (This is also relevant to recommendations 15 and 25).
The management of the Income Support team includes the collation of processing times for different types of application. The processing time is measured from the date on which the claimant has provided a completed application form and the evidence required to substantiate the claim. Processing times for a number of functions including the processing of new claims are reported regularly to the departmental Senior Management Team. Collating this information regularly ensures that action can be taken promptly to deal with additional claims in a particular area or to allocate resources appropriately when additional work is required - for example, during preparations for a benefit up rate. Hardship cases are always dealt with immediately, including providing cash payments when necessary.
Recommendation 6
KF5: Privacy is an essential element for dealing properly with claims
R6: Private rooms must be made available by the Department for interviews as a matter of course.
(Report section 8.2 pages 24 to 25)
Response: As noted in the Scrutiny Report, privacy screens have been in place since March. Purpose-built booths have now been installed, in addition to the existing private interview rooms. Claimants can book an appointment in a private interview room by telephoning the Department in advance.
Recommendation 7
KF7: Clients are unaware how their benefit is calculated.
R7: The Department must provide all staff with access to a simple benefit calculator in order to provide clients with an immediate printed guide (albeit approximate) to their level of entitlement.
(Report section 8.4 pages 26 to 27)
Response: Staff already use a simple benefit calculator and printouts are available to clients on request. The benefit calculator is an important part of the application process as it is used to check whether or not a potential claimant should complete the application form. If the calculator indicates that the household is very unlikely to qualify for Income Support then, in most cases, the potential claimant will be advised not to complete the form.
Recommendation 9
KF8: The degree of inconsistency may reflect inadequate training
R9: The Department must ensure that staff receive adequate training to ensure that they are confident to deliver correct advice and assistance to clients
(Report section 8.5 pages 27- 28)
Response: The Scrutiny Chairman has acknowledged that many of the case studies included in the report are historical. Inevitably, at the beginning of a new system, it will take time for staff to build up confidence and experience of the new benefit. Staff training is taken seriously and is ongoing. Staff are regularly monitored for capability using a skills matrix and training is adapted to individual needs. Each junior member of staff is supported by a more senior advisor and regular audits provide feedback to the management team and the staff themselves.
Recommendation 10
KF9: Department officers no longer provide home visits to assist clients completing the forms.
R10: The Minister must ensure that Departmental staff provide home visits to assist clients with completing applications and that other community agencies are not relied upon for this.
(Report section 9.0 page 29)
Response: Home visits have always been available to assist with the completion of the Income Support application form. This is clearly explained on the front page of the application form which includes the following statement:
“If you have any queries regarding your application or if you require help to complete this form or require a home visit please telephone the department”
Recommendation 15
KF14: Special Payments do not currently provide an immediate response to requests in crisis
R15: The Department must ensure that urgent requests for special payments are monitored and show that they are being paid in a timely way.
(Report section 10.1 pages 36 to 39)
Response: See the response to Recommendation 3.
The management of the Income Support team includes the collation of processing times for different types of application, including urgent special payment applications. This information is reported regularly to the Senior Management Team. All special payment applications are screened on receipt and urgent applications are dealt with on the day that the completed application form and necessary evidence is received.
Recommendation 22
KF21: Payments for dental care are not always dealt with promptly
R22: The Department must monitor and record claims for dental treatments
(Report section 13.1 pages 55 to 56)
Response: The management of the Income Support team includes the collation of processing times for different types of application, including special payments in respect of dental treatment. All special payment applications are screened on receipt and urgent applications are prioritised. Claimants needing urgent dental treatment are provided with a letter which authorises immediate treatment from their dentist.
Recommendation 24
KF22: The Sub-Panel is concerned that some claimants may not be receiving the right level of personal care.
R24: Eighteen months into Income Support the Minister needs to check that all claimants are receiving the appropriate level of personal care and report on his findings.
(Report section 13.3 pages 58 to 60)
Response: The Transition Order ensured that all claimants receiving a disability benefit under the previous system were automatically allocated an appropriate personal care component under Income Support. Allocations for clinical costs and mobility component were also included. These allocations remain in place until the Income Support claim is reviewed or the claimant seeks a review themselves. These allocations gave claimants impairment components at a level at least as high as their previous benefit.
All new claimants complete the main Income Support application form which includes a short section asking for details of any long-term medical conditions. Any one in the claimant’s household who has a long-term medical condition is asked to complete a separate self reporting form to assess the correct level of impairment component.
Once claims have been set up, they are subject to review in the normal way.
Recommendation 25
R25: An adequate monitoring should be put in place by the Department to ensure that medical supply payments are made in appropriate timescales
(Report section 13.4 pages 60 - 61)
Response: Unfortunately the Scrutiny Sub-Panel received some inaccurate oral information from a member of the public attending a Scrutiny Sub-Panel meeting. The Minister did inform the Sub-Panel of this inaccuracy before the publication of their report. Medical supply payments are processed by the Department in the same way as all commercial invoices, and are paid on a weekly cycle.
Recommendation 28
R28: The Department must increase the flexibility in the monitoring for changes in earned income of people on ‘zero hour’ contracts so that they do not build up overpayments.
(Report section 14.2 pages 65 to 66)
Response: Flexible monitoring is already available. Most individuals on zero hour contracts do have some regular hours and an estimate is used to calculate the amount of benefit payable. Temporary fluctuations of up to £40 per week do not create overpayments. Overpayments may occur if the claimant fails to notify the Department of larger changes in income. Claimants that are known to have irregular working patterns are reviewed on a very regular basis.
Recommendation 30
KF23: The value of the existing skills assessments and training is recognised. The Sub-Panel is mindful that this is a resource hungry service with ever-increasing demands.
R30: Given the current economic situation, the Minister should ensure more flexibility in accepting a wider range of training opportunities to support young people
(Report section 14.4 pages 67 to 68)
Response: The Department, as part of the Skills Executive, is working to provide a wider range of training opportunities to support young people in the current economic situation. Additional funding has been sought and received from the Economic Stimulus programme to support a variety of training schemes aimed at young people
Recommendation 32
KF25: The Sub-Panel welcomes the delay to the phasing out of transitional payments but is concerned about the impact of the loss of benefit
R32: The Minister must communicate to all recipients the extent to which their benefit will be affected by the phasing out of transitional payments as soon as possible
Response: As has already been publicly stated, it is confirmed that transition claimants will be informed several months in advance of any reduction in benefit.
2. Recommendations that reflect policy current at the time of the Sub-Panel’s report but have funding implications and are therefore being implemented progressively as funding becomes available (3 recommendations )
General comment: Since the inception of Income Support, incentives in the three areas identified by the Scrutiny Sub-Panel have already been significantly improved and there will be further improvements in October 2009. These improvements have all been made within the funding currently available for Income Support. To make further improvements in these areas would require additional funding, or the reduction of Income Support component rates. As with many Income Support decisions, there is always a balance to be drawn between the benefit available to the claimant and the cost to the taxpayer.
Recommendation 12
KF10: Incentives to encourage savings especially for those of pensionable age are insufficient
KF11: The deemed income from savings (£1 per week from every £250) over the capital limit is currently set too high given today’s interest rates.
R12: The Minister must examine ways to improve incentives to save.
(Report section 10.0 pages 33 to 36)
Response: As part of the transfer from the previous Parish welfare system to Income Support, a higher capital disregard figure for pensioners was introduced, compared to working age claimants. Capital disregards were set in January 2008 and increased in October 2008 by 3.7%. A further increase of 10% will be implemented in October 2009. Savings below these figures are completely disregarded from Income Support calculations. Households with savings above these levels will still receive Income Support but the benefit is reduced as the value of the savings increases above the disregarded figure.
| Parish Welfare (up to 27/1/2008) £ | 28/1/08 £ | 01/10/2008 (3.7%) £ | 01/10/2009 (10%) £ |
Single Pensioner / Disabled | 7,715 | 11,443 | 11,866 | 13,053 |
Couple Pensioner / Disabled | 12,807 | 18,967 | 19,669 | 21,636 |
Single working age | 7,715 | 7,629 | 7,911 | 8,702 |
Couple working age | 12,807 | 12,645 | 13,113 | 14,424 |
Recommendation 26
R26: In order to make IS work effectively as an ‘in work benefit’ incentives to work must be improved.
(Report section 14.0 pages 62 to 64)
Response: Income Support introduced a consistent incentive for earned income. This was set in January 2008 and increased in February 2009. It will be increased again in October 2009. The three year cash limits submitted as part of the Business Planning process include additional sums for earnings incentives in 2011.
| 28/1/08 | 01/02/09 | 01/10/2009 |
Earnings disregard | 6% | 10% | 12% |
Recommendation 29
R29: The Minister must increase the income disregard in respect of maintenance.
(Report section 14.3 page 67)
Response: A maintenance disregard was introduced in February 2009 in respect of maintenance income received. Maintenance expenses paid by the absent partner are already subject to a 100% disregard up to the value of the adult or child component, as appropriate
| 28/1/08 | 01/02/09 | 01/10/2009 |
Disregard on maintenance income received | 0% | 10% | 10% |
Disregard on maintenance paid | 100% (up to value of adult/child component) | 100% (up to value of adult/child component) | 100% (up to value of adult/child component) |
3. Recommendations that have major resource and/or policy implications and will be considered in the departmental review commencing in 2010 (6 recommendations)
General comment: At the introduction of any major new system, there will be a settling down period during which minor issues are dealt with, and at an appropriate time, a more considered review to determine whether there is a need for adjustments to the structural elements of the system.
The Minister is already committed to a broad review of Income Support commencing in 2010 and this will be coordinated with the results of the Income Distribution Survey currently being undertaken by the Statistics Unit. The Scrutiny Sub-Panel has included a number of recommendations that will be considered further as part of this broad review. The Minister will consult widely before making recommendations to the States for any possible changes to the Income Support system.
Each of the suggestions made by the Scrutiny Sub-Panel would add considerably to the cost of Income Support and these costs would need to be weighed up against savings in other areas of Income Support or additional budget being made available at an inevitable cost to the taxpayer.
Recommendation 13
KF12: The list of items eligible for Special Payments is too narrow.
R13: The Minister must ensure that the use of special payments be made more flexible.
(Report section 10.1 pages 36 to 39)
Response: The Special Payment Regulation ensures that the most common requests for payments are covered. Unusual situations are covered by ministerial policy guidelines and ministerial discretion.
Providing additional types for special payment through Special Payment regulations will lead to additional costs.
Recommendation 14
KF13: Setting the level of sacrosanct savings for the purposes of special payments at 25% of the capital limits is too low
R14: The Minister must review this capital limit on disregarded savings.
(Report section 10.1 pages 36 to 39)
Response: Income Support is based on assessment of income and assets and an individual with £5,000 savings is more able to meet a one-off expense than an individual with £50 savings.
Increasing the capital limit for special payments significantly will lead to significant additional costs.
Recommendation 18
KF17: The historic rules that say that under 25’s cannot claim rent rebate is inappropriate
R18: The Minister must review the under 25’s rule that requires them to live away from the parental home for 12 months prior to receiving IS.
(Report section 11 .0 pages 42 to 44)
Response: Individuals under 25 can receive Income Support for living expenses. They are entitled to assistance with accommodation costs if there is a specific reason why they cannot remain in the family home, or they have been self sufficient for at least 12 months. Providing assistance with accommodation costs to all under 25s would be likely to increase the demand for housing units in the Island
There would be a substantial cost to providing support for accommodation costs to all claimants aged under 25.
Recommendation 19
KF18: The appeal process is intimidating especially to vulnerable clients
R19: The Minister must review the appeal process.
(Report section 12.0 pages 45 to 47)
Response: Section 12.0 of the scrutiny report is based on an apparent misunderstanding of the appeal process. The Income Support law has introduced a fully human rights compliant appeals process – inevitably this has a certain amount of necessary but not excessive formality and, most importantly, this also ensures that it is fair and independent.
Where appeals were available under previous benefits, the appellant was required to produce evidence in order to make a request for an appeal. Under the current system it is much easier for the appellant to request an appeal.
The Department provides a leaflet and application form to assist claimants with the appeal process. Claimants can be represented by a friend or advisor during the appeal process and claimants who do not wish to appear before the Tribunal in person can request the Tribunal to consider their case based on written evidence.
The 2010 review will include an examination of the appeal process, based on the experiences of a larger number of cases
Recommendation 27
R27: The Minister must review the effectiveness of Childcare Components to ensure that people can get back to work
(Report section 14.1 is pages 64 to 65)
Response: Contrary to the Sub-Panel report, childcare assistance is available to employed parents including shift workers. It is also available to parents of school-age children undertaking an agreed education course.
There would be a substantial cost to extending childcare assistance to parents who are jobseeking.
Recommendation 31
KF24: The Sub-Panel notes that there has been a reduction in the availability of support for children in that family allowance used to be claimable after 6 months’ residency. This could cause potential hardship to children of parents who do not have 5-year residency status
R31: The Minister must review the 5-year residency status policy
(Report section 15.0 pages 69 to 70)
Response: The length of residency needed in order to qualify for Income Support was a major topic of discussion in the consultation leading up to the introduction of Income Support. This was agreed by the States and is a significant reduction from the 12 year period that previously applied to the Housing subsidy schemes. This will undoubtedly again feature in the review in 2010.
It would be very expensive to reduce the five-year eligibility period – A reduction would require substantial increased funding or a reduction in the overall level of Income Support to all claimants.
4. Recommendations that do not have major cost or policy implications and will be further examined by the Department to identify possible actions that can be taken in 2009 or 2010 (7 recommendations)
General Comment: These recommendations deal with relatively minor, mainly administrative aspects of Income Support. The Minister will consider whether implementing these proposals in full or in part would improve the service provided to claimants and/or the equity of the scheme.
Many of these recommendations will increase the cost of Income Support.
Recommendation 1
KF1: Many clients find the application process daunting and require assistance in completing the application form.
R1: The Minister must ensure that the application form is made simpler and that it is available on- line in various languages
(Section 7.1 pages 18 to 19)
Response: The Minister is not prepared to consider online applications in various languages. This would have a major cost and would be unlikely to be suitable for vulnerable clients.
The design of the main application form is regularly reviewed. A shorter form is now available for pensioners. The design of the application form will be reviewed again. A redesigned form is likely to include more use of colour and fewer questions per page leading to a form that has more pages and is more expensive to produce.
The UK benefit system often requires families to apply to multiple agencies to receive all the benefits that they are entitled to. The UK Income Support form, which covers only a few aspects of the Jersey Income Support benefit, is considerably longer than the current Jersey form.
Recommendation 5
KF4: Many clients and agencies have complained at conflicting advice from different members of staff in dealing with a claim.
R5: The Minister must ensure that clients, especially the elderly and vulnerable are able to see the same officer throughout their claim.
(Report section 8.1 pages 23 to 24)
Response: Within Social Security, every client contact is recorded against the client’s electronic record to ensure that when an advisor deals with a query, the advisor is aware of the client’s recent dealings with the Department and can provide relevant advice.
It is unlikely that all clients would be allocated a named officer as this would require a considerable increase in the number of staff available and would add significantly to the cost of the administration of Income Support.
However, the Department already operates several procedures to assist claimants who may be vulnerable.
Once a claim has been set up, Income Support advisors writing to claimants provide their own contact details, so that the claimant can speak to them directly, if wished. This is particularly important for elderly clients, for example, after a bereavement.
Many claimants with mental health issues are also dealt with on a personal basis and the Department works with Social Workers and Probation Officers to offer the most appropriate service to these claimants.
Where appropriate, parishes can manage the affairs of vulnerable clients, providing regular cash payments. As most parishes have a very small number of staff, the individual will regularly see the same officer.
These procedures will be reviewed with CAB and Social Services to identify any further measures that should be taken.
Recommendation 8
R8: The Department should examine and implement the UK example in seeking to ensure that all clients are aware of their benefit entitlements
(Report section 8.4 pages 26 to 27)
Response: Although some UK benefits can be applied for online, the UK benefit system as a whole is not easy to access and there are a large number of separate benefits – the Minister would not wish to emulate the UK system, as it requires claimants to make several applications to different government departments and local councils to claim different benefits.
Income Support information is available on the gov.je website and leaflets are supplied regularly to CAB, The Bridge and Cyril le Marquand House. Parishes and other stakeholders are supplied with leaflets on demand.
It is acknowledged that communication is an important issue and the Minister will review this area. This has already been provided for in the 2010 Business Plan.
Recommendation 11
Recommendation 11: Section 9.1
Given the demonstrated need for clients to be assisted in getting IS we recommend that the Minister investigate setting up free access to an independent advocacy service.
(Report section 9.1 pages 30 to 32)
Response: CAB already provides free independent advice to many Income Support claimants and there is a very good working relationship between the CAB advisors and the Income Support team. The Minister will consult CAB to ascertain whether an additional service would be able to provide services that CAB is unable to provide, yet believe is needed.
A new independent advocacy service would have cost implications.
Recommendation 17
KF16: The Department has not given sufficient publicity to make young people living in the parental home aware that they can claim benefit
R17: The Minister must ensure that young people living in the family home are aware that are entitled to claim benefit
(Report section 11.0 pages 40 to 44)
Response: The majority of young people living at home remain in education and are included in the family claim. Young adults who are jobseekers will be in regular contact with the Department through their jobseeking activities. Experience within the Department and from Highlands College suggests that young adults are well informed as to their right to benefit.
However, it is acknowledged that communication is an important issue and the Minister will review this area. This has already been included in the 2010 Business Plan as a separate commitment.
Recommendation 20
KF20: The Department has failed to inform both patients and GPs how the HMA scheme works. The HMA is not an adequate replacement for HIE. The removal of free access to GPs has caused some patients anxiety
R20: The Department must inform GPs and Clients clearly and simply how the HMA system works.
(Report section 13 .0 pages 50 to 54)
Response: Departmental representatives meet regularly with the Primary Care Body, which represents all local practising GPs. Every GP was visited individually in advance of the introduction of Income Support to explain the new system. It is acknowledged that many claimants have not fully understood the new system and additional communication is planned for this area.
Recommendation 21
R21: The Minister must examine how repeat prescriptions charges can be included into the benefit components.
(Report section 13.0 page 55)
Response: Many GPs have recently increased repeat prescription charges. The impact on IS claimants will be investigated.
Including repeat prescription charges in Income Support components will have a cost implication, which is currently unfunded.
5. Recommendations that are not accepted or are the responsibility of another department (3 recommendations)
Recommendation 4
KF 3 Departmental practice has been that IS payments have not automatically been backdated to the date of the initial claim.
R4: The Sub-Panel recommends that the Minister ensures that payments IS (sic) are automatically backdated to the date of the initial claim.
(Report section 8 .0 pages 20 to 22)
Response: Claims are routinely backdated up to 14 days and there is discretion to backdate more than 14 days. If there is a delay in providing information that is due to the illness of the claimant, their caring responsibilities or a domestic emergency then there is discretion to backdate the claim up to one month.
It is important that there is some limit on the length of time that claims can be backdated. Income Support is designed to meet current need and it would be difficult to justify a policy that allowed for long delays between an initial application and the applicant providing information to allow the claim to be assessed.
Automatically backdating all claims to the date of the initial claim will have a cost implication and create additional administration.
Recommendation 16
KF15: Treating money from divorce settlements intended for the benefit of children as part of the assessment of capital is not appropriate
R16: The Minister should investigate how divorce settlements for the benefit of children can be ring-fenced and not be counted as part of the family income
Response: This recommendation is based on evidence from a single case in which a divorce settlement was made after the details of Income Support had been approved by the States and were publicly available but just before the benefit came into force. Lawyers are now aware of the new rules and accordingly the Minister understands that this situation is unlikely to arise again.
Recommendation 23
R23: Ministers need to resolve the outstanding issues outlined in P.145/2007 as a matter of urgency
Response: P.145/2007 refers to the provision of Active Cards by Education, Sport and Culture and Bus Passes by Transport and Technical Services.
Free Active Cards are now available to all Income Support claimants who successfully complete the Exercise Referral programme.
Free Bus Passes continue to be available to individuals aged under 65 who were previously in receipt of an HIE bus pass.
gov.je