The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012

1112 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012

1112 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Rt. Hon. Iain Duncan Smith MP Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Caxton House, Tothill Street London SW1H 9DA

Dear Secretary of State

I am pleased to present my third Annual Report to you since my appointment as the Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain. I report on the achievements of my staff in the Independent Review Service during the year ending March 2012.

The calls on our service to provide an independent review have remained high. We have continued to resolve cases quickly and effectively within challenging timescales; maintained high quality standards in our decisions through innovation and adapting our approach; and retained high levels of satisfaction on the part of customers and those acting for them. I was pleased to note that both Chairmen of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and the Ombudsman Association have commented in very positive terms about the quality and accessibility of our service.

Our primary responsibility is to ensure that we deliver a high quality service to a poor and vulnerable section of the community. We are conscious that we are also accountable to the taxpayer in terms of securing value for money. I am pleased to report that our unit cost per case during this past year was £74, a reduction from £86 during the previous year, which we achieved without any decline in the quality of our decision making or service to the public.

The Welfare Reform Act 2012 contains provisions to abolish the discretionary Social Fund and the office of the Social Fund Commissioner, bringing with it an end to the independent review process. I believe that the experience and insights gained from our casework, which span more than two decades, represent a valuable legacy from which key principles can be drawn to underpin successor arrangements. In my responses to consultations, which are summarised in this Annual Report, I have consistently made the point that an effective, independent grievance mechanism should be a necessary component of any new arrangements. The transition to new provision throughout the different parts of Great Britain needs to occur in as seamless a way as possible, because the types of need met by the discretionary Social Fund will not disappear.

I would like to express my appreciation to staff at all levels. Our achievements throughout the year represent a highly commendable performance by them, during what has been a continuing period of uncertainty and diminishing staff resource. I will continue to work with your officials in order to provide my staff with support in relation to their personal futures. Throughout my time as Social Fund Commissioner, I have been encouraged by their constructive approach, positive attitude and hard work, in meeting challenges as they emerge. I am confident that we will continue to meet our commitments to customers and to taxpayers for our remaining time in operation.

Yours sincerely,

Karamjit Singh CBE, Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain Contents

Executive Summary 2 Legal and Organisational Structure 4 Performance 6 Quality and Standards 9 Issues Arising from Inspectors’ Casework 14 Our Relationships with Customers and Other Stakeholders 17 Accountability 21 Responses to Consultations 23 Appendices 27

Charts 1 IRS Workload 6 2 Review Outcomes 7

Tables 1 Completion Times of Inspectors’ Reviews 7 2 Cost of the Inspector’s Review from 2007/2008 to 2011/2012 8

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2010/2011 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 11 Executive Summary

Performance • We received 2,792 complaints about Inspectors’ decisions, which represented • Our workload for 2011/2012 was 52,107. 5.4% of our workload. We changed the • Inspectors changed 36% of the decisions outcome of the Inspector‘s decision in they reviewed. 151 of these cases, which represented • These changed decisions resulted in 0.3% of our total workload. payments totalling £7,842,671 from the • We received 97 complaints about our £141 million budget for grants and payments service and upheld 49 of them, which totalling £619,953 from the £590 million represented 0.1% of our total workload. budget for loans. • Inspectors cleared 93.7% of urgent cases Our Relationship with Customers (for living expenses or other needs requiring and Other Stakeholders a very urgent decision) within 24 hours of receipt of the papers from Jobcentre Plus. • During the year our work with organisations and individuals that represent the interests • Inspectors cleared 99.2% of all other cases of our customers, and with Jobcentre Plus, within 21 working days of receipt of the focused even more closely on achieving the papers from Jobcentre Plus. maximum impact with our limited resources. • During 2011/2012, our unit cost was £74, I attended a series of meetings with the down from £86 for the previous year. • heads of third sector organisations and We calculate this to include all our direct others who have an active interest in the costs of staff, non-manpower and capital Social Fund and the independent grievance expenditure; and our indirect costs of model. At the invitation of the Administrative accommodation and related costs which Justice and Tribunals Council, I spoke at a are outsourced and paid for centrally by seminar on the subject of dispute resolution the Department for Work and Pensions. without hearings. I also chaired a workshop at the Ombudsman Association‘s Annual Quality and Standards Conference on the subject of maintaining • We continued to evaluate and refine our objectivity and avoiding case hardening. streamlined approach to conducting reviews, which involves producing concise, clear, Accountability easy-to-understand decision letters and As an organisation that is funded by making proactive use of the telephone in • public money, we recognise the need to order to make necessary enquiries. act in a manner that is transparent and • Reading individual cases is the primary accountable. During 2011/2012 we spent means by which we assess the standard a total of £3.098 million, from our direct of Inspectors’ decisions. During the year budget allocation of £3.766 million, which 2,535 decisions (constituting 4.9% of our represented a budgetary underspend of workload) were read by managers, Inspectors £0.668 million (18%). who have lead responsibility for quality assurance and myself. Case readers found that a high proportion of decisions (86.9%) met the quality standards we have set.

2 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 • Investment in development was lower than Responses to Consultations previously planned, due to the impending closure of our organisation. When combined • I responded to separate consultations by with our efficiency measures, this factor the Scottish and Welsh Governments about has contributed to the budgetary underspend. their successor arrangements, which will be established once the responsibility for Our staff accounted for 89% of our direct • community care grants and crisis loans budget expenditure. The economic backdrop for living expenses is devolved to them meant that we were also affected by in April 2013. government controls on recruitment. On 1 April 2011 we had 98.17 staff in post • At the invitation of the Communities and had planned to reduce staff numbers and Local Government Select Committee, to 94 by 31 March 2012. In fact, by the end I submitted written evidence to their inquiry of this reporting period, the numbers of into the implications of welfare reform. staff in post had reduced by 20% to 78.62 • My full responses to these consultations as a result of departures. can be viewed at www.irs-review.org.uk • I also responded to the Department for Work and Pensions consultation concerning mandatory consideration of revision before appeal.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 3 Legal and Organisational Structure

The Social Fund The discretionary Social Fund is founded on a legal framework which derives from The discretionary Social Fund is a budget- primary legislation and also includes limited scheme, which provides for the Secretary of State’s directions and guidance. payment of community care grants and In reviewing a decision made in Jobcentre interest-free budgeting loans and crisis loans, Plus, the Inspector has a duty to correctly to help people on low incomes with costs interpret and apply the law and to take that are difficult to meet from their regular account of the guidance. income1. It was created in 19882 and is administered by Jobcentre Plus, which is part The review process requires the Inspector of the Department for Work and Pensions. to establish the facts of the case, which There is an initial tier of decision making in may involve asking the customer or his Jobcentre Plus, followed by two levels of representative for relevant information. review. The first review takes place within The Inspector then applies the law to the facts. Jobcentre Plus and the second is an external review, which is the subject of this report. Initially, the Inspector must decide whether the decision under review was reached The Social Fund Commissioner correctly and is reasonable in law. The Inspector will then look at the merits of The role of Social Fund Commissioner is a the case and will decide whether the statutory appointment. I was appointed by decision of Jobcentre Plus was right, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. taking account of any new evidence and My statutory duties are set out in section 37 relevant changes in circumstance. Each of the Social Security Act 1998 and include: case is decided on its own merits. • appointing Social Fund Inspectors and other staff; The review process may result in one of • monitoring the quality of Inspectors’ three possible outcomes. The Inspector may decisions; reach the same decision as Jobcentre Plus; reach a different decision; or, on rare • arranging training for Inspectors; and occasions, may decide to refer a case back to • reporting annually to the Secretary of State Jobcentre Plus for a fresh decision. on the standard of Inspectors’ reviews. Inspectors have the power to review their Social Fund Inspectors own or another Inspector’s decision in order to correct errors4. If, having exhausted our Social Fund Inspectors provide the complaints process, customers remain independent tier of review for people who dissatisfied with an Inspector’s decision, are dissatisfied with the decisions made by they may apply for a judicial review in the Jobcentre Plus on their application to the Administrative Court. If customers have a discretionary Social Fund. The role of the complaint about maladministration, they Social Fund Inspector is a statutory one3. may ask their MP to refer this to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

1 These payments are defined under section 138(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. 2 The discretionary Social Fund commenced in April 1988 as a result of the Social Security Act 1986. 3 Social Fund Inspectors, under section 38(3) of the Social Security Act 1998, have a duty to review decisions that have been reviewed by Jobcentre Plus, where an application for a review has been made in accordance with regulations. 4 This power is derived from section 38(5) of the Social Security Act 1998.

4 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Independent Review Service The wider financial challenge and reform of public services highlight the need for us to I am the head of the Independent Review continue to deliver an efficient, cost-effective Service (IRS), which delivers the independent service. Our commitment to achieve this review for the discretionary Social Fund. The underpins our strategic objectives to: IRS is the organisation within which I, Social Fund Inspectors and other staff carry out their • provide an independent, high quality and responsibilities. Based in Birmingham, the IRS accessible review that delivers the right covers all parts of England, Scotland and Wales. outcome first time to our customers; use our knowledge and case experience Our aim is to provide a high quality, • to support improvements in Social Fund independent review that is expert, fair, decision making in Jobcentre Plus, to adaptable and efficient. Our focus on representation, and to inform Social maintaining an inclusive and high quality Fund policy; service, while continuing to get the most from our resources, is vital for the people • focus business resources and support to who use our service for a number of reasons. deliver the required outcomes, including value for money for the taxpayer. The discretionary Social Fund is targeted at some of the poorest and more vulnerable Our Corporate Plan 2011-2015 sets out our members of our society and their needs are business values, which underpin everything often urgent. As we deliver a service to we do as an organisation and as individuals. vulnerable people, we aim to ensure that We aim to be: no-one finds it difficult to access or negotiate the independent review process. Expert We set high standards for the delivery We place emphasis on providing people with of the review, are committed to staff simple, clear information and a choice of development and share our case experience contact methods. We make our staff aware and knowledge with others to improve of potential signs of vulnerability – including standards for all Social Fund customers. mental health issues, language problems, illness, sight or hearing difficulties and other Fair personal circumstances – which might affect We behave with integrity, tailor our services the way that people prefer to interact with to the needs of individual customers and us about their case. Where it is evident that aim to be clear and jargon-free in all of people need extra support, we will respond to our communications. their situation accordingly. Adaptable Our aim, once an Inspector has taken We are receptive to external changes and responsibility for a case, is for that Inspector funding pressures, open to learning from to undertake all aspects of the review, experience and adapt our work processes including any evidence gathering and the and approaches accordingly, while taking final decision making. This means that the into account the needs and views of our customer deals with one, named person, customers. who is knowledgeable about their case. It also means that cases are not passed between Efficient Inspectors, thereby making best use of our We have simple, effective and proportionate Inspector resource. business processes, which aim to deliver the right outcome as quickly as we can.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 5 Performance

We aim to deliver a high quality review During 2011/2012, Jobcentre Plus received service, which is adaptable to the changing fewer initial applications across all types of environment in which we work, takes discretionary Social Fund payment compared account of the different needs of our to 2010/2011. However the number of review customers and delivers the right outcome as applications in Jobcentre Plus for community quickly as possible. To help us achieve this, care grants and budgeting loans increased, our business processes are straightforward, while those for crisis loans decreased. effective and proportionate. Inspectors can only review applications which have already been subject to an internal The discretionary Social Fund is made up of review in Jobcentre Plus. The potential pool community care grants, budgeting loans and for an Inspector's review is made up of those crisis loans. Chart 1 shows how our workload cases for which no payment or only a partial for 2011/2012 was broken down between payment has been made following this internal these different types of application. review. During 2011/2012 Inspectors reviewed 26% of such applications compared to 24% Chart 1. IRS Workload for 2010/2011. For community care grants, Inspectors reviewed 31% of their potential 9.9% Budgeting loans workload, an increase from 28.5% during the previous year.

71.4% In reviewing a decision, the Inspector has the 18.7% Community power to: • confirm Jobcentre Plus’ decision; Crisis loans care grants • change the outcome of its decision; • exceptionally, refer the case back for further investigations and a new decision.

The Inspector will confirm a decision where the final outcome is right, whether or not Our workload for 2011/2012 was 52,107. there was an important error in the decision Although this figure represented a 3% making process in Jobcentre Plus. The reduction overall compared to 2010/2011, Inspector will change, or substitute, a decision community care grants, which traditionally where an important error led to the wrong make up the greatest proportion of our work, outcome or where new evidence or a change increased by 21% to 37,224. in circumstances means the decision made Appendix 1 shows the breakdown of our by Jobcentre Plus is no longer a right one. workload by month. There are a number Inspectors identified important errors in of Jobcentre Plus offices across the country 51.1% of the Jobcentre Plus decisions they that process Social Fund applications and reviewed. The Social Fund Commissioner’s our intake of work from each of these offices Advice to Inspectors on what constitutes an differs. Appendix 2 shows the breakdown important error explains that it is “…one on of our workload by Jobcentre Plus Social which the decision, at any stage in the process, Fund district. turns and that leads to a different decision at that stage. In other words, an error at one of the key stages of the decision-making process, which knocks the decision “off-course” and makes the rationale for the decision incorrect.”

6 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Chart 2 shows how our workload was broken Chart 2. Review Outcomes down into overall outcomes. 4.4% 0.01% Referred back Outside jurisdiction* Inspectors changed 36% of the cases which 0.2% Withdrawn proceeded to a full review. 1.5% Review of Inspectors’ Appendix 3 shows a breakdown of decision Decisions** 33.9% outcomes for community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans by Jobcentre Plus Social Substituted Fund district.

59.9% Inspectors made payments totalling £7,842,671 Confirmed from the £141 million budget for grants and payments totalling £619,953 from the * These were cases where customers applied too £590 million budget for loans. early for an Inspector’s review or their request was incomplete. As a result their case did not proceed to a full review. ** These were made to correct errors in the Inspector’s decision. Totals do not equal 100% due to rounding.

Completion Times Our completion times are measured in working days from the date we receive the papers from Jobcentre Plus. Table 1 below sets out our targets and our achievements.

Appendix 4 shows the breakdown of our achievements by month.

We received 68% of the case papers requested from Jobcentre Plus within 4 days.

Table 1. Completion Times of Inspectors’ Reviews

Action/Timescale Target % Achievement %

Urgent cases*: 90 93.7 • completed within 24 hours of receipt of the papers

All other cases**: 90 99.2 • completed within 21 working days of receipt of the papers

* Living expenses or other needs requiring a very urgent decision. ** 86% of cases fell into this category.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 7 The Cost of the Review The cost of the review must be proportionate to the nature of the disputes that arise and the sums of money they involve.

During 2011/2012, our unit cost was £74, which is a reduction from £86 for the previous year. Table 2 below shows how our unit cost has reduced over recent years. We have achieved this through casework and other internal changes, without any reduction in the quality of our work or satisfaction on the part of our customers.

In calculating our unit cost, we have included all our direct costs of staff, non-manpower and capital expenditure; and our indirect accommodation and related costs which are outsourced and paid for centrally by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Table 2. Cost of the Inspector’s Review from 2007/2008 to 2011/2012 Workload Cost per Review £

2007/2008 19,221 200

2008/2009 28,866 154

2009/2010 49,927 99

2010/2011 53,626 86

2011/2012 52,107 74

8 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Quality and Standards

Quality Standards Case Reading Inspectors provide the final stage of the Case reading is the primary means by statutory review process for people applying which we assess the standard of Inspectors’ to the Social Fund. It is important, therefore, decisions. I am involved in this process, that Inspectors get the decision right and along with managers and those Inspectors that they deliver a high quality review who have lead responsibility for quality service to our customers. To help us achieve assurance. Each case undergoes a rigorous this we have put in place quality standards assessment against our quality standards. for the review. We aim to: During 2011/2012 we read 2,535 decisions • be accessible; (constituting 4.9% of our total workload). make legally sound and accurate decisions; • Case readers found that a high proportion of • communicate in a straightforward way decisions (86.9%) met the quality standard. which can be easily understood; and They found the outcome to be wrong in • be proportionate and timely. 4.9% of the decisions read. We changed the outcome of 177 decisions because of errors To ensure that Inspectors meet these we identified in case reading; and this standards we monitor their performance by: equated to 0.3% of our workload. This • reading individual cases; demonstrates an improvement on the • analysing complaints and enquiries; previous year, when 85.3% of the decisions read met the quality standard and 7.5% had • operating an External Complaints Panel; the wrong outcome. • diversity monitoring; and • surveying our customers. This performance is particularly satisfying against a background of changes to our One of my statutory duties is to monitor the working practices, increased output by standard of Inspectors' decisions. I do this Inspectors, reduced unit costs, and in a number of ways. I chair a Standards substantial changes to Social Fund Conference which meets regularly, at which directions during the year. the results of all aspects of this monitoring and feedback are analysed, in order to At the beginning of this reporting year, we identify issues arising from the feedback, were still in the process of evaluating and areas for improvement and solutions. refining our revised approach to conducting This might lead to further training or reviews. This involves producing concise, formal Commissioner’s Advice to Inspectors clear, easy-to-understand letters and agreed at our Quality Forum. A large body of making proactive use of the telephone Commissioner’s Advice to Inspectors is in order to make necessary enquiries. available and can be viewed on our website The revised approach has resulted in a at www.irs-review.org.uk more streamlined process, but has also involved significant change.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 9 Through our case reading analysis we During 2011/2012, we received 2,792 identified key themes emerging in relation complaints about decisions, which to evidence gathering; judgements about represented 5.4% of our workload. This whether grant awards were appropriate in compares favourably with the previous year, individual cases; and crisis loan decisions when complaints about decisions represented made following scheme changes in April 2011. 6.3% of our workload. We looked at all of We provided Inspectors with extra support, these cases again and Inspectors on where required, on the particular technical the Customer Service Team corrected errors, issues involved. Case reading findings show leading to a different outcome for the an improvement in those aspects of decision customer, in 151 of them. This represented making as the year progressed. 0.3% of our total workload.

During the coming year, we are committed Having a single, centralised point for dealing to maintaining high standards and will with complaints helps ensure that we learn continue to address specific casework from the issues that arise. Analysing the issues as they arise. data helps us identify trends, areas for improvement, or recurring themes which Complaints about Inspectors’ may have broader implications for our Decisions approach to casework. The Inspector’s decision is normally the Judicial Reviews of our Decisions final tier of review. There is no automatic right to a further review, but the law does Having exhausted the complaints process, a provide for correction of errors at the customer who remains dissatisfied with an discretion of the Inspector. Beyond this Inspector’s decision may also seek a judicial 5 point, a customer who remains dissatisfied review in the Administrative Court . During with an Inspector’s decision can apply for 2011/2012 three customers sought permission permission for a judicial review hearing. to bring judicial review proceedings. The Court refused permission in two of these We have a dedicated Customer Service Team cases. In the third case an Inspector changed to deal with all enquiries and complaints. the disputed crisis loan decision in favour of Complaints from any of the parties to the the customer, following a First-Tier Social review are considered thoroughly and Security Tribunal ruling which had a bearing impartially in order to provide the appropriate on the case. As a result of the change in the response. The result might be a changed Inspector’s decision, the customer did not outcome, or an explanation of why the pursue the matter. Inspector’s decision is the correct one in the circumstances of the case. In April 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, against a decision of the Administrative Court in October 2010, to refuse permission for judicial review.

5 The judicial review process involves two stages. The first stage is an application for permission for a judicial review hearing. Only if permission is granted does the case move to the second stage, a hearing in the Administrative Court.

10 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Complaints about Service The External Complaints Panel Our Customer Service Team also investigates I have also appointed a panel of independent and responds to complaints about our people who have relevant experience, in service. During this reporting year we order to examine the fairness, impartiality, received 97 complaints about our service. openness, clarity and responsiveness of our We upheld 49 of these, which equates to complaints service. Their feedback remains 0.1% of our total workload. an important part of our quality assurance process, because it provides me with a source Although the level of complaints about our of independent assurance on the service remains low, we continue to work effectiveness of our complaints handling. towards addressing the underlying issues and eliminating any related problems. During 2011/2012 the panel met on three occasions to examine 60 complaints and the associated Customer Service Team responses. The panel concluded that the standard of complaints handling remained very high. They found that 95.4% of the complaints they looked at had been handled effectively. In particular, the panel noted that the clarity and quality of the explanation provided in complaint responses was very good. Diversity Monitoring We are committed to operating a fair and open service to all our customers. We analyse information drawn from our casework, our contact with customer representatives and views expressed by customers in response to surveys, in order to understand our customers’ needs and ensure our service is accessible and inclusive.

Gender and age monitoring We record information about gender and age on every case we receive for Inspector’s review. The results for 2011 are broadly similar to those of previous years. One noticeable difference for all our customers, irrespective of gender or age, is that the average award was higher than in previous reports. By average award we mean the total sum awarded to the customer, including any amount paid by Jobcentre Plus and any additional award made by an Inspector.

As in previous years, more men than women applied for an Inspector’s review, but a higher proportion of women received a changed decision and the average award sum for women is higher. When looking at average award sums we are aware that, regardless of any other characteristics involved, family size tends to increase the amount of any payment.

Gender Monitoring Results

Applied for Represented Substituted Average Inspectors’ cases* cases* award reviews Male 24,376 (53%) 8,259 (34%) 8,834 (36%) £387.44 Female 21,317 (47%) 7,133 (33%) 8,611 (40%) £438.59

* Percentages relate to the total number of applications for Inspectors‘ review. The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 11 The majority of our customers are aged between 25 and 44 years. This group is more likely to have families requiring support or to have caring responsibilities for older relatives. People aged 60 and over make up the lowest proportion of those who apply for an Inspector's review. The low rate of review take-up from those aged 60 and over has persisted from previous years.

Age Monitoring Results

Applied for Represented Substituted Average Inspectors’ cases* cases* award reviews 16-24 8,587 (19%) 3,130 (36%) 3,338 (39%) £441.99 25-44 22,043 (48%) 7,068 (32%) 8,662 (39%) £423.67 45-59 11,768 (26%) 3,907 (33%) 4,207 (36%) £376.29 60+ 3,295 (7%) 1,284 (39%) 1,238 (38%) £380.56

* Percentages relate to the total number of applications for Inspectors‘ review.

Ethnic background Since 2003 we have issued a survey to all customers who apply for an Inspector’s review asking for information about their ethnic background. During 2011 we received a response from 5,202 customers (11% of customers surveyed). The results in key areas show a broad consistency in decision outcomes across different ethnic groups.

Ethnic Background Results

Responses to Represented Substituted Average survey cases* cases* award White 3,662 (70%) 779 (21%) 2,127 (58%) £481.83 Mixed/Multiple 213 (4%) 51 (24%) 135 (63%) £502.56 Ethnic groups Asian or Asian British 453 (9%) 109 (24%) 285 (63%) £457.76 Black or Black British 720 (14%) 230 (32%) 459 (64%) £537.11 Arab or other ethnic group 154 (3%) 47 (31%) 96 (62%) £566.57

* Percentages relate to the number of responses to the survey.

12 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Disability monitoring In July 2011 we added a question to our survey form asking whether the customer’s daily activities are limited because of a long-term health problem or disability (longer than 12 months); and if so, the extent to which their activities are limited. Three response options are available: (a) yes, limited a lot; (b) yes, limited a little; (c) no disability.

Over half of those who responded to our survey reported being limited a lot by their disability. Results show that a slightly higher proportion of those who reported being limited a lot by their disability received a changed decision outcome. However, the average award made to that group of people was lower than it was for both of the other groups.

This reporting year was the first time we gathered the information about health and disability issues. We will evaluate the reasons for any variations highlighted by these results.

Disability Monitoring Survey Results

Extent of disability Responses to Represented Substituted Average survey cases* cases* award Yes, limited a lot 2,054 (57%) 442 (22%) 1,253 (61%) £502.19 Yes, limited a little 739 (20%) 224 (30%) 422 (57%) £568.77 No disability 840 (23%) 252 (30%) 478 (57%) £613.97

* Percentages relate to the number of responses to the survey.

Customer Survey During the reporting period we have continued to evaluate and refine our approach In order to help us evaluate the level to conducting the review. Essential aspects of of customer satisfaction, we also issue this are streamlining the Inspectors’ decision customer survey forms throughout the letters to ensure they are clear and focus on year with Inspectors’ decisions. These forms the crucial information for customers; and focus on areas that are crucial to ensure we using the telephone wherever possible to continue to deliver the standard of review gather necessary information. We are pleased that our customers need. The questions invite with the continuing high level of customer specific feedback about the accessibility of the satisfaction overall, and with the high level of review, the clarity of Inspectors’ decision satisfaction about the clarity of decision letters letters and the quality of our telephone and the way we handled telephone calls. service. This customer feedback helps us to identify areas where we could make further improvements.

During 2011 we surveyed 22,625 customers in total and received 3,509 responses (16%). Overall, the results show that 70% of survey respondents were content with the way we had dealt with their case.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 13 Issues Arising from Inspectors’ Casework

In the course of the year, my Inspectors faced As eligibility for a crisis loan is not based on new challenges arising out of changes to the receipt of a specified benefit, crisis loans legal structure for crisis loans; changes in the have traditionally provided a safety net for type of crisis loan needs received for review; people who are ineligible for a grant or a and changes in the type and range of needs budgeting loan. This is because eligibility for that could be met from individual community a budgeting loan or a grant depends on the care grant budgets. These issues are described person who applies for this type of award in more detail below, together with some receiving income-based Jobseeker’s illustrative case studies. Allowance, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support or Crisis Loan Change Relating to Pension Credit.

Items Since April 2011 the safety net provided by In April 2011 changes were made to the the crisis loan scheme has changed and the crisis loan scheme. One of these made following case studies illustrate the impact. the qualifying conditions stricter, for most expenses, and introduced new considerations into crisis loan decision making. Case Study

In light of this, we delivered technical training Items are needed as a consequence to Inspectors and worked with individuals to of a disaster ensure they successfully adjusted their Mr A is a full-time carer for his 82 year old approach to crisis loan decision making. mother, who has a range of health I provided feedback to the Minister of State problems. He is in regular contact with a on issues highlighted in Inspectors’ casework, mental health professional because of his as a result of the change to the qualifying depression. Their home was broken into conditions for items. and a number of items were stolen or damaged. The contents of their home were Impact of the change not insured and they do not have any Before April 2011 a crisis loan could be savings or other resources. Mr A applied for considered if an item (such as household a grant or a crisis loan to replace items for equipment or clothing) was needed in an their home, including their beds, which emergency or as a consequence of a disaster; were ruined during the burglary. The when a crisis loan was the only way of evidence showed that there had been a preventing serious damage or serious risk severe deterioration in the health of both to the health or safety of the applicant or Mr A and his mother since the break-in at their family. their home and the damage to their belongings. Since April 2011 a crisis loan can only be paid for an item when the application is made as Mr A cannot be paid a community care a consequence of a disaster. It is still the grant or a budgeting loan, because his case that a crisis loan for the item must be receipt of Incapacity Benefit – rather the only way of preventing serious damage than one of the specified income-related or serious risk to the health or safety of the benefits – makes him ineligible for one. applicant or their family. Crisis loans can no A crisis loan can only be paid following longer be paid for items that are needed a disaster. solely in an emergency.

14 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Although this situation is not due to a large Rent in Advance Applications scale disaster, such as a flood or a gas Inspectors have noted an increase in requests to review crisis loan applications for rent in explosion, it is disastrous for this vulnerable advance. These are relatively complex cases; elderly lady and her son. The event, and its they frequently require further information, consequences, were calamitous for the are for urgent needs and can be for large family and had a significant impact on amounts of money. This can lead to difficult them. The Inspector took account of these judgements in balancing the urgent need for circumstances when deciding that the someone to secure a new home against their application was as a consequence of a ability to afford to repay the loan and disaster. He awarded a crisis loan for two maintain the tenancy. beds, as this was the only way of preventing serious risk to the health or Case Study safety of Mr A and his elderly mother. Mr C applied for a crisis loan for rent in advance to prevent him living rough. The Case Study rent of the property was £431 per calendar month. The most he would receive from The need for items is not as a the Local Authority in housing benefit was consequence of a disaster £75 per week. This would leave him with a shortfall of around £24 per week to find to After sleeping rough for some time, Mr B top up his rent. His only source of income moved into a Salvation Army hostel. He was Jobseeker‘s Allowance of £67.50 per received support from staff at the hostel week. If he paid £24 per week to top up for several months until he was able to his rent, this would leave him with just move on from the hostel into more £43.50 to cover all his expenses, including independent living. He obtained a his food and all his household bills. On top permanent tenancy and applied for a grant of this he would need to repay his crisis or a crisis loan to furnish his new home, so loan at an agreed weekly rate. that he could move out of the hostel. He lacked equipment for his home and could The starting point for the Inspector is to not remain at the hostel now he had decide whether this expense is required in secured permanent accommodation. He an emergency. If he accepts that it is, he can had a number of long-term mental and only pay a crisis loan if it is the only way of physical health problems, which had been preventing a serious risk to Mr C’s health or aggravated by his living conditions. safety. In order for the loan to prevent serious risk to health or safety the Inspector would Mr B receives contribution-based need to be satisfied that Mr C could sustain Employment and Support Allowance; his tenancy. It would be difficult for Mr C to he does not receive one of the specified manage, consistently, to top up his rent to income-related benefits and so cannot the extent of £24 a week and cover all his be paid a community care grant or other outgoings. The Inspector must also be budgeting loan. satisfied that Mr C can repay a crisis loan.

Although refusal of a payment left Mr B A crisis loan for rent in advance, in this without very basic needs – such as situation, is not the only way of preventing sleeping and cooking facilities – the a serious risk to Mr C’s health or safety. It Inspector refused a crisis loan because the is unlikely he can continue to stay in the items were not needed as a consequence tenancy and pay the full weekly rent and of a disaster. meet his weekly living expenses at the same time.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 15 Community Care Grant Budget A grant was awarded for sleeping, cooking The discretionary Social Fund is cash limited and dining facilities, seating, a washing and historically has not been able to meet machine, fridge/freezer, vacuum cleaner, all qualifying applications. Each Social Fund plus curtains and carpets for the living district is allocated a portion of the total room and bedrooms. A grant was refused annual budget for grants. In determining for the needs the budget could not meet: whether to make an award and the amount clothes storage units, kitchen bin, iron and of that award Inspectors, like all decision stair carpet. These needs were refused on makers, are required to have regard to the the basis they would do less to ease state of the local grant budget. exceptional pressure on this family.

Inspectors identified that some grant Case Study budgets could meet a far wider range of needs than in previous budget years. Miss E is a young, single lady who has This change impacted on the type of learning difficulties. She applied for a needs they were able to meet. grant for living room carpet, bedroom carpet, a sofa, bed, wardrobe and dining Case Study table with chairs. These were required Miss D and her three pre-school aged to help her move from a bedsit, to children became homeless due to family accommodation providing improved problems. After a spell in bed and breakfast support, which is shared by other people accommodation they moved to a permanent with learning difficulties. Although her home. Miss D applied for a grant to help new home was part-furnished, she the family set up their new home. They lacked the items requested. moved in without any basic equipment. The facts showed that a grant would help These poor living conditions were a particular to reduce a foreseeable risk of Miss E worry for Miss D because her nine month entering care, such as a hospital or old daughter has been hospitalised twice residential home. Information about the due to breathing problems. local grant budget showed it could meet a A grant would help to ease exceptional more restricted range of needs than in the pressures on Miss D and her family. previous example (high priorities only). Information about the local grant budget A grant was awarded for a bed, sofa and showed it could meet a fairly broad range living room carpet. The other needs were of needs (high and medium priorities6). refused because the budget could not afford to meet them.

6 The Secretary of State has provided guidance about classifying grant needs as high, medium and low priority based on the nature, extent and urgency of the need and the potential impact of an award. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-fund-guide.pdf

16 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Our Relationships with Customers and Other Stakeholders

Our independence, expertise and casework telephone us. If we can deal with cases experience – gained from our place as the final before the target dates we will. We are tier in the review process – puts us in an ideal proactive in ensuring that we identify place to influence the delivery of better customers who may have a particularly outcomes for those who need to access the urgent need, in order to deal with their Social Fund. This does not mean that every cases more quickly. customer will receive a payment. In this context, a better outcome means that the right Clear accessible information things happen: so that the customer gets the We ensure that information about what we right outcome at the earliest time, delivered in can and cannot do for our customers is clear a clear and straightforward manner. and easily available. During the reporting year we reviewed the information in our Our Customers publications and letters. As a result we We are acutely aware of the need to balance reduced our costs and removed the need for our ongoing commitment to deliver a high one of our leaflets, by moving the necessary standard of service and decision making to information into our letters. our customers within the existing legal framework, while continuing to make the We put key information about the outcome best use of our finite resources. We do this of the decision, and what will happen next, in a number of ways. at the start of the Inspector’s decision letter. We explain the decision clearly, concisely and Legally sound and accurate simply, while ensuring that we do not lose the correct legal meaning. decisions Customers and their representatives tell us Straightforward that a consistent and rational approach to We encourage customers to engage in their decision making provides a high level of review as much as possible. Our experience confidence in the decision outcome, whether tells us that customers are more likely to that is to award or refuse a payment. be satisfied if they feel Inspectors have An earlier chapter demonstrates that listened to them and taken account of we work hard to ensure that we deliver on their circumstances. our commitment to high quality decisions. The feedback we receive tells us that this We use the telephone wherever we can and is recognised and appreciated by the people this has played a much larger part in our who use our service. work during 2011/2012. If crucial information is missing, an Inspector will telephone the Timely customer about it. But an Inspector will only People tell us they want a prompt outcome make necessary enquiries; they will not on decisions that affect their daily lives. contact customers when they already have Because of this, we set very clear and all the information needed to decide the challenging targets which reflect different case. This helps us to ensure that our levels of urgency. customers receive the right decision at the earliest opportunity. It also enables We tell people how long they can expect to Inspectors to focus their time where it is wait to hear from an Inspector; we do this needed most. when they first write to us and when they

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 17 Other Stakeholders Where these papers are unavailable the Inspector has to reconstruct the evidence. During the year our work with organisations This usually entails contacting the customer and individuals that represent the interests of and asking basic questions about the our customers, and with Jobcentre Plus, application. This means that the Inspector focused even more closely on achieving the may be asking for information that the maximum impact with our limited resources. customer has already provided. The customer may also have sent Jobcentre Plus letters Jobcentre Plus from third parties such as doctors, Our experience is based on the cases that consultants, landlords and support workers. come to us for independent review and our The Inspector is unable to take account of work with Jobcentre Plus focuses on the these unless the customer is able to provide issues we see in those cases. We share this another copy. This is concerning because, not experience with the aim of increasing the only can it delay decision making, but – more proportion of decisions that are right first importantly – it can affect customers who are time in Jobcentre Plus. asked to repeat information. The urgency of applications makes it important to avoid Feedback unnecessary delays or repetition of effort at We have a long standing agreement with the final stage. Jobcentre Plus to provide feedback on the standard of their decisions, so that learning Jobcentre Plus utilises a process of scanning points can inform decision making in the all papers onto its computer system in all future. This feedback is an important Social Fund offices across the country. During development tool for decision makers in 2011/2012 Jobcentre Plus provided all the Jobcentre Plus. important papers in 82% of cases reviewed by Inspectors. This was an improvement on At regular points during the year we send a the previous year, when it provided the focused report to Jobcentre Plus managers at papers in 76% of cases. It was also each Social Fund site. This provides detailed noticeable during the year that there were information about the standard of decisions fewer cases where all the papers provided by reviewed by Inspectors and the reasons for the customer were unavailable. The national any errors they identified. Jobcentre Plus picture has improved, but there remains a managers can then focus on the areas for wide variation in performance, from districts development identified. The report also where papers were unavailable in a very includes details of the number of cases sent small number of cases, through to districts to us by Jobcentre Plus that do not have all that sent a third of cases without all the the relevant documents and the time taken important papers. to send papers to us. During the reporting year we received 68% Jobcentre Plus is required to send all relevant of all cases from Jobcentre Plus within four case papers to the Inspector who will be days, with 5% taking over 10 days. This is conducting the review. The papers that are an improvement on the previous year, as particularly important are those containing more cases reached us within 4 days and direct evidence from the customer. These fewer cases took 10 days or more. include the application form, any supporting letters and phone calls, and the letter requesting a review in Jobcentre Plus.

18 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The main error identified by Inspectors in the Liaison decisions they reviewed on community care Senior Jobcentre Plus and IRS managers grant and crisis loan applications was the continued to discuss national performance failure to gather the necessary information and operational issues relating to the Social before making a decision. This has been the Fund. These issues have included: the main error for some time and accounts for over standard of work; improvements in scanning a third of errors during the reporting period. arrangements within Jobcentre Plus; the associated provision of papers; movement of Inspectors identified errors in cases for which Social Fund work around the national Jobcentre Plus did not provide all the papers. Jobcentre Plus Social Fund network; our In addition to the customer’s papers, there capability to request and return papers to are cases where Inspectors cannot see the the right place; and changes in procedures, decision made by Jobcentre Plus. Inspectors such as Jobcentre Plus visits to some also found that the law relating to the customers. It is important that this liaison qualifying conditions for community care activity continues, so that we can deliver grants was not interpreted or applied properly the best service possible. in a significant proportion of cases.

There is a wide variation in performance Supporting Advisors and across Social Fund offices in relation to the Representatives who Help proportion and nature of errors identified by Social Fund Customers Inspectors. This detailed information is Given our independence, it is important included in the regular feedback reports for that we share our experience with all of Jobcentre Plus managers. our stakeholders, including the people Workshops who use our service, as well as their advisors Following their request, we worked closely and representatives. We seek to utilise our with Jobcentre Plus to deliver four workshops insights, expertise and experience to for a range of Jobcentre Plus managers, maximum effect, in ways that will add value decision makers and quality assurance for those who use the Social Fund and those staff. The workshops focused on areas for who pay for it. To help us achieve this, improvement identified from our casework we placed increased emphasis on outlining analysis and Jobcentre Plus’ own quality the key practical steps that advisors, assurance. In May 2011 we held a workshop representatives and their clients can take at our office in Birmingham on the use of in relation to the quality and relevance of the the inquisitorial role and the correct approach evidence they provide. to evidence gathering. Inspectors find that Provision of clear, focused and complete the failure to seek crucial information is the evidence at the earliest opportunity is most common reason for error in Jobcentre important to enable initial decision makers Plus’ decisions. In March 2012 we also to reach the right decision. Decisions that delivered three workshops which focused are right first time provide the best outcome on community care grants and the principles for the customer and the taxpayer. A clearer of decision making. The feedback from the understanding of the possibilities and workshops was very positive and Jobcentre limitations of the scheme should make it Plus managers made a commitment to easier for advisors and representatives to work with their decision makers in order understand decision outcomes and explain to achieve improvements. them to their clients. This in turn should help

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 19 to encourage appropriate use of the show how the law applies in practice. review process, by helping clients make Decision makers in Jobcentre Plus, as well as informed judgements about whether or advisors and representatives, tell us they find not it is appropriate to ask for a decision the Journal helpful in their differing roles. to be reviewed. The first Journal we published in this We have found that stakeholder meetings reporting year focused on the changes to the are the most cost effective way of sharing crisis loan scheme from April 2011. Our our expertise, because they enable us to second Journal focused on the community offer practical support to a large group at the care grant qualification test, to help set up same time. Sharing information in this way home as part of a planned programme of has a wider impact, because attendees share resettlement after an unsettled way of life. what they have learned with colleagues and clients in the course of their day-to-day work. The Journal and Digest is only published This year we reduced investment in this electronically and this is extremely cost activity because of resource constraints; but effective. It is available on our website and is we were still able to meet 397 people from emailed directly to our regular contacts who 237 different organisations in the course of number around 2,480. Our website also four meetings held in Sheffield, Greenwich, provides other useful information about Cardiff and Sunderland. Social Fund law and decision making.

Although the main aim of the meetings is The Social Fund Commissioner’s meetings to support advisors and representatives, The Administrative Justice and Tribunals we also take the opportunity to invite their Council7 held a seminar in February 2012, feedback on their experience of dealing with to exchange ideas about dispute resolution us. We use this feedback to help inform our in administrative justice. At their invitation development and evaluate whether we a number of speakers from independent continue to offer our customers an accessible organisations, including myself, shared their and inclusive service. experience of handling disputes without holding formal hearings. During the reporting The Journal and Digest of Decisions year, I also attended a series of meetings During the year we produced two Journals with the heads of third sector organisations and associated case studies. We know that and others who have an active interest in the discretionary Social Fund can be complex the Social Fund and the independent and difficult to get to grips with. In order to grievance model. improve understanding, on the part of those who apply and those who take decisions, we In May 2011 I also chaired a workshop at the select subjects that we know have created Annual Conference of the Ombudsman issues in our casework, or are frequently the Association, on maintaining objectivity and subject of questions from stakeholders. We avoiding case hardening. write about these subjects as clearly and simply as possible, including case studies to

7 The Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council keeps under review the administrative justice system as a whole, with a view to making it accessible, fair and efficient.

20 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Accountability

As an organisation that is funded by public The impending closure of our organisation money, we recognise the need to act in a has meant that, increasingly, we have reduced manner that is transparent and accountable. the work that relates to our long term We also aim to manage relationships with development. This situation also contributed all of our stakeholders in this spirit of to us spending less than expected during the openness. In the interests of transparency reporting period. In addition, internal we have published our Business Plan, key reorganisation and efficiency measures financial information and other publications meant that we spent less than expected on on our website. costs such as printing, postage and travel. We also spent less than anticipated on IT A Memorandum of Understanding sets development and maintenance costs. out the framework for the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Social Fund Commissioner. It respects my Information Security statutory independence and the independent We take our responsibilities to customers decision making role of the Inspectors. seriously, including the need to safeguard The Departmental Steward (Work and personal information and other information Pensions) and I are co-signatories that is confidential. Over the years we have to the Memorandum. put in place a number of measures to ensure all the information we hold is accurate, Each year, as part of the Government complete and kept secure, which includes Spending Review process, we submit a implementing improvements in our working Business Plan setting out our strategic objectives, associated work programme practices and a full upgrade of our IT network. and customer service standards for the Our policies and procedures comply with forthcoming year. It includes our funding appropriate government security standards bid and sets out how we aim to achieve and take account of relevant guidance and funding reductions. best practice issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Budget I am pleased to report that in September 2011 During 2011/2012, we spent a total of £3.098 we obtained independent recognition for million from our direct budget allocation of our work in this area when we achieved £3.766 million, which represented a accreditation to ISO 27001 for our budgetary underspend of £0.668 million Information Security Management System. (18%). Our staff accounted for 89% of our This accreditation has a wide scope and direct budget expenditure. applies to all customer information used and stored, whether in electronic or paper format, In common with all Civil Service departments, at our site in Birmingham. Whilst risks can the economic backdrop meant we were never be eliminated, through a robust system affected by government controls on of risk management, we monitor and review recruitment. On 1 April 2011 we had 98.17 our internal activity to ensure controls are staff in post and had planned to reduce staff numbers to 94 by 31 March 2012. In fact, by effective and proportionate. the end of the reporting period, the number of staff in post had reduced by 20% to 78.62 as a result of departures. This unplanned reduction in our staff numbers was a significant contributory factor in relation to our budgetary underspend. The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 21 I hope that all of this provides assurance To help us achieve a proportionate return on to the public and our other stakeholders our investment in this course, each student that we have appropriate measures in place agreed to undertake a significant proportion to safeguard information. However this is of the associated study in their own time. not an area for complacency and we will This helped to keep the cost per student remain vigilant throughout the time we relatively low and the investment produced remain in operation. benefits for the organisation, as well as the individual members of staff involved. Each Information Technology student committed, in advance of the course, to using their acquired skills and knowledge We have our own in-house IT team who in ways that support our business objectives. are responsible for the management and The course has enhanced their thinking, maintenance of our IT systems, including writing and legal skills, whilst also increasing a bespoke case management system to their knowledge of the wider system of support the delivery of the business. administrative justice. In 2011/2012 we spent just over £149,000 on IT, including the costs of our in-house IT We are pleased to report that all of the team, external support and necessary students, including this cohort and the hardware and software. previous year’s students, did extremely well and gained a Certificate of Professional Training and Support for Staff Development. This achievement gives them During 2011/2012 we provided key training a number of credits towards a degree for Social Fund Inspectors and other staff, qualification and it also provides a foundation including on changes to law and processes for the next stage of their careers. It is with and essential security training. As our staff considerable regret that we will not be numbers continue to reduce, we will face enrolling our staff on future courses, because the challenge of needing to maintain a high of our impending closure. level of service to our customers with fewer resources. The internal and tailored training We are also pleased to have been accredited we provide is an essential part of the package consistently as an Investor in People of support for staff in these circumstances. It organisation since 1997. ensures they have the appropriate knowledge and skills for their roles and are equipped to deal with the challenges ahead.

As we must concentrate our training resources on immediate needs, it has been necessary to withdraw from the longer term development of our staff. A key component of this was the course on administrative justice run by De Montfort University’s School of Law. This course, spread over 15 months, was predominantly based around a programme of modules that involved self-study at home, with relevant support available from course tutors during 5 residential days.

22 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Responses to Consultations

One of the ways I seek to share the learning • clarity about the situations in which help and experience from our casework is to can be given and who to approach; respond to relevant consultation documents. • consistency of objectives across locations, so there is actual and perceived fairness Localisation of Provision to between different groups of citizens; and Replace Community Care Grants • safeguards to protect the needs of and Crisis Loans vulnerable people. During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill I consider it is possible to adopt those through Parliament, the Communities and principles without compromising the ability Local Government Select Committee conducted of the new arrangements to respond to an inquiry into the implications of welfare distinctive needs within local communities. reform – specifically the localisation of Council The design of local arrangements will need Tax Benefit and elements of the Social Fund. to strike a balance between administrative In June 2011, at the invitation of the Select efficiency, public confidence in the application Committee, I submitted written evidence to of local discretion and the rights of local their inquiry. citizens. I noted the policy intention to allow different geographical areas to respond The Welfare Reform Act 2012 contains appropriately to local need. I went on to provisions to abolish the discretionary Social say that it may be difficult to achieve some Fund. In April 2013 funding for community broad consistency of purpose and approach, care grants and crisis loans for living in the absence of any guidelines or criteria expenses will be transferred to local that set parameters for local discretion. authorities in England and to the devolved I suggested that national minimum standards administrations in Scotland and Wales. I would help to provide clarity for users, responded to separate consultations by the providers and those with an interest in Scottish and Welsh Governments on their evaluating the impact and performance of localised delivery arrangements for new arrangements. This should not eliminate community care grants and crisis loans the desired flexibility or scope for innovation. for living expenses. In my view, there must continue to be A summary of the key points I made in appropriate arrangements to assist poor those responses is set out below. My full and vulnerable people. Given that the responses to the Select Committee Inquiry needs of those who currently apply to the and to the Scottish and Welsh Government discretionary Social Fund will not disappear, consultations can be viewed at the focus should be on the effectiveness of www.irs-review.org.uk/sfreform/sfreform.htm new arrangements. Our casework experience indicates it cannot be assumed that people Each of the responses reiterates my view that who currently apply to the Social Fund are a number of fundamental principles should already known to Social Services or other underpin any new local arrangements. These professional bodies. We are also aware that a principles include: number of the vulnerable people we deal with • provision of high quality support; are not currently receiving any other source of • transparency about the type of assistance formal support or assistance. which is available;

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 23 Grants should support people who need help Case Study to re-integrate into society in order to play Mrs F is of pension age and lives on her a full and active role in the community in own. She has a range of mental health the longer term. I endorsed continuation of problems, which impact significantly on support to help people establish or remain her ability to cope with day to day life. Her in the community. A new scheme should central heating system has broken down be capable of responding to situations where and she lacks a number of very basic items living expenses are required in an emergency in her home. She does not receive any or as a consequence of a disaster, in order to type of support from community health prevent serious consequences. services or Social Services. I also emphasised the importance of The vulnerability of people who apply to ensuring that the positive elements of the discretionary Social Fund heightens the the current Social Fund scheme are not importance of ensuring a choice of access overlooked in the establishment of new methods under new arrangements. A single localised arrangements. I suggested that point of contact is desirable from the whatever form new arrangements take, customer’s point of view and should result there must be clarity about the type of in administrative savings, by tackling potential support available, the specific outcomes duplication. It will also be important to design it is intended to promote, a means for a redress process that is simple, timely, evaluating the impact of new arrangements efficient, and has as few layers of and a system that is easy for people to bureaucracy as possible. I have argued access and to navigate. consistently that an independent grievance process should be an integral part of any Mandatory Consideration of decision making system that seeks to meet Revision Before Appeal the needs of poor and vulnerable people. In February 2012, the Department for Work The current economic pressure on public and Pensions published a consultation paper services emphasises the importance of concerning mandatory consideration of achieving best value with the funding revision before appeal. The consultation available. In order to promote public concerned issues that are relevant to the confidence in new arrangements it will implementation and operation of the be important to demonstrate transparently appeals reform provisions in the Welfare that funding is distributed fairly and, ideally, Reform Act 2012. It also set out the this process should be open to some form of Department’s plan to implement mandatory external scrutiny. reconsideration before appeal for existing benefits and invited comments. Holistic support should be available to those with complex needs and sign-posting has an My response included insights drawn from important role to play, in tackling underlying our extensive casework experience. I or additional problems. Grants should be emphasised the potential benefits of: targeted at supporting vulnerable people • proactive use of the telephone to explain who, because of age, chronic illness or key issues to customers, fill crucial gaps in disability, are unable to help themselves. evidence and provide progress updates;

24 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 • adopting the practical steps for decision In cases where someone appeals without makers that were outlined by the first asking for the decision to be revised, Administrative Justice and Tribunals I said that the Tribunals Service should Council in their report Right First Time8; and forward the appeal request on to the • including human interaction and scope Department for reconsideration. for discussion in learning products used to develop decision making skills, such In my view, the process must be suitable as evaluation of evidence and exercising for use by people who are unrepresented discretion. and unadvised. A balance must be found between reducing the rate of appeals and I also supported the intention to: ensuring that people are not deterred from appealing against decisions that are wrong. • communicate the outcomes of The time and effort invested in providing reconsideration more effectively; clear explanations, helping people to provide explanations to customers by • understand the process and investigating telephone whenever possible; and evidence further where appropriate, • make the reconsideration stage more should be offset where cases are independent. resolved satisfactorily without the cost and stress of an appeal. My additional suggestions to further strengthen the decision making and appeal standards included: • providing a clear and informative statement of reasons at the initial decision stage; • achieving prompt access to papers on which original decisions were based; • learning from feedback, by having systems in place that record, analyse and act on learning from reconsiderations and appeals; and • publishing clearance target times for notifying reconsideration outcomes.

8 Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, Right First Time, June 2011.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 25 Appendices

1 IRS Review Workload by Month 2011/2012 28 2 IRS Review Workload by Jobcentre Plus Social Fund District 2011/2012 29 3 Spread of Decision Types by Jobcentre Plus Social Fund District 2011/2012 30 4 IRS Decision Completion Times by Month 2011/2012 31 5 The Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain 32

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 27 Appendix 1 IRS Review Workload9 by Month 2011/2012

Month Community Crisis Loans Budgeting Loans Total Care Grants Workload April 1,773 1,220 320 3,313 May 2,286 1,263 320 3,869 June 2,913 1,055 494 4,462 July 3,319 793 431 4,543 August 3,604 771 536 4,911 September 3,601 657 438 4,696 October 3,488 723 388 4,599 November 3,459 719 450 4,628 December 2,538 586 498 3,622 January 3,445 651 492 4,588 February 3,446 612 320 4,378 March 3,352 691 455 4,498 Total 37,224 9,741 5,142 52,107

9 Workload comprises decisions on applications for an Inspector's review; applications for community care grants also considered for crisis loans, and vice versa; and reviews of Inspectors‘ decisions under section 38(5) of the Social Security Act 1998.

28 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Appendix 2 IRS Review Workload10 by Jobcentre Plus Social Fund District 2011/2012

Community Crisis Loans Budgeting Loans Total Care Grants Workload Belle Vale 1,938 563 331 2,832 Chorlton 2,867 675 530 4,072 Sunderland 588 224 125 937 Newcastle 603 150 91 844 Tees Valley 618 289 75 982 Bradford 906 187 150 1,243 Sheffield 2,160 457 332 2,949 Chesterfield 909 205 155 1,269 Nottingham 912 234 118 1,264 Essex 581 165 142 888 Norwich 1,362 354 183 1,899 Perry Barr 4,075 1,001 628 5,704 South East BOBS 525 134 87 746 South East HIKYS 1,240 327 221 1,788 Bristol 2,413 504 257 3,174 Central & East 1,509 225 134 1,868 London London South 2,236 437 263 2,936 North & North 1,098 266 126 1,490 East London West London 965 194 100 1,259 Llanelli 804 188 138 1,130 Newport 2,083 466 179 2,728 Inverness 1,898 381 225 2,504 Springburn 4,845 1,051 550 6,446 Wembley 89 1,064 2 1,155 National 37,224 9,741 5,142 52,107

10 Workload comprises decisions on applications for an Inspector's review; applications for community care grants also considered for crisis loans, and vice versa; and reviews of Inspectors' decisions under section 38(5) of the Social Security Act 1998.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 29 Appendix 3 Spread of Decision Types by Jobcentre Plus Social Fund District 2011/201211 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Refer Back Refer - 7.7 1.9 1.5 1.6 3.7 4.7 3.9 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 6.4 8.0 4.0 12.2 Substitution - Budgeting Budgeting Loans – % 97.7 97.0 97.6 87.8 98.1 96.1 96.7 93.6 95.3 95.5 95.6 92.0 95.8 95.8 95.8 92.3 98.4 96.2 96.3 98.5 96.5 96.0 100.0 100.0 Confirmation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Refer Back Refer 23.1 37.4 34.1 19.0 19.3 15.8 24.7 29.0 35.4 35.5 35.5 25.4 24.9 23.3 23.3 23.3 24.3 24.6 34.9 30.0 22.4 26.0 44.9 28.0 29.0 Substitution Crisis Loans – % 75.1 55.1 77.6 71.0 65.1 75.7 76.7 76.7 76.7 74.0 74.6 81.0 75.4 75.3 76.9 70.0 80.7 72.0 65.9 71.0 84.2 64.6 64.5 64.5 62.6 Confirmation 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Refer Back Refer 53.1 53.1 37.6 37.6 31.8 21.5 39.4 39.3 39.6 33.4 33.2 49.5 42.7 32.9 52.0 32.2 34.8 50.6 50.6 42.2 36.8 40.6 40.5 48.5 42.2 Substitution 67.1 57.3 57.8 51.5 67.8 59.4 57.7 59.5 49.4 49.2 60.7 78.5 50.5 63.2 65.2 62.4 46.9 46.9 62.4 48.0 60.4 60.6 66.6 68.2 66.8 Community Care Community Grants – % Confirmation back to Jobcentre Plus for a fresh decision to be made. be to decision a fresh for Plus Jobcentre to back W South East BOBS Perry Barr Perry Norwich Essex Essex Nottingham Nottingham Tees Valley Tees Bradford Chesterfield Newcastle Newcastle Sheffield Sunderland Belle Vale Belle Vale Chorlton Chorlton National Wembley Springburn North & North East London London West Llanelli Newport Inverness Central Central & East London London South Bristol Bristol South East HIKYS hen reviewing decisions, an Inspector has the power to: confirm Jobcentre Plus' decision; substitute Jobcentre Plus' decision with one of his own; or refer the case case the refer or own; his of one with decision Plus' Jobcentre substitute decision; Plus' Jobcentre confirm to: power the has Inspector an decisions, reviewing hen 11

30 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Appendix 4 IRS Decision Completion Times by Month 2011/2012

Month Urgent cases* All other cases – % completed within 21 days – % completed within Community Care Crisis Loans Budgeting Loans 24 hours Grants April 92.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 May 94.3 99.9 100.0 100.0 June 92.8 99.9 100.0 100.0 July 88.0 99.8 100.0 100.0 August 93.3 99.2 99.5 99.8 September 96.4 98.9 99.3 100.0 October 94.3 97.6 99.3 100.0 November 94.1 98.1 100.0 100.0 December 95.2 98.9 99.4 100.0 January 95.2 99.0 100.0 100.0 February 94.1 99.3 100.0 100.0 March 96.5 99.6 100.0 100.0 Total 93.7 99.1 99.8 100.0

* Living expenses or other needs requiring a very urgent decision.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 31 Appendix 5 The Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain

Karamjit Singh CBE was appointed as the Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain in December 2009. He also holds a similar statutory appointment as the Social Fund Commissioner for Northern Ireland, which is a separate jurisdiction. He was appointed as the Judicial Appointments Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in September 2006.

The early part of his career has covered academia, the voluntary sector, local government and the Commission for Racial Equality.

His previous appointments have included the Police Complaints Authority, the Parole Board, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Judicial Studies Board, the Civil Service Commission, the Electoral Commission, the Queen’s Counsel Selection Panel, the Employment Tribunal and chairing an NHS Trust.

His past voluntary activities include, being a Trustee of the Citizenship Foundation, the Lloyds TSB Foundation, the British Lung Foundation and organising free medical camps in an Indian village.

32 The Social Fund Commissioner’s Annual Report 2011/2012 Independent Review Service for the Social Fund

4th Floor Centre City Podium 5 Hill Street Birmingham B5 4UB

Telephone: 0121 606 2100 Facsimile: 0121 606 2180 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.irs-review.org.uk

Published by Corporate Document Services and available from:

Publications Orderline Corporate Document Services 7 Eastgate Leeds LS2 7LY Printed on FSC certified paper United Kingdom from sustainable forests. Tel: 01296 421 918 E-mail: [email protected] www.cds.co.uk ISBN 978-1-908523-69-3 ISBN 9781908523693

£16.00

9 781908 523693