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.