Findings – How good are the services?

20 A best value inspection checks that an LA has agreed the key aims for the service being inspected, how clear those aims are to the people who receive the service and whether those aims relate to the LA's corporate aims.

21 Best value requires LAs to show why they are providing the service under review and whether alternative ways of providing the service have been examined. The challenge element of Best value is an important part of the performance improvement requirement. Part of the task for benefits is to show that both corporate and community aims are being met.

Are the aims clear and challenging?

22 From our inspection interviews it was clear that Ashford's Members and senior officers are committed to improvement. Ashford’s corporate aims are set out in its corporate plan which has 6 main themes:

• community participation
• cross-cutting issues (issues covering a range of different services)
• economic development;
• developing partnerships;
• health; and
• environment.

23 A key corporate aim is to develop partnerships by a range of means.

24 Ashford’s BVR approach requires BVR’s to identify strategic aims and objectives. Officers and Members are keen to deliver against corporate priorities. It is a strength of Ashford’s service planning that corporate aims are translated into measurable outcomes and targets. For example, the Shortened form of service delivery plan for Revenues and Benefits has a chapter specifying its contribution to the corporate strategy, including areas such as youth, crime and disorder and the environment. Revenues and Benefits is committed to developing an anti-poverty strategy and so contribute to the corporate objective of reducing crime and disorder.

25 Targets in the service plan focus on the next five years. This is in keeping with the Best value requirement for all services to meet the current performance of the top quartile in five years. Targets cover all the set Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs), and provide for continuous improvement in performance levels.

26 ABS's contribution to corporate objectives is covered in the service plan as well as in the BVR. It was not immediately clear that ABS priorities changed during the BVR to meet Ashford’s changing aims and objectives, but Ashford told us that increased emphasis was put on community consultation.

27 The link with corporate objectives is carried forward into the action plan. This covers ABS's contribution to youth, environment and crime issues. There is also a strong emphasis in the plan on developing working relationships with external partners. This is very much in keeping with corporate plan objectives. The BVR is now challenging, albeit belatedly, whether corporate aims and objectives could be delivered more effectively, for example if Ashford adopted alternative approaches to providing a benefit service.

28 The views of local people on ABS are expressed through consultation, congratulations, complaints or referrals to the local government ombudsman. Ashford has had relatively few complaints about ABS – only six in 2001, of which two involved the local government ombudsman. We also examined Ashford’s complaints and congratulations file for 2000/01. Complaints received related to such issues as the perceived behaviour of investigators, delays in liaison with Ashford Weald and appeals issues. We also saw examples of congratulations and thanks to the service during the inspection.

29 The BVR involved extensive consultation with internal and external stakeholders. Ashford also has a user forum to represent local people's views. Users are forthright and have expressed their views, on the future direction of the service as well as the future targets set for the service. This means Ashford is in a good position to understand customer expectations and priorities.

Does the service meet the aims?

30 Having considered the aims of the service, inspectors then make an assessment of how well Ashford is performing in meeting those aims. This includes an assessment of performance against specific standards and targets, and Ashford’s approach to measuring whether it is actually delivering what it set out to do.

Customer services

31 Customer services at Ashford are initially dealt with in the reception area, or customers can phone direct to the assessment section. There is no call centre at present, although Ashford is considering this.

32 The user forum, Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and social landlords were positive about the standard of service provided. In particular, they told us that it was easy to reach ABS by phone and that queries that previously meant visiting the Civic Centre can now be resolved by phone.

33 Ashford's customer services were sound. Further details appear at Appendix B. Claimants gave us favourable feedback and staff were highly professional. But we had some concerns:

• the limited use made of private interviewing facilities for claimants being interviewed at Ashford although service user forum representatives do not see this as a problem
• there are no locally produced leaflets on HB issues; and
• there is some potential for confusion about signposting and queuing arrangements.

34 Ashford knows that it needs to improve its customer interface further:

• Notices of determination will be revised once the service moves over to a new computer system
• The claim form needs redesigning in the light of recent BFI guidance
• ABS needs to develop its publicity through leaflets and posters to help maximise its profile and improve take-up

Claim turnaround performance

35 In 1999, Ashford was one of the first authorities in Kent to implement the VF. Initially this caused some problems in the speedy processing of claims but these have been addressed. As part of our reality checks we looked at a small sample of benefit files. We noted that Ashford were conscientious in collecting evidence to verify claims, and evidence was held on file. However, files are loose leaf and we recommend that Ashford ensures that files are tagged to improve controls.

36 Ashford has made considerable progress over the past year in reducing the volume of work outstanding. In mid July 2000 this stood at 1,105 items. By 8 July 2001, at the time of our on-site inspection, this had fallen to 386 items. This has been achieved by a variety of methods including Saturday working. Interviews and workshops with staff confirm that this progress has had a positive effect on morale and motivation.

37 Performance on the new claim processing BVPI in 2000/01 reached a cumulative average of 32 days, and 9 days was the average processing time for changes of circumstances. Some 88% of renewal claims were processed on time, and 89% of all claims were processed within 14 days. During our on-site inspection, performance levels for the 3 months to June 2001 were:

• 32 days for new claims
• 7 days for changes of circumstances
• 95% of renewal claims processed on time; and
• 91% of all benefit claims processed within 14 days.

38 All this is very encouraging and suggests ABS is well on course to meet its service plan targets. This is particularly impressive when considering the context of the service’s performance in 1999, and we commend Ashford for this and the progress it has made in this period.

39 Ashford has a relatively high volume of reviews and further reviews, with 362 requests for officer review in 2000/01. Of these, 121 were completed in 14 days and 169 led to a change in the original determination. This may reflect the publicity Ashford gives to appeals and reviews. We found one case in our sampling where a claimant appeared to have been denied appeal rights against the recovery of an overpayment. Although the claimant had not pursued the issue and although not material we agree with the concerns raised by the benefit manager when the case was checked recently. From 2 July 2001, responsibility for appeals at Ashford has passed to the appeals service.

Performance monitoring

40 Ashford has set ABS some achievable targets in its service plan, including to assess new claims in 26 days by 31 March 2005. Ashford has good performance reporting arrangements in the Revenues and Benefit service, including extensive spreadsheet analyses showing performance month by month and a comparison with previous years.

41 ABS is generally meeting its targets set, but the 100% customer satisfaction target could be unrealistic. We recognise that this is a corporate standard, however and not a target set by ABS. Our main concern is that the District Auditor has reported, in his opinion on Ashford’s 2001/02 best value performance plan, that due to a resourcing difficulty Ashford stopped corporate monitoring of progress on BVPIs for a period. We recognise that benefits services continued to forward its data for corporate monitoring in this period, and continued to monitor its own performance. The corporate issue is being addressed.

42 After some discussion with officers, we found that individual targets were set for benefits processing staff. However, there was no explicit link between individual targets and the overall targets for ABS in the service plan. An impressive feature of Ashford's arrangements is the information that is collected monthly on individual performance which provides the basis for comparisons of performance and productivity. We commend these arrangements.

43 Staff reported that annual appraisals, or performance development discussions had been completed. Training was reported to be readily available but figures supplied by Ashford for the questionnaire indicated that 83 days of training had been provided for 27 members of staff, an average of 3 days each. There may be scope to improve training arrangements, through more formal ways of identifying training needs.

Management checks and procedures

44 Management checks are important to assess standards and to identify training and development needs. Before April 2000, Ashford carried out accuracy checks through the benefits manager and independently through the client manager. Since then it carries out management checks as part of the compilation of the DWP Management Information Statistics 128 returns. And Ashford goes beyond this. Other checks cover compliance with VF and subsection 1(1A) and (1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

45 Ashford’s management checking is carried out by the benefits manager. It is some way below the 10% level recommended by the Audit Commission and BFI's Good Practice Guide. Ashford considers it does not need to undertake this extent of checking in view of its high reported accuracy rates. However, it is setting up a subsidy and control section from September 2001 which could facilitate a higher level of checking.

46 It is also important that management checks are documented, for example on a review sheet. Some LAs (for example Gloucester City Council) have made good use of this sort of documentation. Although the benefits manager notes issues arising on the computer print from which checks are selected there is scope for a more structured approach, as set out in the BFI Good Practice Guide. We consider that this would improve performance management.

47 It is also important that management checks are backed up by clear and consistent procedures. Ashford has no up-to-date procedures manual in place at present. However, it plans to develop one as part of its move to the new IT system.

48 Ashford has some strong features in its management of assessment performance, although areas such as individual target setting, training and management checks could be further developed.

Subsidy

49 Subsidy is a key issue for Ashford, in common with other LAs. This is also important to our best value assessment since subsidy issues can significantly affect the cost effectiveness of the service. Ashford has had some difficulties with its subsidy claim for the past two years and it has been qualified and amended by EA.

50 The 1999/2000 claim was qualified on the basis of:

• overstatement of claimant error overpayments by technical overpayments which had not been corrected by assessment staff; and
• WBS claims did not meet the criteria, particularly 100% claims.

51 Other minor errors were also found and the overall impact on subsidy was a reduction of nearly £27,000. We recognise that the sums involved are relatively small compared with the amount claimed.

52 We noted that at the time of our on-site inspection there had been no full Internal Audit (IA) review of the HB system. IA involvement had been limited, although there had been coverage of subsidy issues in response to the critical EA report. IA also played a key role in the EFQM work which formed part of the BVR. However, IA plans to undertake a full systems review in partnership with EA once the new FIRST IT system is implemented.

Management information

53 Management information is an essential tool for effective delivery of a well-run benefits service. Ashford has some strong management information tools on service performance on both BVPIs and locally determined indicators.

54 However, we confirmed the BVR finding that monitoring of financial information on subsidy, in particular the percentage of costs of the service recovered from subsidy, was not done in Revenues and Benefits. Ashford plans to bring together the Revenues and Benefits and Financial Services business units to improve communication and co-ordination. A particular area of weakness is overpayments, which we discuss below and at Appendix D.

Overpayments

55 We examined the overpayment recovery process at Ashford and had serious concerns about the overall management of the process. Further details appear at Appendix D. There is no overall control of the management of the recovery process. Responsibilities for Rent Allowance overpayment recovery are split between Financial Services and Revenues and Benefits, although this is planned to change from September 2001, when Revenues and Benefits will assume responsibility. Ashford Weald is responsible for recovering Rent Rebate overpayments.

56 Management information on overpayments is a particular problem for Ashford. Ashford could not provide accurate and reliable information to support the BVPI on overpayment recovery. We were told that the recovery figure is based on an estimate. Similarly information is not readily available on levels of debt outstanding and recoveries made.

57 We also found that Ashford does not use all available means of overpayment recovery. In particular, it does not recover overpayments through registering them at the county court. Policy and procedural guidance to financial services staff is not available, although a document has been prepared for benefits staff in readiness for the restructure in September 2001.

58 We also found serious weaknesses in the performance management arrangements for overpayments including an absence of monitoring and management checks in this important area of benefits administration which concerns us.

How does performance compare?

Cost per claim

59 The average cost of processing benefit claims in Ashford was £103.61 in 1999/2000, which is significantly above the average processing costs of the top 25% (£84.02). It is also above the average.

60 Ashford attributes the high cost per claim to high IT costs and management overheads. IT costs are not expected to fall significantly in the short-term as ABS moves to a new software system. In the longer-term, IT costs may fall when the IT mainframe contract is reviewed in 2003/04. Management overheads are being addressed, for example through the merger of the Revenues and Benefits and Financial services business units. In the past year, Ashford has lost the client manager post and the senior client officer post is being deleted. Accommodation costs are also expected to fall from 2002/03.

61 At the time of our on-site inspection, Ashford was demonstrating, through engagement with the private sector, that current arrangements were cost effective and securing best value or, if not, identifying where the private sector could make a contribution to increased efficiency. The recently developed vision statement states that partnership arrangements, probably in a support capacity, will be the way that this is taken forward.

Speed of benefit claim clearance

62 A new set of Audit Commission performance indicators was introduced in 1999/2000 analysing the average processing time for each type of benefit claim. These show that the average new claim processing times at Ashford for all benefit types are just outside the top quartile. And this is good performance. Comparative information is not yet available for 2000/01.

63 Ashford recorded an average processing time of 33 days in 1999/2000 for new claims for CTB. Top quartile district authorities were processing such claims within 30 days (average 46 days).

64 Ashford recorded an average processing time of 35 days for new claims for HB from LA tenants. Top quartile district authorities were processing claims within 28 days (average 41 days).

65 Ashford recorded an average processing time of 40 days for new claims for Rent Allowance from private sector housing claimants. Top quartile district authorities were processing claims within 33 days (average 46 days).

Overpayment recovery performance

66 In 1999/2000, Ashford recovered 53% of recoverable overpayments. Top quartile performers recorded 80% and the average was 67%. Performance for this indicator has reduced to 40% in 2000/01. This is of concern and is discussed at Appendix D.

Benefit customer satisfaction

67 Results of customer satisfaction ratings in 1999/2000 were 70%, which was below average. Many improvements have since been made in this rating since then. For example in the DTLR customer satisfaction survey for 2001, 82% were satisfied with the overall service provided in the office and a very high 86% were satisfied with the staff in the office. Indeed Ashford was the best in Kent on 4 of the 6 ratings.

Previous
Next