BFI findings

Strategic Management

Fig. 2.1: Results of BFI's assessment for Strategic Management

Source: BFI analysis
For an explanation about how to read this radar chart see Executive Summary.

2.1 Benefits administration has to be set within the much broader context of a local authority’s overall strategies and responsibilities towards, for example, neighbourhood renewal, alleviating poverty, preventing homelessness, helping people into work and enhancing consumer choice.

2.2 In its self-assessment, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that it was at Standard for 2 of the Strategic Management elements, performance monitoring and organisational structure. We found that it was not at Standard for any of the elements.

2.3 To help us comment on London Borough of Barking and Dagenham's effectiveness in this area we took account of:

· key corporate and service level strategic documents and plans

· HB and CTB performance targets and information.

2.4 We spoke to senior managers. We also held workshops with staff within the Benefits service and those services on which benefits administration had an impact.

2.5 Figure 2.2 illustrates how some of the documents we refer to in this report link together.

Fig. 2.2: An overview of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham's strategic planning documents

Source: BFI analysis

The Vision

2.6 A statement expressing the Vision for the local authority enables Members, managers and staff to have a clear sense of direction, purpose and focus for their work. It also allows the public to understand where the key priorities for the council lie and how these fit into the overall business aims for delivery.

2.7 We found that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element. Its strategic vision for the Benefits service had not been endorsed by Members and it did not contain reference to a commitment to:

· reducing the risk and level of fraud and error

· investigating and punishing fraud.

2.8 After consulting with stakeholders in 2000 the council developed the following 7 Community Priorities:

· Promoting Equal Opportunities and Celebrating Diversity

· Better Education and Learning for All

· Developing Rights and Responsibilities with the local community

· Improving Health and Social Care

· Making Barking and Dagenham Cleaner, Greener, and Safe

· Raising General Pride in the Borough

· Regenerating the Local Economy.

2.9 From these priorities, in June 2001, a vision for 2020 was developed. This provided a framework for the development of its Community Strategy, from which all its other strategies and plans were derived. This will be further developed in partnership with other local agencies, through the work of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham's Local Strategic Partnership.

2.10 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had 7 vision statements. One for each of its 7 priorities. Each one supported by key target dates, main issues and specific actions. However, none of these made direct reference to the Benefits service.

2.11 The council's vision for its Revenues Services was:

To provide the customer with modern up to date access using all media and technology available to give a service that is easy to use, convenient to the customer, provides accurate information in a timely manner and, deals with queries efficiently and effectively on the first visit.

2.12 Our interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness of the Revenues Services' vision. There were no documents, other than a report on the Benefits service by external consultants, that contained the Vision.

2.13 In February 2003 the external consultants recommended that the Vision be amended in consultation with managers, staff and customers and suggested the following format:

The Revenues and Benefits service will give customers a fast and accurate service. It will provide staff with the technology and conditions they need to deliver that service and, the resources to help them detect and prevent fraud. The service will provide good value for money and will achieve the highest standards.

2.14 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had not developed a new vision along the lines recommended and no vision had been included in the Revenues Services Strategy for 2003/04.

2.15 In the Revenues Services Strategy, links to 4 of the Community Priorities were identified as:

· Promoting Equal Opportunities and Celebrating Diversity - to ensure that all residents with housing costs have the same opportunities to make and complete claims for benefits, exemptions and discounts

· Developing Rights and Responsibilities with the local community - by developing responsibilities in all residents to recognise and make their contribution to services by the prompt payment of their council tax, rents and other council charges for the benefit of their own community

· Improving Health and Social Care - by maximising the collection of monies due to the council we will ensure that the funds are available to help meet these priorities

· Raising General Pride in the Borough - through our support a resident enabled to pay their way will become a valued individual encouraged to develop that pride in their community.

2.16 From our interviews with staff we found that the details in the Revenues Services Strategy had not been widely communicated. Staff did not relate to the strategy or identify the role of the Benefits service in delivering the council's corporate priorities.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops a strategic vision for the Benefits service which is endorsed by Members, containing reference to a commitment to: - reducing the risk and level of fraud and error - investigating and punishing fraud · communicates and discusses the contents of the Revenues Services Strategy with all Benefits service staff.

Policy objectives

2.17 Authorities should support the strategic vision with high level policies and clear objectives for the Benefits service. Together these should:

· eliminate the need for senior managers to make recurring or routine decisions

· provide a systematic way of delegating operational decisions in a manner that will sustain consistency of approach and equity of service

· be linked to high level strategic and business plans.

2.18 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because the strategic policies and objectives for the Benefits service did not:

· have a vision

· bridge the gap between the Vision and the current position

· make specific reference to minimising backlogs of work.

2.19 There was a clear structure in place at corporate level for developing, implementing, measuring and reviewing policies, but this had not been used by the Benefits service. This was because managers and staff in the Benefits service had not identified how the work of the service supported the council's priorities.

2.20 During 2003, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham developed some policies for the Benefits service. An anti-fraud policy and strategy, including a prosecution policy had been developed and was endorsed by Members in June 2003. We found that this policy required further development. Further details on this are in the section on Counter-fraud.

2.21 Draft policies covering HB and CTB overpayment recovery and the Discretionary Hardship Scheme were produced in June 2003, but at the time of the on-site phase of our inspection they had not been completed and endorsed by Members.

2.22 However, gaps in policy development remained. For example, in relation to social inclusion, overpayment write-off and weeding and destruction of documents.

2.23 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had established a Social Inclusion Policy Commission in October 2002. Members were appointed to this Commission in January 2003. At the time of the on-site phase of our inspection a Social Inclusion Strategy was being finalised. We were pleased to note that this included a section on support for families through maximisation of income and that encouraging benefit take-up had been identified as a means of doing this.

2.24 The Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 contained no direct links to the council's 7 Community Priorities and their associated vision statements. The Revenues Services Strategy for 2004/05 being developed while we were on site included these links.

2.25 The Executive Member portfolio holder for Housing and Council Tax Benefits, as part of an annual planning cycle, had endorsed the Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 on behalf of Members. The plan stated that:

…the aim therefore is by working together in partnership to provide a customer-focused, modern and efficient service which will be achieved by collecting all monies due, making best use of existing resources and meeting all requirements of the Performance Standards.

2.26 The plan identified step changes required to reach top quartile performance levels for the Best Value Performance Indicators relevant to the Benefits service. It detailed the projects to be undertaken to deliver an improved service, but key in-year milestone dates and the identification of individual lead officers were not documented.

2.27 The plan did not include a target to specifically minimise backlogs. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that, due to Council Tax annual billing arrangements and staff absences during the summer holidays, a backlog of work built up in the first 2 quarters of each financial year. However, this was cleared in the third or fourth quarter. Despite these being annual events, we found no evidence of a documented plan to deal with backlogs.

2.28 Although there was an overarching Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07, there was an absence of plans for each team within the business unit to demonstrate support for strategic and operational objectives.

2.29 A counter-fraud business plan had been developed, which identified team and individual targets for 2003/04. However, the plan did not include references to corporate or Benefits service priorities.

2.30 In 2002, following the assessment of the Benefits service as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment process, consultants had been appointed to report on a strategic way forward to improve the delivery of the service. The report produced in February 2003 identified the need to develop policies to support the aims of the service. In response to the report London Borough of Barking and Dagenham produced an Improvement Plan for Revenues. The Director of Finance presented this plan to the Corporate Monitoring Group in June 2003.

2.31 A commitment by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham to bring the Benefits service up to the Department's Performance Standards in each of the 7 functional areas was contained in several documents. In February 2003 the external consultants' report identified that additional resources were required to meet this objective. Members approved £500,000 additional funding for 2003/04.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops explicit policies and objectives for its Benefits service that are drawn directly from its Benefits service vision statement · ensures all plans identify key milestone target dates and lead officers with responsibility for delivering them · sets objectives and develops plans specifically to minimise backlogs · develops team plans that demonstrate support for strategic and operational objectives of the council and for the Benefits service.

Operational planning

2.32 Operational planning ensures that resources are effectively managed and monitored to deliver service standards and performance targets.

2.33 An operational plan for administering HB and CTB translates the Vision, policies and objectives into practical ways of providing a service. Effective operational plans will allow any changes that are required to improve the HB and CTB service to be managed.

2.34 Plans can only be effective if they are developed, used, monitored and adapted to meet changing circumstances. Managers and staff need to be convinced that the plans are realistic and achievable.

2.35 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because:

· its HB and CTB plans did not take into account peaks and troughs in workloads and the resources required to meet these demands

· plans did not identify clear lines of accountability and responsibility for progress monitoring and reporting

· plans were not communicated to and did not recognise the impact on, all its stakeholders

· it did not have a documented business continuity plan.

2.36 The council had published an annual Performance Plan, which set out how it was performing and how it planned to improve services for local people. Each head of service was required to produce a set of plans which comprised:

· a strategy statement setting out the medium and long-term vision for the service

· service objectives and local and Best Value Performance Indicators to measure these objectives

· an implementation plan.

2.37 The Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 was produced in line with corporate procedures and identified internal and external stakeholders, but failed to demonstrate who had responsibility for addressing stakeholder needs. Links between resource requirements and peaks and troughs of workloads were also not identified.

2.38 Because business and strategic plans had not been communicated to Benefits service staff, key objectives and corporate goals were not widely known. These were not reflected in individual work objectives, discussed with staff as part of the appraisal system, or used to develop staff training and development plans.

2.39 Weekly and monthly workload counts were undertaken and these were used by Control Officers and the Operations Officer (Claims), at staff meetings, to prioritise and distribute resources. However, there was no evidence that the data had been used to evaluate and refine business processes to make better use of resources and improve customer services.

2.40 The Benefits service did not communicate its priorities to stakeholders within Revenues Services, for example, to the Rent Accounts Service and Non-Domestic Rates and Council Tax section. We found that the absence of structured meetings between the various teams within Revenues Services, either at practitioner or team leader level, had resulted in a failure by the Benefits service to co-ordinate activity to ensure that all available resources were used to deliver an effective customer service. For example, information about reported changes of address was not shared between the Benefits service and the Income and Collection Service.

2.41 We were told that to improve communications within Revenues Services, the Head of Revenues planned to introduce quality circle meetings involving all teams in December 2003 to deal with specific areas of work.

2.42 In August 2003, the council published its anti-fraud policy and strategy externally. It used a targeted publicity campaign to actively seek public support to identify and deter HB fraud in the borough. However, at this time the
Counter-fraud team did not have the resources to deal with the increase in referrals that followed the campaign.

2.43 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had plans to introduce a new benefits IT system and an electronic document management system. In May 2003 a notice had been placed in the Official Journal of the European Commission seeking interest from companies in tendering for the provision of these systems. A bid had also been made to the Department's Performance Standards fund. The project had slipped behind schedule due to pressures on the interim manager, appointed to oversee this project, while that officer temporarily covered the post of Head of Revenues. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that it planned to appoint a project manager and the electronic document management system was expected to be operational by the end of 2004 and the benefits IT system by the end of 2005.

2.44 The Benefits service did not have a documented business continuity plan. While we were on site a postal strike disrupted receipt of claim forms and dispatch of cheques to customers. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham did not have a plan to deal with this type of situation. It is essential that plans are in place for responding to such disruptions.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops its Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 to identify: - peaks and troughs in workloads and the resource available to deal with it - the resources needed to implement change - clear lines of responsibility and accountability for progress reporting · ensures that its Benefits service plans recognise the impact on all key stakeholders and that these are communicated to them and progress reported on a regular basis · develops a documented business continuity plan for its Benefits service and ensures: - the plan is communicated to all staff - individuals’ responsibilities are understood and can be acted on in case of an emergency.

Performance targets

2.45 Performance targets underpin policy objectives and service standards and give staff a clear view of the desired outcome, and management clear accountability for providing effective and secure administration.

2.46 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because:

· it did not set performance targets for the Benefits service that were Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based or covered the whole range of the council's relevant policy objectives

· performance targets were not communicated to stakeholders

· the council did not ensure that managers and staff understood the targets

· targets were not reflected in key work objectives.

2.47 In 2002, to help it meet its 7 Community Priorities, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham developed a balanced scorecard to translate strategic objectives into a coherent set of performance measures. In 2003 following its Customer First Best Value review the scorecard was revised to include Customer First. The balanced scorecard provided managers with 5 different perspectives from which to measure performance. These were:

· Community First

· Customer First

· Funding the Future

· Performance Counts

· People Matter.

2.48 These performance perspectives were supported by a total of
38 corporate performance indicators through which progress towards achieving corporate objectives was measured. As well as the corporate balanced scorecard each service produced a scorecard.

2.49 The Revenues Services Strategy and the Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 identified clear links between the original 4 performance measures and set out the performance indicators to be used to measure outcomes. We noted however, that reference to Customer First performance measures were not included in the plan. These were:

· meeting customer needs first

· providing accessible local services

· improving standards

· community leadership role.

2.50 While we were on site we saw evidence that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham planned to include Customer First performance indicators in its balanced scorecard for Revenues Services in 2004/05. It had set specific objectives, performance indicators, targets and actions to meet corporate objectives. For example:

· objective: to reduce the number of service complaints

· performance indicator: percentage of complaints made compared against previous year

· target: 10% reduction in number of complaints received

· action: investigate all complaints to track and identify service improvements.

2.51 The Benefits service had set local targets, Best Value Performance Indicators and objectives from 2003 - 2007. These included a range of policy and operational initiatives linked to its service scorecard, for example, Introduce On line procedures manual, linked with Performance Counts. However, the targets were not all Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based.

2.52 Best Value and local targets were published in the council’s annual Performance Plan and on its website. Information was provided by the Benefits service at meetings with external organisations for example, with registered social landlords. But these were infrequent and did not cover all stakeholders, such as private landlords.

2.53 Benefits service information was reported in the council’s monthly magazine Citizen, distributed to all households within the borough. However, this was not done on a regular basis. For example, there was no Benefits service information in the August, September, and October 2003 publications. There was no performance information on display in public waiting areas at the Customer Services reception. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that its policy was to display performance information in staff areas but not in public areas.

2.54 Since October 2003, performance levels had been discussed at weekly meetings held between the Head of Revenues and senior managers. Managers had responsibility for cascading information and explaining decisions to staff. We were told that the process was still evolving and more needed to be done to consult with staff so that the relationship between targets, corporate priorities and delivering customer service was better understood. From our interviews, we found the purpose and importance of particular targets was not apparent to staff.

2.55 The Assessment team had targets to complete specific tasks, for example:

· private tenant claim when in receipt of Income Support (IS) or
income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA(IB)) - 17 minutes

· private tenant claim when not in receipt of IS or JSA(IB) - 23 minutes

· council tenant claim when in receipt of IS or JSA(IB) - 12 minutes

· council tenant claim when not in receipt of IS or JSA(IB) - 18 minutes.

2.56 The targets were set using productivity data. However, there had been no assessment of performance against these targets since March 2003.

2.57 The Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 identified the need to review staff key work objectives, as they did not accurately reflect the jobs undertaken by staff. We also found that they did not contain targets that were Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that a target date of November 2003 had been set to complete the review but that the process would not be finalised until March 2004.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· sets performance targets for its Benefits service that are: - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based - cover the whole range of the council's relevant policy objectives · communicates its performance targets on standards of service to all key stakeholders · ensures that job descriptions are updated to reflect current tasks and individual performance targets are set in key work objectives for all Benefits service staff.

Performance monitoring

2.58 Performance monitoring provides assurance to Members and senior officers that HB and CTB administration is effective and secure. It is important that Members and senior officers receive reports on performance against the Vision, objectives and plans to make the accountability process transparent. Performance monitoring can also encourage the development of a culture of continuous improvement.

2.59 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us it was at Standard in this element, but we found that it was not because:

· it did not collect sufficient accurate management information to monitor performance against all local targets, or the counter-fraud Best Value Performance Indicators

· it did not provide accurate subsidy returns to the Department

· it did not provide accurate or timely management information to the Department

· staff were not made aware of the ongoing levels of performance in the Benefits service.

2.60 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham published its 2003/04 Best Value Performance Plan in June 2003. The plan set out how it would use the targets within the balanced scorecard system to measure progress in delivering the council's priorities. Senior officers and the Executive monitored performance quarterly in relation to:

· Best Value Performance Indicators, excluding those for counter-fraud

· local targets, where performance information was available.

2.61 Following the on-site phase of the inspection, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that monthly monitoring of performance indicators by senior officers had been introduced from January 2004.

2.62 Since October 2003, the monitoring process had included the delivery of a quarterly performance management report completed by the Head of Revenues for the Executive Member portfolio holder for Housing and Council Tax Benefits. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that from February 2004 this had been changed from a quarterly to a monthly process.

2.63 The council used the data received from heads of service to compare its performance against other London boroughs and neighbouring authorities.

2.64 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us the Corporate Monitoring Group received reports in relation to performance indicators where performance was below target. Reports and, if necessary, verbal presentations were also required by the Scrutiny Management Board. For
example, if levels of performance on Best Value Performance Indicators fell within the bottom quartile, or if performance was deteriorating. The council's Scrutiny Management Board had responsibility for checking and challenging issues on policy or service delivery. We were shown the report on the Benefits service for November 2003 which provided details of performance on:

· speed of processing new HB and CTB claims

· the level of overpayments recovered.

2.65 The Benefits service had not been able to collect management information in respect of all its Best Value Performance Indicators, for example, the new counter-fraud indicators introduced in 2003/04. We found that procedures were not in place to capture other performance data in relation to local targets, for example, in relation to its telephone service and response times to correspondence. Senior officers and Members did not receive management information relating to appeals and requests for reconsideration.

2.66 We found that staff were aware of levels of performance at team level, but not the overall situation within the Benefits service. There was no evidence of annual targets or in-month performance on display on notice boards within the offices used by the Benefits service. This was a missed opportunity to raise the profile of the Benefits service, to keep staff informed of outcomes and to demonstrate where resources were being targeted.

2.67 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had not provided timely management information to the Department. It had not submitted any Verification Framework returns since June 2001 and counter-fraud information had been supplied late on a number of occasions. An example of problems with subsidy returns to the Department was that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham failed to reconcile under and overpayments between financial years.

2.68 We also found that, due to deficiencies of the benefits IT system, returns to the Department could only be provided after a significant level of clerical intervention. For example, in compiling data on overpayments, backdated claims and extended payments.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· collects accurate and timely information in respect of all Best Value Performance Indicators · ensures that accurate subsidy returns and management information are submitted to the Department on time · provides management information on the whole range of performance to Members, Benefits service staff and interested third parties to underpin policy objectives and documented strategic plans.

Organisational structure

2.69 It is important that human and other resources are available to provide an effective Benefits service. Organisational design will obviously be influenced by council-wide policy on issues such as:

· service centralisation or decentralisation

· outsourcing

· the size and geography of the local authority

· the siting of benefits and counter-fraud work within Finance or Housing, or a combination within these or other departments.

2.70 The organisational structure adopted should not have an adverse impact on the administration of benefits. The Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation recommends therefore that a benefits manager should occupy a senior position within the authority with a direct reporting line to the Section 151 Officer.

2.71 Figures 2.3 - 2.5 show the organisational structure at London Borough of Barking and Dagenham at the time of our on-site work. Figure 2.3 provides details of the senior management structure, Figure 2.4 provides details of Revenues Services' structure and Figure 2.5 details of the Rents and Benefits Business Unit.

Fig. 2.3: Position of Revenues Services within the senior management organisational structure

Source: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Fig. 2.4: Revenues Services organisational structure

Source: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Fig. 2.5: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham's Rents and Benefits Business Unit organisational structure

Source: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and BFI analysis

2.72 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham reported that it was at Standard in this element, but we found it was not because:

· the council did not ensure individual roles and responsibilities were clearly defined and understood

· management lines of responsibility within the Benefits service were not clear and logical

· the Benefits service organisational structure did not facilitate the establishment of clear service standards for effective and secure management of the service

· management control was not maintained over the resources available to deliver the service

· the organisational structure did not provide clear lines of communication between the Benefits service and other parts of the council organisation involved directly or indirectly with HB and CTB administration.

2.73 The organisational structure provided by London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was extremely complex. When we compared the structure to staff in post, we found that it was not up-to-date and did not reflect current work activities. For example:

· the Visiting team did not have a manager or team leader

· several references were made to individuals who had transferred to other parts of the organisation

· the job title Operations Officer (Training and Support) was misleading as this officer was not the training officer

· staff grades were not accurately reflected.

2.74 We also found that:

· job descriptions did not accurately reflect the work of individuals

· individuals with the same job descriptions undertook different duties

· individuals with different job descriptions undertook the same duties.

2.75 We were told that the chart had not been kept up-to-date as the organisational structure was under review. Steps were first taken to restructure the Benefits service in 2001. Consultation with staff continued in 2002 with the expectation of having a new organisation in place by January 2003. However, a further service review was undertaken by external consultants in February 2003 who indicated that a significant restructuring of the service would be required to implement their proposals in full or in part.

2.76 Plans for the restructuring were due to be reported to the Executive in September 2003, but the new Head of Revenues had temporarily put these on hold pending further consultation with staff. This consultation had commenced and it was envisaged a new structure would be in place by April 2004.

2.77 A lack of clarity in the organisation had resulted in individuals not always knowing who to turn to for advice and left the Visiting team without a line manager. To comply with the need to verify National Insurance numbers, in 1999 the council recruited a team of verification visiting officers reporting to the Counter-fraud manager. This method of verifying National Insurance numbers ceased in October 2001, but the team was retained to undertake verification visits. However, the Counter-fraud manager stopped being its line manager when the role of the team changed in October 2001. In December 2003, following the on-site phase of our inspection, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham advised us that temporary arrangements had been made to ensure the Visiting team had the direct support and guidance they required.

2.78 A lack of succession planning had resulted in specialist tasks not being undertaken when post holders were absent. For example, the Operations Officer (Appeals and Overpayments) dealt with reconsiderations and appeals. Failure to train staff to cover this role led to delays and a deterioration in service when the post holder was absent. Our sample of cases involving requests for reconsideration showed that it took, on average, 133 days to deal with them. Our sample also showed evidence of customers being asked to contact the office again when the relevant officer returned to work. This level of specialisation and lack of flexibility also led to the organisation’s inability to release key staff to attend training courses.

2.79 The work of the Benefits service was split between teams and communication channels between these were not defined. This resulted in teams and individual members of staff being aware of only a small area of work. This led to:

· delays in the service. Our sample of new claims included 5 cases where requests had been made for benefit to be backdated. On average, it took 40 days from deciding the claim to making a decision in relation to the request for the benefit to be backdated. Requests for benefit to be backdated were dealt with by a different team to that which decided claims

· missed opportunities to maximise income. Our sample of new claims identified delays in starting recovery of overpayments from ongoing benefit when customers re-claimed benefit. In one case, this delay was from
18 August 2003, when entitlement was decided, to 20 October 2003 when recovery from ongoing benefit started. Different teams dealt with the tasks.

2.80 The organisation had responded to changes in HB and CTB legislation and guidance from the Department, but not in a structured way. Changes had been made without considering the impact on staff, or on internal and external stakeholders. For example, staff recruited to verify National Insurance numbers had transferred to the Customer Services team when this visiting initiative ended. But this happened without their terms and conditions and training needs being reviewed. These staff found that they were undertaking the same duties performed by colleagues of a higher grade. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us these anomalies would be resolved in
April 2004, when the new organisational structure was due to become operational.

2.81 The need to improve communications within Revenues Services was acknowledged by senior officers. We consider the introduction of quality circles as a positive way forward. However, we found that communications with other parts of the council also needed to improve. Because clear lines of responsibility had not been identified, opportunities to support key corporate activities had been missed. These involved, for example:

· publicising HB and CTB in the council’s neighbourhood renewal and regeneration strategies

· working in partnership with the Housing and Health Department during its audit of council properties so that benefit fraudsters could, where possible, be detected.

2.82 The supervision and day-to-day management of teams was not fully effective because of the limited time available to team leaders and managers to carry out this key function. Because all management information was collated manually, this took a large amount of time that managers would have preferred to use on managing their teams and developing partnerships with other council departments.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· appoints a permanent team leader for its Visiting team · identifies and implements partnership opportunities with other council departments · ensures levels of service are not compromised, by appointing and training sufficient staff to undertake the duties of specialist staff when they are absent.

Procedural guidance

2.83 HB and CTB are important components of the national benefits system and it is important that staff and managers responsible for their administration are supported and guided by good procedures.

2.84 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because it did not:

· have comprehensive documented procedures covering all aspects of its service delivery, incorporating all the regulations and the Department's guidance circulars

· ensure that procedures provided an accurate and up-to-date guide to actual practice

· have assurance that the benefit delivery procedures were universally understood by Benefits service staff and managers

· incorporate changes into documented procedures within 10 days of receipt.

2.85 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham produced some documented procedures between December 1999 and April 2000 covering issues such as contrived tenancies and case control of new HB and CTB claims. However, we found the instructions were difficult to follow and had not been maintained.

2.86 Draft written procedures had been completed on the identification and calculation of overpayments, but these were not widely available to Benefits service staff. A range of counter-fraud activities had been documented. However, these did not cover the full range of activities or reflect the legislative position.

2.87 Training notes had been completed which were intended to form the basis of a comprehensive procedure manual, but these were incomplete and did not include legislation or Audit Commission good practice. From our interviews we found that permanent and agency staff, were not aware of what written guidance was available to them or where it could be located.

2.88 In a report in 2001, Internal Audit highlighted the need to provide a comprehensive guidance manual to staff. The Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 included a task to provide an electronic on-line procedural manual by December 2003. However, this had not been completed. We were told that other options were being considered.

2.89 Technical support was available from more experienced staff and everyone had access to the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation legislation database on their work stations. But overall, we found that staff involved in benefits administration relied on custom and practice on a
day-to-day operational basis.

2.90 The absence of comprehensive written procedures impacted on the quality of customer service. As clear guidance had not been provided or compliance monitored due to the absence of quality checking, Customer Services, Logging and Pre-assessment and Assessment staff used different standards of verification in support of a claim. This led to unnecessary delays in processing 31% of claims in our new and changes of circumstances samples. The inconsistent approach also meant staff working in other parts of Revenues Services, dealing with customer enquiries, were unsure of what advice to give to customers.

2.91 We found that important information from the Department had been summarised and circulated to staff, but steps had not been taken to ensure that all relevant staff had read and understood the detail, and that a consistent approach had been adopted. As London Borough of Barking and Dagenham did not undertake management checks, follow-up action had not been taken to ensure that the correct interpretation had been applied.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops comprehensive documented procedures covering all aspects of its service delivery, incorporating all the regulations and current instructions · provides ongoing awareness training for staff and managers in use of the available guidance on the delivery of HB and CTB · introduces procedures to ensure that, when necessary, changes to procedures are implemented within 10 days of receiving information from the Department.

Management assurance

2.92 Members and senior managers, who are accountable for the delivery of a secure and effective HB and CTB administration, need routine regular and systematic assurance that the Benefits service and counter-fraud efforts are working as planned.

2.93 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because it did not have processes to ensure that regular management checking was undertaken as recommended by the Audit Commission in Countering Housing Benefit Fraud: A Management Handbook.

2.94 We found that the only quality checks undertaken were on 125 claims each quarter to provide information to the Department about the accuracy of HB and CTB payments. In June 2003 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham reported an accuracy rate of 99%. We consider this issue further in the section on Processing of Claims.

2.95 We also found that management checks were not undertaken on the work of the Counter-fraud team, or on the calculation of HB and CTB overpayments. This is addressed in the Counter-fraud and Overpayment sections.

2.96 There were no procedures in place to ensure that weaknesses identified through the limited quality checking fed into staff training or that operational procedures were reviewed.

2.97 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that steps were already in place to improve the situation. The proposed restructuring of the Benefits service included the introduction of quality control officers and subsidy and performance officers to perform a minimum of 10% checking on all case types.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· introduces formal procedures to carry out and record management checks on all areas of benefits and counter-fraud administration · regularly reports the results of management checks to senior officers and Members · develops and implements a process for using the results of management checks to review the effectiveness of existing business processes.

Management information

2.98 Management information provides a sound base for managers to evaluate the effectiveness and security of the benefits system and is a useful tool for management to make informed decisions on the day-to-day running of sections and to keep Members informed of performance. It should not be used simply to generate a local authority’s performance indicators.

2.99 We found that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham used management information to adjust work priorities and resource allocation. However, it was not at Standard because:

· we were unable to find any evidence that it used it to:

– identify patterns and risks and predict trends

– establish areas of low take-up

– identify procedural weaknesses

– assist continuous improvement in HB and CTB administration

· it did not use performance results to feed into staff training and development plans.

2.100 Senior managers and Members had, through a combination of the balanced scorecard mechanism, Best Value and the Comprehensive Performance Assessment reporting process, assessed its management information needs. Data from various departments was collated quarterly by the Corporate Strategy Department and translated graphically to demonstrate monthly and year-to-date performance against local and national targets. Graphs and a supporting narrative summary were reproduced on the council's website.

2.101 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that it experienced problems extracting the information required from the benefits IT system. Shortfalls in data were made up through manual counts and crosschecking which were time consuming and left little time to analyse information and make changes to improve the service.

2.102 There were similar problems in obtaining management information on telephone and personal callers to Customer Services reception. Limited information was produced monthly using manual counts to identify the number of telephone calls answered at the Customer Services Call Centre operated by the Customer Services team. We found that the report produced by the electronic queuing system in use at Customer Services reception only identified the number of callers. It did not evaluate the information it had on customer waiting times to inform operational planning.

2.103 In October 2002, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham purchased a computerised fraud case management system. At the time of the on-site phase of our inspection the system was not in operation and all management information had to be produced from manual records. However, there were no manual records from which the information could be easily obtained.

2.104 Problems obtaining comprehensive management information in relation to overpayments are covered in the Overpayments section.

2.105 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had not formulated plans to use management information gathered from manual counts and the benefits IT system. There was potential to use this information to inform staff training and development plans and for the continuous improvement of HB and CTB administration.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops and uses a range of management information to: - identify risks to effective benefits administration - assist the continuous improvement of HB and CTB administration - identify the causes of any deviations from plans and targets - focus its counter-fraud activity

· ensures that information about individual and team performance is fed back into staff training and development plans.

Training and development

2.106 Effective and secure delivery of HB and CTB depends on staff performance. The administration of these benefits is complex and staff retention and recruitment are major issues for managers. Local authorities should offer effective training, career and personal development activities.

2.107 Investment in the training and development of staff, plays a key role in:

· attracting new recruits

· retaining staff

· offering a career path for potential managers

· developing the management skills of more senior staff.

2.108 Investment in performance management can:

· bring greater consistency and fairness to the management of staff

· highlight where individuals need to develop or improve performance

· ensure that career advancement is based on demonstrable delivery of results and competence to take on greater responsibility.

2.109 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because it did not:

· have a training programme, at least to the standard of the Department's training plan, for new and existing staff

· have a formal mechanism in place to evaluate training to determine whether or not the needs of staff and the organisation had been met

· train staff to cover all areas within their job descriptions

· ensure that job descriptions were up-to-date, kept under review and properly reflect the work undertaken by the jobholder

· align individual objectives with those of the organisation

· ensure that all staff received interim and annual feedback on their performance from their line manager.

2.110 There was a corporate induction programme, however, not all new Benefits service staff had attended this. Also the corporate induction programme was not supported by a formal Revenues Services event.

2.111 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had a comprehensive corporate staff development programme, delivered through a combination of classroom events, training packs, e-learning and electronic media. This included:

· skills learning for front line staff, for example, dealing with customers, dealing with enquiries and complaints, effective writing

· management training, for example, leadership and team building, personal development, project management

· mentoring and job shadowing opportunities.

2.112 A pre-condition for receiving training was that attendees met with their line manager to agree objectives and decide how the learning would be used in their job. However, we did not find these processes operating in the Benefits service.

2.113 The value in developing and training staff had been recognised by Revenues Services in the Revenues Services Strategy. It had set an objective to ensure staff are well trained, dedicated, valued and economically developed. It planned to achieve this by 31 March 2004, through:

· investing in job specific training for all Revenues Services staff

· developing services to meet Investor in People standards.

2.114 However, historically training had not been a priority or properly resourced. For example, in 2002/03 only £3,940 had been allocated to train Benefits service staff and £5,698 spent. But to raise standards of service, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had allocated to Revenues Services a training budget of £50,000 for 2003/04. At the end of September 2003, the total spend on training was £16,599.

2.115 The Benefits service had also received £124,154 from the Department's Performance Standards fund to recruit and train benefits assessors. External trainers had trained these staff, with a programme aimed at equipping them with a basic level of knowledge to start work and consolidate that learning on the job. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was unable to provide us with information on how many additional staff this funding had financed.

2.116 There were 4 Benefits service staff undertaking the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation's National Vocational Qualification. While this was a positive initiative the staff involved had problems:

· relating the material covered in the course to their day-to-day duties partly due to the high level of specialisation of tasks in the Benefits service and partly due to the in-house benefits IT system

· devoting time to the tasks required to produce their portfolio of evidence.

2.117 We were told that all new staff in the Benefits service received training on the Verification Framework. Experienced Benefits service staff provided this training. However, the training records held by the Benefits service had not been maintained, so we were unable to confirm this.

2.118 At corporate level, training records were held, but these had not been updated for Revenues Services staff.

2.119 Staff identified their own training and development needs and raised them annually as part of the staff appraisal system. However, as London Borough of Barking and Dagenham did not keep up-to-date records of benefit specific training events and attendees, it could not confirm whether training had been delivered, or identified training needs had been met.

2.120 We found several instances of staff completing training courses without the corporate requirement of meeting with a line manager before and after the course to discuss the relevance and effectiveness of the course. There were also instances of staff being allocated a training course only to be told at short notice that they could not attend due to operational pressures on the service.

2.121 There was no evidence of a formal mechanism to evaluate training provided to ensure it was reviewed and revised in the light of lessons learned. External consultants had completed a training needs analysis in December 2001, but this had not been developed into a training plan.

2.122 The need to introduce a training strategy was reported in the Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07. As part of the restructure, the need for a training and policy officer had been identified. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us it had begun to develop a training plan and that it would be ready when the new structure came into operation.

2.123 All staff had job descriptions but these were generic and not tailored to the post holder. They did not include key work objectives, but we were told that these would be reviewed as part of the restructuring process.

2.124 All officers in the Logging and Pre-assessment and Assessment teams and many in the Customer Services team had the same:

· job title of HB Assistant

· job description.

2.125 The HB Assistant job descriptions covered a range of duties and levels of responsibility within those duties. The posts all appeared to have a career grade of Scale 3-6. However, it was not clear to staff how they progress from one grade to another. They perceived that there was no progression. Staff told us they found this frustrating. Frustration can lead to poor motivation and errors.

2.126 Part of the staff appraisal process involved monthly feedback to staff on their performance. Due to work pressures this had not been fully operational for several months. However, during the on-site phase of the inspection we saw evidence that the process had resumed.

2.127 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham aimed to achieve corporate Investor in People accreditation by May 2004.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· develops and implements a training plan to the standard set by the Department · develops and adopts a Benefits service specific induction programme for new staff · ensures that training issues raised through the staff appraisal system are collated at a central point within the Benefits service and the details used to develop a training plan · maintains a record of training undertaken by individuals and that this is used to update corporate and Benefits service records · introduces a formal mechanism for evaluating the training provided ensuring that this process is used to review and revise the Benefits service's training programme · ensures that interim and annual feedback is given to all staff on their performance.

IT

2.128 The most should be made of available IT to support an effective and secure HB and CTB administration, and the technology deployed should assist the local authority in making progress against the e-government agenda.

2.129 Automation of processes should enable greater efficiency. Reliable and timely management information should be used to monitor performance and inform management decisions.

2.130 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because:

· XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

· its IT systems did not provide sufficient data to ensure accurate and timely submission of subsidy returns or management information to the Department

· XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

· the interfaces between the council's other IT systems and modules within the benefits IT system required too much user intervention

· there was no systematic logging of faults by the Benefits service and no documented system testing undertaken following changes to its software

· there was no evidence that a comprehensive documented IT fall-back and recovery plan existed.

2.131 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham used an in-house mainframe benefits IT system to process HB and CTB claims.

2.132 Early in 2003 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had identified the need to replace its benefits IT system as the system was hindering improvements in performance and heavily reliant on manual intervention.

2.133 The benefits IT system had automatic interfaces with the following systems:

· housing rents

· Council Tax

· general ledger - in relation to cheque production only.

2.134 In June 2002 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham implemented an overpayment module within its benefits IT system.

2.135 The verification module of the benefits IT system was not fully integrated with the main claims processing module.

2.136 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had identified areas where further development was required for its benefits IT system to comply with the regulations and the Department's management information needs including:

· revising data production for Verification Framework returns

· replacing exceptional hardship and circumstances with the facility to make Discretionary Housing Payments

· provision of a facility to allow for backdating of claims within the benefits IT system

· provision of a facility to suspend claims.

2.137 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us it was conscious of the need to balance improvements to its benefits IT system in the short-term, against the planned replacement of the system. Development of the benefits IT system was reliant on the resource allocated to it by the council's Information Management and Technology Division. The available resource was also impacted upon by changes to regulations including development work in preparation for tax credits and Pension Credit.

2.138 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had also identified various weaknesses in the system. These included:

· unreliable and incomplete data in respect of the critical areas of HB subsidy and the Department's management information returns

· XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

· inadequate management information.

2.139 The council had taken a number of steps to address these issues. These included the establishment of a dedicated team within the Divisional Services (Income and Collection) section of Revenues Services to improve the accuracy of subsidy returns.

2.140 However, we were concerned about the potential for London Borough of Barking and Dagenham's subsidy return to be inaccurate. As the benefits IT system could not provide the details required for each cell of the subsidy claim, clerical counts were required to complete parts of the subsidy claim form. For example:

· claims where awards of HB and CTB had been backdated

· claims from tenants of short-term lease accommodation obtained under the Private Sector Leasing arrangements.

2.141 We saw System/Application Request forms provided to the Information Management and Technology Division by the Benefits service. One form requested the development of a statistical module, to be added to the benefits IT system, to improve the information gathered in relation to subsidy.

2.142 As the System/Application Request form failed to provide sufficient detail, the Benefits service could not be certain that the Information Management and Technology Division would deliver the system enhancements it was seeking to meet the Department's requirements.

2.143 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX

2.144 There were also weaknesses in controlling access levels. The access levels allocated to users were not based on the needs of the job. This weakness was identified in several Internal Audit reports, including the March 2003 report. The access levels allocated to users were based on the seniority of the user not on the needs of the job.

2.145 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX

2.146 When system faults were identified they were referred to the Information Management and Technology Division. However, we could find no evidence of fault logging or of fault management procedures in the Benefits service.

2.147 A report produced by the council's Internal Audit service in September 2003 identified that there was a documented IT fall-back and recovery plan for its benefits IT system, but this did not cover hardware. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that its Disaster Response Plan covering its data was tested annually.

2.148 As part of the council's e-government plans, Benefits service staff were given access to e-mail in November 2002.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· ensures that the counter-fraud IT system is implemented and programmed to measure performance against section and corporate priorities and targets · develops its benefits IT system to reduce the level of manual intervention required · introduces procedures to ensure that all user passwords are changed at least quarterly · introduces an access control policy for all users of the benefits IT system · urgently reviews the access levels that staff have been allocated to all system users to ensure that they are commensurate with their duties · reduces the length of the automatic time-out after periods of no activity by individual users · ensures that the Benefits service systematically logs faults identified in the benefits IT system and introduces formal documented system testing on receipt of software changes from its Information Management and Technology Division · produces a documented disaster recovery plan covering all its hardware and software and tests this plan annually using the results to refine and improve its plan.

Internal Audit

2.149 Internal Audit provides assurance to management and Members about the effectiveness and security of HB and CTB administration.

2.150 We found that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard for Internal Audit because Members did not receive reports in relation to the Benefits service, monitor actions taken by responsible managers and ensure that actions were taken within timescales indicated in audit reports.

2.151 The Internal Audit function at London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was delivered by Internal Audit which reported directly to the Director of Finance. The in-house team produced and had responsibility for delivery of the Internal Audit plan. The in-house team employed the external contractors to assist in the delivery of the Internal Audit plan for a set number of days on main systems testing and by agreed work packages for various additional audits.

2.152 Internal Audit reports were discussed with service managers and the findings agreed as to fairness and accuracy. There were no written corporate procedures in place for managers to follow that would provide instructions for implementing recommendations. Recommendations were categorised according to their level of priority:

· priority one - major issues for the attention of senior management

· priority 2 - other recommendations for local management action

· priority 3 - minor matters.

2.153 Senior managers considered all Internal Audit reports. But unless the recommendation was categorised as priority one, it was not tracked by them or Internal Audit to ensure compliance. Follow-up action on the other 2 priority categories was left until the next audit on that area of work.

2.154 Members did not receive a copy of Internal Audit reports in relation to the Benefits service. A summary report on all Internal Audit activity was produced annually for them by the in-house Internal Audit team. However, during the on-site phase of our inspection, we were told of plans to change these procedures so that the Corporate Monitoring Group would receive reports on all internal and external audit recommendations. It would have responsibility for checking the progress of Internal Audit's work programme and tracking the implementation of all recommendations.

2.155 We identified that Internal Audit recommendations in relation to several important issues had not been implemented. For example in relation to:

· weaknesses in post opening arrangements

· recruitment

· the need to provide guidance manuals to staff

· weaknesses in controlling access to its benefits IT system.

2.156 The Internal Audit in-house team comprised 8 auditors, at the time of our inspection there were 6 in post. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham told us that when there were staff vacancies it aimed to deliver its audit plan through additional work packages being carried out by the contractor. Figure 2.6 shows the number of Internal Audit days allocated and actual days spent during the period April 2001 - September 2003.

Fig. 2.6: Internal Audit activity 2001/02 - September 2003
	2001/02	2002/03	April 2003 - end Sept 2003
Total number of Internal Audit days allocated (all services/departments)	2,161	2,100	872
Total number of Internal Audit days used (all services/departments)	1,441	1,380	677
Number of Internal Audit days allocated to HB and CTB administration	10	21	68

	2001/02	2002/03	April 2003 - end Sept 2003
Number of Internal Audit days used on HB and CTB administration	21	21	68
Number of Internal Audit days allocated to counter-fraud work	0	0	0
Number of Internal Audit days used on counter-fraud work	3*	3*	3*

Source: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

* estimated days

2.157 We were told that Internal Audit provided assurance that the extent of HB and CTB expenditure formed a key part of its audit needs assessment work. However, Figure 2.6 shows that in 2001/02 and 2002/03, 21 days of the total audit days used were spent on auditing the Benefits service. This was less than 2% of audit days. This increased to 10% for the first 6 months of 2003/04. We were told this was to help the council prepare for our inspection. As work packages, not audit days, were bought in from the external contractor the number of audit days may not reflect the total actual audit days used.

2.158 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham should consider whether Internal Audit resources are sufficient to assure Members and senior managers that the Benefits service is secure.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· ensures the level of Internal Audit resources used and days committed to HB and CTB audit reflects the risk to, and monetary value of, HB and CTB compared to risk and budget expenditure for other services · develops and adopts formal documented procedures for handling recommendations made by Internal Audit.

External Audit

2.159 External Audit has statutory duties to report on the arrangements that the local authority has put in place to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. They also give independent assurance on matters relating to the accounts and report on the arrangements to secure propriety. Local authorities must act on this independent advice and assurance, while having their own systems of assurance. They cannot rely on External Audit identifying faults.

2.160 We found that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard for this element because:

· it did not assess the implications of findings and recommendations of External Audit

· it did not monitor the progress of its action plans and adjust them accordingly in the light of experience

· Members did not form part of the review and monitoring process.

2.161 However, we were told that the introduction of reporting audit recommendations to the Corporate Monitoring Group would ensure Member involvement. The first report on the Benefits service considered by this group was in February 2004. Following the on-site phase of the inspection, senior officers prepared a report and action plan to present to the Corporate Monitoring Group. It was too soon to comment on the effectiveness of these arrangements.

2.162 External Audit had a good working relationship with London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. We were told that it worked closely with Internal Audit and had confidence in the work of this team. Its audit plan was presented formally to the council for the first time in 2003, although informal arrangements to discuss the audit plan had been in place prior to this.

2.163 External Audit was responsible for reporting any matters concerning benefits administration arising out of the annual audit certificate on London Borough of Barking and Dagenham's accounts and HB and CTB subsidy matters. Members did not receive individual reports, but the annual audit letter went to them. However, this did not include a record of recommendations made to the council.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· ensures that Benefits service managers assess the implications of External Audit findings and recommendations relating to the service · puts procedures in place to ensure the monitoring of progress against its action plan to address External Audit recommendations and that these procedures are reviewed at least annually to ensure that they are effective · ensures that Members endorse action plans and receive regular reports on progress against them.

Cost of benefit administration

2.164 There is no definitive costing structure for benefits administration although local authorities should be guided by the provisions contained within the Department’s circular S1/2000.

2.165 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard in this element because the cost of benefit administration was not calculated at regular intervals. However, it monitored expenditure against the budget for Revenues Services monthly.

2.166 The Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 included reference to:

· making best use of resources

· providing a cost effective and customer-focused Best Value service.

2.167 However, a specific local performance indicator had not been set in 2003/04 to measure costs and compare them to previous years and with neighbouring authorities.

2.168 The average cost of handling benefit claims at London Borough of Barking and Dagenham for 2001/02 was £40.48 against a local target of £39.00. The average cost per claim for London boroughs in 2001/02 was £88.10, with top quartile performance at £72.94.

2.169 The Divisional Services (Income and Collection) section produced monthly budget monitoring reports. Each business unit within Revenues Services was identified and costs summarised in line with Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy classifications.

2.170 We found that, while costs were identified on a regular basis, there was no evidence that the information was used to calculate the cost of benefit administration or to compare costs to its business processes.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:

· ensures it calculates the cost of benefit administration at quarterly intervals and uses the information to compare costs to its business processes.

Compliance with the Race Relations Act

2.171 The Race Relations Act 1976 was amended in 2000 to impose a number of duties on all public authorities. Councils are required to fulfil:

· the General Duty to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups

· the Specific Duty to have published, by 31 May 2002, a race equality scheme that sets out the arrangements it has made to satisfy this General Duty

· the Specific Duty as an employer to provide the tools to ensure that it satisfies the General Duty in all aspects of its work.

2.172 It is important to note that the arrangements set out in the scheme must cover every area within the public body. Each area must then satisfy those requirements within each of the duties that are relevant to them if the authority, as a whole, is to conform to the legislation.

2.173 What is expected of every local authority is set out in the Commission for Racial Equality’s non-statutory document The duty to promote race equality – a guide for public authorities. Response to the Act is proportionate, in that those organisations with larger ethnic populations are required to do more than those with smaller ethnic populations.

2.174 The 2001 census figures for London Borough of Barking and Dagenham showed that approximately 12% of its residents were from ethnic minority communities.

2.175 There was an impressive level of activity and policies in place at corporate level, but London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard for this element because the Benefits service had not:

· monitored existing policies for impact on race equality

· assessed and consulted on the impact of proposed policies on race equality

· published results of assessments, consultation and monitoring of policies

· conducted an annual review of all facilities provided for customers of key minority groups in the area.

2.176 One of the council's 7 Community Priorities was Promoting Equal Opportunities and Celebrating Diversity. The 2020 vision statement linked to this priority stated:

Our vision is for a community that is inclusive towards everyone in it, regardless of their age, gender, race or sexuality, and has the confidence to welcome visitors, proud of the area in which they live or work. To influence the future by celebrating a more culturally diverse approach.

2.177 To meet its objectives London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had identified 4 key issues:

· value diversity

· combat discrimination and social exclusion

· empower and positively engage

· provide quality, accessible services.

2.178 In May 2002 the council published its first Race Equality Scheme. In June 2002 a Corporate Equalities and Diversity Framework was adopted and in March 2003 its Equalities and Diversity in Employment Policy was produced.

2.179 To help London Borough of Barking and Dagenham achieve its Equality and Diversity in Employment Policy, it developed a strategy, supported by a policy framework and a 5-year action plan. The policy framework set out how the council would meet its responsibilities and contained 5 corporate policy statements. These were:

· equal opportunities and diversity

· race equality

· equality for women

· equality for disabled people

· equality for older people.

2.180 The equal opportunities and diversity statement set out the council's commitment to staff, customers and suppliers:

In the employment of staff, delivery/accessibility of all services, contracting/procurement strategies and public consultation/engagement, Barking and Dagenham council will actively promote equal opportunities and seek to celebrate diversity. The council will treat all people equally and fairly whether they are:

· seeking access to or using council services or those provided on the council's behalf

· contracting to supply goods or services to the council

· applying for employment with the council or already employed and seeking access to promotion and training/personal development opportunities

· involved in public consultation/engagement with the council regarding its services, community priorities or strategic plans.

2.181 The council monitored progress through performance indicators set within the Community First section of its balanced scorecard. These were the:

· level of "Equality Standard" for local government to which the council conforms

· percentage of public sector bodies operating in the borough that have an Equalities Policy

· percentage of public sector bodies operating in the borough that monitor the Equalities Policy.

2.182 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had developed and adopted a Community Cohesion Plan. By March 2004 it planned to have launched its anti-discrimination charter and to have developed policies on age discrimination and social inclusion.

2.183 Part of its strategy to promote race equality included:

· a poster advertising campaign and the showing of 3 short diversity films at West Ham United football ground on match days

· development of work on domestic violence and hate crimes

· establishment of a specialist Community Development Worker post in conjunction with the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the Primary Care Trust and the Ethnic Minority Partnership Agency.

2.184 Results against performance indicators and other activities were published in the council's Best Value Performance Plan.

2.185 The Rents and Benefits Team Plan 2003/07 identified links to the Promoting Equal Opportunities and Celebrating Diversity Community Priority and reported that the team’s contribution towards it would be through ensuring each and every resident had the same opportunities to make and complete claims for HB and CTB. However, the plan did not specifically set out how this would be achieved.

2.186 The Revenues Services Strategy also identified links to the Community Priority and a local performance indicator had been set to measure the percentage of claims from ethnic minority customers compared to the population of the borough. The Benefits service had begun to monitor the ethnicity of its customers by use of a questionnaire attached to HB and CTB claim forms. Data was collated by the Divisional Services (Income and Collection) section and referred to the Income and Collections manager. However, we found no evidence that the information was used to review existing policies within the Benefits service.

2.187 As part of the corporate staff development programme, an Equalities and Diversity competency training module had been developed. Videos and information held on electronic media were available to managers and their staff. Training for Benefits service staff had started and events were planned up to March 2004.

2.188 There was no evidence that facilities for benefit customers had been reviewed for their suitability for ethnic minority groups in the area. The council accepted that it still needed to develop its claim form and a range of literature to meet the needs of the whole community.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham ensures that its Benefits service:

· uses the information it collects to monitor and review existing policies for impact on race equality · assesses and consults on the impact of proposed policies on race equality and publishes the results · conducts annual reviews of all the facilities provided for customers of key ethnic minority groups in the area.

Internal working arrangements

2.189 Local Authorities need to manage their internal partnerships and relationships to support short and longer term policy objectives. Such management includes ensuring that common goals are set for an effective and secure HB and CTB administration.

2.190 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard for this element because of ineffective communications with internal stakeholders. It had:

· not defined the roles and responsibilities of all those elsewhere in the council involved in any way in HB and CTB administration

· not specified the internal communications channels to be used between all parties within the council

· no formal arrangements in place to monitor and evaluate its relationships with partners within the council.

2.191 Senior managers accepted that communication between teams within Revenues Services needed to improve, as failures were having an effect on the quality of customer service. Our sample of claims included cases where basic information had not been transferred between teams, for example, when a tenant had left a property.

2.192 A programme of meetings between managers within Revenues Services was in place, but one had not been developed for staff.

2.193 We found evidence of meetings between senior officers from other departments within London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. For example, the Head of Revenues met with senior officers from the Housing and Health Department as part of the council's initiative to support new council tenants. The project, which started in September 2002, involved visits undertaken by Housing Support officers from the Housing and Health Department, to a new tenant or to someone who had taken over the tenancy, for example, from a relative. During the visit the tenant’s rights and rent liabilities were explained and an HB and CTB claim form was completed. As Housing Support officers were Verification Framework trained, they were able to collect and record details of supporting evidence. While the project had been shown to improve customer service, specific goals and targets had still to be fully developed.

2.194 A similar arrangement had existed since 2000 between the Benefits service and the Rent Accounts Service. Council tenants who had made new claims were visited by a Recovery Investigation Officer, from the Debt Recovery team of the Rent Accounts Service, prior to the claim being discontinued if the customer had failed to provide supporting evidence. The initiative was set up to support council tenants and to prevent the loss of revenue to the council. Procedures had not been reviewed and adjusted in the light of experience.

2.195 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had undertaken a Best Value review of customer services across all departments. The review aimed to set out an agreed plan for the council to meet the government's targets for the provision of public services. It also sought to improve and develop its public interface to be both accessible and easy to use. Results of an initial study led to the publication of its Strategy for Customer First document. As part of this strategy, arrangements were in place from January 2004 for Benefits service staff to work with Housing and Health Department staff at the council's offices in Barking to deal with benefit enquiries. While we welcome this initiative, mechanisms needed to be put in place to evaluate its effectiveness.

2.196 We found that the Benefits service had not formally set out its information requirements from those areas in the council who were involved in the administration of HB and CTB. There was no mechanism in place to measure the effectiveness of liaison between teams. The development and monitoring of memorandums of understanding would clarify roles and provide the opportunity to measure progress made in service delivery. This is particularly important between:

· teams within Revenues Services

· the Benefits service and others within the council, for example, the Housing and Health Department.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham maximises the effectiveness of its internal arrangements by:

· clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of those elsewhere in the council who are involved in any way in HB and CTB administration · specifying the internal communications channels used between all parts of Revenues Services and other parts of the council · introducing monitoring and regular review of liaison arrangements to ensure that the Benefits service is making maximum use of services within Revenues Services and corporate services.

External working arrangements

2.197 Local authorities function within their own network of relationships with customers, stakeholders and other bodies in their communities. Effective partnerships with these organisations will provide mutual benefits through savings in administrative costs and benefit expenditure and reduce the amount of fraud and error. Some stakeholders such as the Rent Service and Jobcentre Plus play a key part in handling HB and CTB claims effectively and securely.

2.198 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham was not at Standard for this element because of weaknesses in monitoring its service level agreements.

2.199 The Benefits service had service level agreements which followed the national model with:

· Jobcentre Plus

· the Rent Service

· the Appeals Service

· The Pension Service.

2.200 Regular monitoring of agreements with action to correct deficiencies will help improve effectiveness and security. It will also provide the opportunity to evaluate and if necessary, revise business processes.

2.201 We found that monitoring had taken place with the Rent Service and we were told that standards set in the Jobcentre Plus service level agreement had been monitored quarterly to coincide with joint meetings. The Appeals Service told us that it had still to agree monitoring arrangements with local authorities.

2.202 In other cases where formal service level agreements would not be appropriate, for example, various advice agencies operating in the borough, we found that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham had not documented and agreed its working relationships. However, meetings with organisations such as registered social landlords took place and were formally minuted.

Recommendations

We recommend that London Borough of Barking and Dagenham formally introduces monitoring on a quarterly basis of all its service level agreements to assess performance, identify training needs and review the effectiveness of existing business processes.

Previous
Next