8. QUESTIONNAIRE
Why a specially designed questionnaire was used
8.1 The need to eventually produce statistically
valid results from the exercise led to the decision to use research-type
interview techniques to gather the data. The most effective method
of ensuring consistency and avoiding bias in the data gathering
process is to use a highly structured interview format.
8.2 A specially designed questionnaire was therefore
produced for testing in the FAMC pilot review. InDepth Consulting
Group were responsible for designing the questionnaire, with assistance
from ASD.
Design of the Questionnaire
8.3 The primary aim of the Benefit Review questionnaire
was to collect information to measure the extent of under and
overpayments associated with FAMC. It was designed to structure
the interview to make it as impartial and non-judgmental as possible
and to produce the type of data that could be coded and analysed.
8.4 The questionnaire was designed to capture
all discrepancies, whether they existed at the start of
the claim or arose through a change in circumstances.
How the Questionnaire was Used
8.5 The questionnaire broadly followed the same
structure and questions as the FAMC claim pack. Use of the questionnaire,
however, ensured that all interviewers asked the same questions
in the same way, and, as far as was possible, recorded the responses
in a uniform manner.
8.6 The questionnaire was used in the following
way:
- before
the interviewer visited the customer the columns headed CLAIM
DATA and ISSUES TO PROBE FROM PREVIEW were completed using information
already held by the Department
- in the
first part of the interview the customer was asked for evidence
of identity 1 piece of primary evidence or 2 of secondary. A list of acceptable
evidence of ID is contained in the first part of the questionnaire
- the interviewer
then asked all the questions on the left-hand page and recorded
the answers in the column headed INTERVIEW DATA
- if the
information given during the interview and recorded under INTERVIEW
DATA differed from that recorded under CLAIM DATA the discrepancy
was noted in column headed ACTION and the relevant page number
noted in the back of the questionnaire for easy reference. The
interviewer also marked where further verification was required.
- the interviewer
continued asking the closed questions in the order they appeared
on the questionnaire. No attempt was made to discuss any discrepancy
at this stage because it may have influenced answers given to
later questions.
- once all
the closed questions had been asked the interviewer returned to
questions where a discrepancy had been noted in the ACTION column
(indicated by a note at the back of the questionnaire)
- all discrepancies
were then probed using a structured set of questions. Customers
were first asked when the change took place. If the change was
a non-reportable change then the date was noted and the interviewer
proceeded to the next discrepancy. If the change was reportable,
or the discrepancy existed from the start of the claim, then the
customer was asked if they had told anyone, who and when. All
discrepancies were probed in the same way.
- in the
final part of the interview, once the structured questions had
been completed, the interviewer was free to return to any areas
remaining unresolved. These were discrepancies which the customer
had not satisfactorily explained or other information that had
aroused suspicion, such as that noted in the ISSUES TO PROBE FROM
PREVIEW column. To help the interviewers ask appropriate questions,
and therefore gather relevant information, additional guidance
was provided on some of the more complex areas of benefit rules
in the ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE column of the questionnaire. This further
questioning was unstructured and if appropriate followed the pattern
of a normal fraud interview (but not an interview under caution).
The responses were not necessarily recorded on the questionnaire
but the interviewer recorded details in separate factual reports
and if appropriate on a signed statement from the customer. This
information was used at the centre to determine whether referral
to an adjudication officer was appropriate and which classification
the case fell into.
|