Written evidence from Karamjit Singh CBE,
Social Fund Commissioner
The Committee posed a number of questions about the
fairness of the community care grant budget distribution and the
errors in Jobcentre Plus' decision making. I was asked to provide
any further information I have available.
QUESTIONS RELATING
TO COMMUNITY
CARE GRANT
BUDGET DISTRIBUTION
Mrs Adey told the Committee about the different levels
of need the 23 budget areas have been meeting. The following information
is taken from the factual budget information provided by Jobcentre
Plus; this informs the Inspectors' decision making in relation
to the levels of priority that are being met in each area. The
details at the end of September 2010 were as follows:
| Area Budgets meeting all high priority needs with no restriction on reasonable prices
| Area Budgets meeting all high priority needs at lower prices
|
| Balham (Central and East London)
Balham (London South)
Balham (West London)
Basildon (Essex)
Chesterfield
Llanelli
Sunderland
| Balham (North and North East London)
Belle Vale
Chorlton
Nottingham
Perry Barr
Springburn
|
| Area Budgets meeting all high priority needs at lowest prices
| Area Budgets meeting only the most compelling of high priority needs at lowest prices
|
| Bradford
Bristol
Sheffield | Inverness
Milton Keynes 1
Milton Keynes 2
Newcastle
Newport
Norwich
Stockton
|
The NAO report refers to inequities that result in some high priority
claims being refused because of the limited funds available locally.
The Department told the Committee that the Secretary of State
has recently issued new guidance that awards should be made at
the lowest prices. In response to this guidance, issued on 18 October
2010, we understand that a number of areas are now paying lowest
prices irrespective of the position of their budget.
The changes, whilst intended to meet more needs and achieve better
value for money, may inadvertently widen the geographical inequities
while the current budget distribution remains in place. At one
end of the scale, the position will be unchanged in those areas
already under the greatest pressure and meeting only the most
compelling of high priority needs at lowest prices. This means
that they are not able 1 to meet all high priority needs and are
already restricting any awards they can make to lowest prices.
They will not be able to meet any additional needs as a result
of the revised guidance, so the position for grant applicants
in these areas will not improve. At the other end of the scale,
those areas currently meeting all high priority needs without
restriction on reasonable prices will be able to meet a wider
range of high priority needs and may also be able to meet some
or all medium priority needs. The extent of this will depend on
the state of the budget. We know, for example, that Chesterfield
area is now able to meet all high and medium priority needs with
all awards paid at lowest prices.
QUESTIONS RELATING
TO ERRORS
IN JOBCENTRE
PLUS' DECISION
MAKING
We do not see all grant applications and are commenting here on
the cases that we have seen. In 2009-10, for example, Inspectors
reviewed 29,590 Jobcentre Plus community care grant decisions
(25.5% of community care grant internal reviews that could have
come to us). The table below shows the proportion of fundamental
errors Inspectors found in the course of their grant reviews.
| Error Rates %
|
| 2008/2009 | 2009/2010
| April - Sept 2010 |
| Balham (Central & East) | 72.7
| 74.2 | 73 |
| Balham (London South) | 80 |
77.6 | 78.4 |
| Balham (London North & North East | 76.2
| 73.6 | 74.2 |
| Balham (West London) | 74.4 |
77.8 | 84.6 |
| Basildon (Essex) | 38.7 |
29.4 | 37.2 |
| Belle Vale | 47.9 | 34.4
| 38.8 |
| Bradford | 42.6 | 42.2
| 53.5 |
| Bristol | 62.5 | 68.6
| 73.9 |
| Chesterfield | 44.1 | 45.7
| 66.2 |
| Chorlton | 66.4 | 51.5
| 56.4 |
| Inverness | 41.2 | 45.2
| 54.8 |
| Llanelli | 59.6 | 55.6
| 80.9 |
| Milton Keynes 1 | 50.8 | 50.9
| 42 |
| Milton Keynes 2 | 47.7 | 43.3
| 35.7 |
| Newcastle | 34.6 | 44.1
| 50.4 |
| Newport | 36.6 | 45.5
| 87.2 |
| Norwich | 61.9 | 53.9
| 60.9 |
| Nottingham | 33.4 | 39.6
| 33.9 |
| Perry Barr | 47.3 | 62.2
| 60.2 |
| Sheffield | 43.4 | 38.8
| 50.1 |
| Springburn | 46.9 | 43.6
| 58.2 |
| Stockton | 29 | 31.3
| 29.4 |
| Sunderland | 51.7 | 45.3
| 40.8 |
| National | 54.4 | 54.3
| 60.3 |
Some of the increased error rates in the current year are due
to an increasing number of cases for which Jobcentre plus has
been unable to locate and send all the relevant paperwork. This
is the case, for example with Llanelli and Newport.
Pauline Adey explained that the two most common errors identified
by Inspectors are the failure to ask the relevant questions to
establish the facts of the case; and to send all the relevant
papers. In 2009-10 the error rates for these were 43.1% and 21.6%
respectively. The third most common error was the failure to interpret
or apply Direction 4 (the qualifying direction) correctly; the
error here was 12.4%. These results are continuing into 2010-11.
We understand that the calculation of 'legitimate demand' is based
on the conclusions of decision makers about Direction 4. It relies,
therefore, on these conclusions being correct. The cases we see
indicate that the judgements made by decision makers about Direction
4 contain a degree of error.
9 November 2010
| 
