Supplementary written evidence from Darra
Singh
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
COMMITTEE HEARING
ON THE
NATIONAL AUDIT
OFFICE VALUE
FOR MONEY
REPORT ON
THE COMMUNITY
CARE GRANT
(CCG)
Further to my letter of 11 November I enclose an
annotated copy of the PAC hearing transcript with some minor factual
amendments to the following questions:
Question 70
The wording of my response has been amended to more
clearly reflect the process for handling repeat applications.
Question 72
The wording of my response has been amended to make
it clear that it is Pension, Disability and Carers Service who
issue the leaflets to Pension Credit applicants.
Question 96
The fraud and error rate percentages in my response
to have been corrected in line with my letter of 11 November.
Question 99
Clarification of the number of days I spent with
Community Care Grant Decision Makers.
I am also attaching, as agreed, a list of budget
underspends at the end of the 2009-10 financial year. Please see
Annex 1.
You will note that in 2009-10, of the 23 budget areas;
- 20 achieved a full spend, or under spent their
CCG budget by 0.5% or less;
- 2 underspent their CCG budget by between 0.5%
and 1.1%;
- 1 overspent their CCG budget by less than 0.1
%.
Systems have been reinforced for 2010-11 and
future budget years to ensure that budget managers:
- achieve as close as possible to full spend at
year end, to maximise the support provided by CCG funding in their
area, and
- contain the total level of spend within the allocated
level of funding.
Annex 1
Community Care Grants for 2009-10 for
Great Britain
| Jobcentre Plus Social Fund budget area by region
| Underspend (£) | Underspend as % of budget
|
| East of Enqland | |
|
| Essex | 228 | 0.0%
|
| Norwich BDC | 30,050 | 0.5%
|
| | |
| East Midlands | |
|
| East Midlands North | 40,439
| 1.1% |
| South East Midlands | 0 |
0.0% |
| | |
| London | |
|
| Central and East London | 1 |
0.0% |
| London South | 0 | 0.0%
|
| North and North East London | 1
| 0.0% |
| West London | 0 | 0.0%
|
| | |
| North East | |
|
| Northumbria | 200 | 0.0%
|
| South Tyne and Wear Valley | 21,847
| 0.8% |
| Tees Valley | 5,299 | 0.2%
|
| | |
| North West | |
|
| Chorlton BDC | 4,361 | 0.0%
|
| Greater Liverpool and Cheshire | 19
| 0.0% |
| | |
| Scotland | |
|
| Inverness BDC | 4,413 | 0.1%
|
| Springburn BDC | 40,682 |
0.3% |
| | |
| South East | |
|
| SE BOBS | 9,371 | 0.4%
|
| SE HIKYS | 11,564 | 0.2%
|
| | |
| South West | |
|
| South West Central | 12,669 |
0.2% |
| | |
| Wales | |
|
| Llanelli BDC | 1 | 0.0%
|
| South East Wales | -98 | 0.0%
|
| | |
| West Midlands | |
|
| West Midlands SF | 1 | 0.0%
|
| | |
| Yorkshire and Humber |
| |
| Y &H Bradford | 5,554 |
0.2% |
| Y & H Sheffield | 6,261 |
0.1% |
| | |
| Great Britain | 192,862
| 0.1% |
Key:
| BDC | Benefit Delivery Centre
|
| BOBS | Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Surrey
|
| HIKYS | Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent and Sussex
|
| SE | South East |
| SF | Social Fund |
| Y & H | Yorkshire and Humber
|
Source: Department for Work and Pensions records.
Notes:
1. Underspends have been calculated on the basis of a comparison
between the total of expenditure recorded on the Social Fund Computer
System together with clerical spend and the budget allocated.
2. Underspends have been rounded to the nearest £1 and
percentages to the nearest 0.1 %. Underspends do not sum due to
rounding.
Explanations:
1. South East Wales overspent their budget by £98.
2. The total underspend for Great Britain recorded above is
£192,862, which differs slightly from the total underspend
according to the Social Fund White Paper Account (to be published
shortly). There are technical reasons for this. These reflect
differences in the way that Community Care Grant expenditure is
recorded on the Social Fund Computer System and the Social Fund
Accounting System (used for recording clerical spend) and the
way the Social Fund White Paper Account is prepared.
23 November 2010
|
