1 Securing the benefits of the programme
for consumers
1. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and
Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Work
& Pensions (the Department) on the delivery of the 2012 child
maintenance scheme (the 2012 scheme).[1]
We also took evidence from Gingerbread, a charity for single parents,
and Resolution, an association of family lawyers.
2. The Department's aims in introducing the 2012
scheme were to: resolve problems with previous child maintenance
schemes; maximise the number of children benefiting from child
maintenance arrangements; and reduce government spending on administering
child support. It introduced the 2012 scheme in two phases: Phase
1 which went live in December 2012 with a new IT system and new
rules; and Phase 2 which from June 2014, implemented charges to
parents and started to close around 800,000 cases on the previous
child maintenance schemes. There are significant risks to the
successful implementation of Phase 2 because of uncertainties
over how parents would respond to charging and to case closure.[2]
3. The Department told us that it had adopted a prudent
approach to implementation by proceeding only when it considered
that it was safe to do so. It had also applied the lessons of
the past by introducing the 2012 scheme through a controlled start.
The Department considered that, letting all the applications and
business of the 2012 scheme go live from day one would have been
a "recipe for significant problems." In May 2012, the
senior management team agreed to introduce Phase 1 in stages,
allowing the Department to test the system before full implementation.[3]
4. In November 2013, the Department experienced problems
with the stability of its IT system when it opened the 2012 scheme
to all applications, but it told us that these had not significantly
affected processing and performance. The Department decided on
a pathfinder approach to implement the first phase of the scheme,
to identify problems early. It started with processing a small
number of cases, and then increased the volume once it was content
that the system was operating as intended. This approach allowed
the Department to implement the 2012 scheme when it was confident
to do so, rather than at a pre-announced date. The Department
extended the timing of the programme several times; it delayed
Phase 1 from October 2012 to December 2012, and postponed Phase
2 from July 2013 to June 2014.[4]
5. One of our witnesses, Gingerbread, recognised
that the phased implementation of Phase 1 had gone well and that
the IT system had performed reliably so far. It also considered
that delaying some of Phase 1 had been an appropriate and effective
way of managing risk.[5]
Both Resolution and Gingerbread considered that it was too early
to provide feedback from customer experience of the 2012 scheme,
as neither body had yet seen many people who had used the new
service.[6]
6. The Department introduced the 2012 scheme carefully
and appeared to be learning from the mistakes of its previous
schemes. The Department maintained a stable management team with
a senior responsible officer and an executive team with substantial
experience in administering child maintenance. The Department
told us that it had taken particular note of what had gone wrong
with the last two schemes. For example, it had not carried out
the high-level design of the new scheme in isolation, but in conjunction
with policy and operational people, to translate policy into implementation.
The scheme is approaching expected performance levels, for example,
it is processing 95% of cases accurately, against a target of
97%. At similar stages of implementation, the previous scheme
(2003) missed accuracy targets by 15 percentage points.[7]
7. The Department simplified the administration of
child maintenance by using an automated link to HMRC to collect
data on parents' income. This allowed the Department to assess
income more quickly and reliably, although there had been concerns
about establishing accurate assessments of the income of the self-employed.[8]
The Department noted that receiving parents could raise concerns
if assessments were too low, and that HMRC could also investigate
if there were suspicions of undeclared income.[9]
8. The programme costs of the 2012 scheme increased
by £70 million to £950 million because of the Department's
conscious decisions to undertake extra testing and implement the
service in phases and gradually. The Department told us that it
did not expect programme costs to increase further, as it had
already incurred most of the capital costs.[10]
1 C&AG's Report, Child maintenance 2012 scheme: early progress, Session 2014-15, HC 173, 20 June 2014 Back
2
Q 45; C&AG's Report, para 3, 5, 16 Back
3
Q 23; C&AG's Report, para 1.11 Back
4
Qq 24, 96; C&AG's Report, para 1.13, 1.21 Back
5
Q 7 Back
6
Q 20 Back
7
Q 23; C&AG's Report, para 1.20, 2.18 Back
8
Q 15 Back
9
Qq 29-30 Back
10
Qq 42-43; C&AG's Report, para 1.15-1.16 Back
| 
