2 Measuring and managing outcomes
9. The reforms to child maintenance aim to encourage
parents to make family-based arrangements, rather than use the
statutory scheme. The Department estimated that there would be
250,000 fewer statutory cases on the 2012 scheme. However, according
to a survey of callers using the gateway that explained the choices
available for child maintenance, the number of parents intending
to choose family-based arrangements reduced by more than a third—from
5,540 in August 2013 to 3,590 in March 2014. Gingerbread told
us that the Department had been unrealistic about how many parents
would be able to make their own arrangements. Resolution pointed
to research which indicated that, over time, more and more parents
move into a regulated arrangement.[11]
10. From June 2013, parents could voluntarily call
the Options Service to receive information on the different child
maintenance arrangements, including the benefits of making family-based
arrangements (known as the 'soft gateway'). From November 2013,
the Department required parents to call the Options Service, to
receive information on different child maintenance arrangements,
before applying to the statutory scheme (known as the 'mandatory
gateway').[12]
11. The Department told us that it was not yet concerned
that the number of parents intending to choose family-based arrangements
was not increasing. The Department believed that the increasing
numbers choosing the statutory scheme were a result of making
the gateway mandatory, as this had increased the number of calls,
including those who would have automatically come to the state.
The Department considered this would be a temporary phenomenon
associated with making the gateway mandatory, and it expected
the position to change over the next 12 to 15 months.[13]
12. Parents' response to fees is uncertain and the
impact on child poverty is unknown.[14]
Research by Gingerbread indicated that the £20 application
fee would be a significant barrier to applying to the statutory
service, especially for those on the lowest incomes.[15]
Research by Gingerbread and the National Centre for Social Research
indicated that, where single parents on benefits received child
maintenance, it lifted one in five of these families out of poverty.[16]
13. By May 2018, the Department aims to operate a
single child maintenance scheme and is planning to close some
800,000 of its legacy cases in a staged approach, starting with
simpler cases. The Department is dependent on a 'data warehouse'
to close its more complex cases. The 'data warehouse' is designed
to automate case closure and provide timely management information
on productivity and efficiency of all schemes.[17]
The Department expected to achieve the largest cost savings once
it is able to turn off the old legacy systems. It recognised that
if it were unable to close all the cases on the old legacy systems,
it would incur a huge cost of continuing to operate them.[18]
14. Despite it being a significant IT component of
the 2012 scheme, and having been commissioned five years ago,
the 'data warehouse' was still not ready and there was no clear
date when it would be.[19]
The Department has developed contingency solutions to close the
first three stages of legacy cases. It considered that these would
be straightforward and they are scheduled to end by June 2016.
The Department was confident that the 'data warehouse' would be
ready by this time, to close the complex cases. The Department
acknowledged that if the 'data warehouse' was not ready for the
more difficult cases, then this would cause difficulty and costs
in continuing to operate the legacy systems for longer.[20]
15. As the Department closes cases it will look at
arrears on legacy cases. The Department does not automatically
write off arrears. It told us that it will speak to parents about
writing off arrears, or agreeing what debt is carried onto the
2012 scheme; although it could be three years until all cases
are closed.[21]
11 Qq 2, 7; C&AG's Report, para 1.5, 1.24-1.25 Back
12
Q 39; C&AG's Report, para 1.28 Back
13
Qq 40-41 Back
14
Q 18; C&AG's Report, para 3.3 Back
15
Q 17 Back
16
Q 14 Back
17
C&AG's Report, para 17, 3.8 Back
18
Q 50 Back
19
C&AG's Report, para 3.9-3.10 Back
20
Qq 47, 50, 52; C&AG's Report, Figure 18 Back
21
Qq 81-83 Back
| 
