House of Commons - Social Security

Select Committee on Social Security Tenth Report

THE 1999 CHILD SUPPORT WHITE PAPER

OPERATIONS

Resources for the Child Support Agency

95. The Child Support Agency is an organisation already under pressure. Between 1995-96 and 1998-99, the live load of cases more than doubled. (From 460,800 in 1995-96 to 923,960 in 1998-99).[273] Between 1998 and 1999 alone, the live and assessed caseload rose from 758,850 to 923,960, an increase of 22 per cent.[274] Staff numbers have remained virtually static. During 1998-99, staff numbers declined from 8,445 to 8,156, a decrease of 3.4 per cent.[275] Funding remains tight. Financial provision for the running costs of the Child Support Agency fell between 1997-98 and 1998-99 from £209 million to £205 million.[276]

96. The Agency faces additional pressures leading up to the introduction of the White Paper reforms. Mrs Faith Boardman, Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency told us, "we have a very large on-going increase in our workloads which is running at something like 20 per cent extra cases each and every year and at present we are not expecting extra funding to help us cover those extra cases so that will clearly put large efficiency strains on us."[277] NCOPF warned "it is vital that the basic work is adequately funded. In particular, unless a commitment is given to fund the workload of the CSA as it grows year on year for the next five years, any money allocated for improvements will simply be swallowed up as the agency keeps running just to try to stand still."[278]

97. Mrs Boardman drew attention to two further "extra strains" on the Child Support Agency in the next two to three years as a result of the intended reforms: "we have to get ready and develop numerous things like IT and put lots of skills and resources into doing that...[We] will then have a very large element of extra work actually in the year of transition to educate the customers and to physically move their documents from the current system to the new system."[279] Other improvements, such as better checking and verification of information would have to wait until these challenges had been met.[280]

98. The Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman drew on past experience of change within DSS to warn of the potential dangers when changing from one system to another. He pointed to the serious problems which occurred within the Benefits Agency, when Disability Living Allowance was introduced to replace two previous benefits:

281

99. We recommend that, in its allocation of funds for the Child Support Agency, the Government should distinguish between the resources allocated to the Agency to deal with cases under the present child support scheme, and the resources allocated to develop the systems, technology and training for the proposed new scheme which will be introduced from 2001.

100. A deterioration in the performance of the Child Support Agency leading up to the introduction of the reforms is likely to hinder the success of the proposed reforms. On the other hand, an improved service for existing customers may reduce the pressure on Government and the Agency to transfer cases over to the new system before it has been properly tried and tested. We recommend that the resources allocated to the Agency to deal with cases under the present child support scheme should be increased to reflect the anticipated year on year rise in present caseload which is likely to continue until 2001.

Inland Revenue

101. It has been suggested from time to time, and possibly since before the Agency's creation,[282] that the functions of the CSA should be carried out by the Inland Revenue. The National Council for One Parent Families maintains a strong preference for the Child Support Agency to be completely re-engineered, renamed and relocated as a 'next steps' agency within the Inland Revenue because of such a change's obvious advantages in terms of credibility, collection and enforcement.[283] Professor Gwynn Davis and Professor Nick Wikeley came to the conclusion that the arguments for placing the Child Support Agency under the Inland Revenue had been strengthened by the recent expansion of the Revenue's responsibilities and expertise (in dealing with non-taxpayers, for example) to cover National Insurance contributions records and the administration of the Working Families Tax Credit and by the Government's other projects including the development of the children's tax credit.[284]

102. The Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman pointed out the additional complexity of CSA cases which usually involve a third party in addition to the citizen and the administration.[285] Professor Jonathan Bradshaw was in favour of separating the assessment process from the collection and enforcement process; while the Inland Revenue might be more effective at collection, he doubted whether the Inland Revenue would be any better than the DSS in the adjudication process.[286] Professor Jane Millar pointed out that in Australia the connection between the formula and taxable income had been one reason why the CSA had been located in the Taxation Office.[287] Australia has recently decided to move their CSA out of the Australian Taxation Office and in with the Department of Family and Community Services.[288]

103. As the trade union representing the overwhelming majority of CSA staff as well as employees in the Inland Revenue, the Public and Commercial Services Union welcomed the White Paper's proposal to retain the CSA within the DSS, and suggested that the Inland Revenue lacked the practical expertise and experience required to deliver a child support system.[289] Baroness Hollis told us that "to ask the Inland Revenue to extend its activities not only to the quarter of a million non-resident fathers who are on JSA and benefits and so on, but also to the 70 per cent of our caseload who are not paying taxes seemed, well, in the end in the Inland Revenue's judgment not to be appropriate."[290] We recommend that the CSA should remain within the Department of Social Security.

Computers

104. Effective use of information technology is crucial to the success of the proposed reforms. According to the Public and Commercial Services Union PCS, "much of the early administrative problems of the CSA were caused by the decision to use a cheap second hand IT system to support the business."[291] We were assured that Ministers would not go ahead unless they were confident that the IT system was robust enough to sustain the new policies.[292] The Chief Executive of the CSA told us that "this is something we need to take a step at a time. It is absolutely essential that we get it right and it is absolutely essential that we are honest and we own up to any difficulties if and when they so arise."[293] The Independent Case Examiner told us that the impending changes in legislation should not hinder the necessary computer changes and improvements which could make significant improvements in the next two or three years, rather than wait for a brand new system.[294]

105. We understand that there is a distinct possibility that the CSA will not have its new computer system in place by October 2001, and that an attempt might be made to modify the existing IT to deliver the new formula,[295] although Baroness Hollis described this possibility as "highly unlikely."[296] Mr John Wheatley of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux suggested that it might be prudent to delay implementation if the new computer system was not ready in time.[297]

106. The importance of effective computer systems cannot be exaggerated. We recommend that the new child support scheme should not be implemented until the new computer system is fully operational.

Record keeping

107. While the increased use of personal contact by telephone and in face-to-face interviews is to be welcomed, we note that more informal methods should not be an excuse to dispense with proper record-keeping. The Independent Case Examiner has warned that greater use of the telephone service could lead to a lack of accurate records of information given and received.[298] It can be difficult for people to take in and remember complex information given by telephone.[299] We note the warning that the Parliamentary Ombudsman gave to the former DSS Permanent Secretary that if a complainant put forward a plausible account with some corroborating evidence he would not accept the absence of a note on file or computer as a rebuttal, but on the contrary the onus of proof in those circumstances would be on the Agency.[300] We recommend that particular emphasis should be given in staff training to the need for concise and accurate records of all contacts between customers and the agency, both as good administrative practice and to assist in the swift resolution of complaints and disputes.

Pay

108. During 1998-99, 2,453 CSA staff—over 27 percent of the total— left the CSA, the main reason cited being low pay[301], which Mrs Faith Boardman, the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, described as an important issue "not entirely within the Agency's control."[302] We recommend that the role of staff rewards in staff retention should be addressed as a matter of urgency, for example by giving bonuses for individuals with long service or who have undertaken additional training. We recommend that in the longer term the Agency should put in place a performance-related system to link staff pay rises to the achievement of realistic but challenging customer-focused targets once the new system is introduced. Targets should be chosen carefully to encourage a properly balanced approach by the Child Support Agency and to avoid the distorting effects of concentrating on the easiest cases to the detriment of others.

Sickness absence

109. The rate of sickness absence among CSA staff was almost 5 per cent in 1998-99.[303] High levels of sickness absence may be an indicator of low morale or widespread stress within an organisation, and it should be a priority for management to understand its underlying causes in order to reduce its incidence. We welcome the attention now being given across the board in the Department of Social Security and its Agencies to address the levels of sickness absence.

Training

110. Baroness Hollis told us that the introduction of a simpler assessment process would enable the period of training of CSA staff to be reduced from seven to ten weeks to seven to ten days.[304] Because the emphasis would no longer be on collecting information and doing highly technical calculations, Agency staff will require re-training to be much more pro-active in managing the customers to ensure voluntary compliance if possible and enforcement if necessary.[305] The Independent Case Examiner stressed the importance of training for staff.[306] In his response on the Green Paper, the Parliamentary Ombudsman warned the former Permanent Secretary that "Even with a simpler formula, unless appropriate investment is made in resourcing and training, I suspect that officials administering a new system may find it hard to do better than their predecessors in offering the level of service the public has a right to expect."[307] Dr Braun of the National Stepfamily Association drew upon her organisation's experience of running Parentline to advise that training would be needed for CSA staff to deal with difficult and sensitive issues over the telephone.[308] Ms Moira Campbell and Mr Law of the Public and Commercial Services Union PCS described their experience of the CSA's early days[309] and they told us that they would be pushing for better resourced training before staff began to implement the new system.[310] Mrs Faith Boardman, the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, assured us that training had improved "quite significantly."[311] We recommend that the Agency should continue to give a high priority to training and re-training staff.

Face to face interviews

111. The Child Support Agency plans to deploy 600 caseworkers to conduct face-to-face interviews with CSA customers from January 2000, to be fully in place by the end of March 2000.[312] The intention is that the face-to-face interviews will be available to customers on request, although the CSA may initiate interviews where there is a long term compliance problem.[313] The Independent Case Examiner, thought that the face to face interviews were an important component of culture change in the CSA[314]. Mr Martin Barnes told us that the CPAG were "not entirely persuaded" that the 600 staff were going to be enough.[315] The Public and Commercial Services Union PCS welcomed the appointment of the 600 face-to-face officers but was concerned that at the same time the Agency (in apparent contradiction of its face-to-face initiative) was proposing to close most of the 170 local CSA offices. The PCS urged strongly that the local CSA offices should be retained to ensure that no customer was too far from an office where they could see a CSA officer to discuss their case face to face.[316] Mrs Faith Boardman, the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, told us that concentrating clerical processing work in fewer than 20 sites instead of 200 at present would free up sufficient resources to create a new force of 600 people spread throughout 86 sites.[317] She later confirmed that face-to-face staff will be available to see customers where and when they want to be seen, at locations convenient to them, which could include the customer's home, BA local office, a Citizens Advice Bureau or at their place of employment.[318]

112. Mr John Wheatley of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux thought the availability of interviews would be "beneficial."[319] Mrs Boardman told us that service standards had been set to ensure that the local officer who would be conducting the face-to-face interview would arrange it within two days of a request and that the interview should take place within ten days of the request, and that these standards had been met comfortably in pilots.[320]

113. Mrs Faith Boardman, the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency, assured us that the CSA had a dedicated unit of Welsh speakers and that the "staff mix" of ethnic minorities of local offices reflected the local neighbourhood.[321] She said that there were practical difficulties in providing face-to-face interviews in a full range of ethnic minority languages[322]. We recommend that special efforts should be made to ensure the availability of all CSA forms in the most common minority languages in the United Kingdom. We recommend that interpreters should be provided for face-to-face interviews in the most widely spoken ethnic minority languages in the United Kingdom.

Charges to clients

114. The Independent Case Examiner agreed with the White Paper's proposal[323] that fees should be charged only when the new system is running smoothly: "We agree that the Agency should not charge for its services to private clients until it can show a good level of customer service. In cases where it is arranging maintenance for state benefit clients, we doubt that service charges should be levied at all."[324] The Public and Commercial Services Union PCS was not convinced that the advantages outweighed the discontent and administrative burden that reintroducing fees would create. PCS suggested that non-resident parents should be excluded from all fees so as not to jeopardise compliance and that, at most, only 'private client' parents with care should be liable for fees, and then only once an adequate level of service had been provided.[325] The Children's Society suggested that the element of compulsion should be removed before consideration was given to the introduction of fees.[326]

273 Figures taken from Child Support Agency Annual Report for 1996-7 and 1998-99. Back

274 Child Support Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1998-99 page 22. Back

275 Child Support Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1998-99 page 61. Back

276 Social Security Departmental Report 1999-2000 Figure 22 Cm 4214 1999. Back

277 Q. 34. Back

278 Ev p 37 para 14.2. Back

279 Q. 34. Back

280 Q. 34. Back

281 Q. 89. Back

282 Q. 221; see "Can't Pay, Won't Pay", a Brook Lapping production for Channel 4, broadcast in three parts on 12, 19 and 26 September 1999. Back

283 Ev p 33 para 3.4, Q. 115. Back

284 Q. 63-64; see also Ev p 12 para 25. Back