CAPÍTULO VI LAS REVOLUCIONES
LA CARRERA ABIERTA AL TALENTO
As we stated in the introduction to this chapter, the ideal for the Benefits Agency is that claimants report changes in circumstances to them promptly, fully and accurately, and that they refrain from making unnecessary reports. The evidence that we have gathered paints a very different picture. There is widespread non-reporting and inappropriate reporting.
Non-reporting is particularly high for those changes which are less likely to have an effect on the level of Income Support awards, such as absences from home, hospital in-patient stays and spells of unpaid work. Reporting levels of changes in income
(from work, benefits or other sources) are higher but even here rarely reach above 50 per cent. The most reliable reporting is of changes connected with housing (moving address or mortgage changes).
Across all types of change, pensioners are generally the least reliable reporters. We also identified, among the claimants who had experienced a reportable change, a large minority (39 per cent) whom we call the consistent non-reporters. These are claimants with three or more reportable changes but who failed to report a single one. Comparing claimant groups again revealed pensioners as the least reliable reporters. Although claimants used the telephone more often than any other form of contact in conducting their general business with the Benefits Agency, they turned to writing and calling at the office when they wanted to report a change in circumstances.
Most claimants' reporting behaviour was driven by what they thought they were required to report or thought was not necessary to report. Much of this supposed
knowledge was incorrect. A smaller proportion of claimants acted more out of hope of getting some help rather than any confidence that they would. We found little evidence that pointed to fraudulent behaviour among our sample.
When asked about problems with the Benefits Agency in dealing with their general social security business, claimants' main concerns were first, their treatment by Benefits Agency staff and secondly, delays in processing. Importantly, this order was reversed when claimants were asked specifically about problems connected with changes in circumstances. It is possible to infer from this that claimants rely on the Benefits Agency to process changes quickly in order to prevent possible hardship or uncertainty to them and their families. If this is correct, then there are possible i mplications for the way in which local offices organise their work. This will be discussed in the next chapter.
The policy implications of the reporting behaviour of claimants described in this chapter can be addressed at two different levels. At the administrative level we can ask what can be done to increase the accurate and timely reporting of relevant changes by claimants. At a structural level we can use the information to question whether some changes need to be reported so often, or at all. A detailed discussion of these options is reserved for Chapter Seven where we draw together the policy implications of the whole study. However, the following provides an indication of the types of policy response we will be considering.
At an administrative level, the Benefits Agency could attempt to educate the claiming population about what should and should not be reported. This implies that the current means of informing claimants about their responsibilities are not working well enough. Two responses, by no means mutually exclusive, are possible. First, the information provided by the Agency could be improved, and secondly the Benefits Agency could rely on claimants less and become more proactive by initiating more contacts with claimants.
Whether or not it is possible to increase the rate of reporting to a significant extent, the Benefits Agency could improve the efficiency with which changes are reported by introducing measures to improve the quality of the information provided by Income Support recipients.
From our analysis of claimants' reporting behaviour we have identified a number of changes in circumstances which are reported (sometimes very) infrequently. From these findings we are led to ask whether the duty to report should vary according to different types of change. At present all changes should be reported as soon as they happen. However, if large numbers of people are not reporting certain types of change there may be a case for reducing the duty to report. Three possibilities arise. First, there should be no duty to report until the next routine review. Secondly, whenever
any change is reported, the Benefits Agency should undertake a full review rather than
dealing only with the specific change. And thirdly, the duty to report should be removed altogether.
In this chapter we have looked at the reporting behaviour of Income Support recipients. In so doing we have identified a number of areas where policy changes might be warranted which are discussed fully in Chapter Seven. Before that we turn our attention, in Chapter Six, to the perspectives of social security staff whose job it is to manage, supervise and carry out the administration of changes in circumstances.