FINAL REPORT - POSITION STATEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

1.

The Council’s Management Team considers the Revenues Service (Taxation & Benefits) to be ‘a key service, which impacts directly on the well-being of residents and that, consequently, it is sufficiently important to warrant a core service review.

2.

This view was confirmed by the Best Value Sub-Committee on the 4th April 2002, when the Terms of Reference were approved, as follows:

i)

To improve the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the services provided, which are mainly statutory in nature

ii)

To identify e-government opportunities and develop the existing e-government Strategy

iii)

To compare performance against all other relevant organisations, with a view to identifying areas of potential improvement

iv)

To review the methods by which we communicate with taxpayers, claimants, service partners and stakeholders, again to identify areas of potential improvement

v)

To test the cost of the services provided to assess whether value for money is being achieved and whether there are any opportunities for cost savings, which would not impact on service quality

3.

Planning and preparation for the Best Value Review commenced in January 2002, with the Review itself scheduled for the period April – October 2002. A fairly large Team was assembled – to share the additional work generated by the Best Value process. The priority was to ensure that performance standards did not deteriorate during the BV exercise.

4.

In the event, hundreds of hours were devoted to Best Value, and although some items on the work programme have been deferred slightly, we have completed the process with no adverse impact on service standards.

5.

The document at Appendix S1 provides background information, describing in some detail, the recent history of the Revenues Section and the progress made over the last 5 years in our quest to provide a top quality service.

6.

This demonstrates our commitment to continuous improvement – we did not get where we are today without continuously monitoring performance, to drive-up standards in pursuit of excellence.

7.

Key milestones since 1997 are as follows:

·

1997 - Market Test exercise carried out by Barony Consulting Ltd

·

1997 - Launch of Document Management System, incorporating Document Image Processing & Workflow

·

1998 - Launch of IBS ‘fully generic’ Open Revenues computer system – which made it possible to operate a seamless service across Taxation & Benefits

·

1998 - Introduction of a fully integrated staff structure to support generic working. This followed a lengthy (2-year) training programme to cross train all staff in Benefits & Taxation

·

1999 - Adoption of Benefits Verification Framework

·

1999 - ONE Partnership with the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service

·

2000 - Consolidation of new working practices with a view to restoring and improving standards, in preparation for Best Value

·

2001 - Early introduction of new DWP Weekly Incorrect Benefit (WIB) Scheme, also known as SAFE – Security Against Fraud & Error

·

2002 - Launch of Best Value programme

8.

The Best Value Review Team comprised all of the Revenues Management Team (6 Officers), together with Councillor Vera Head, Merry Halliday, the Best Value Officer, Alison Howes, Principle Accountant and Ian Hodgkinson from IT. See Appendix 1 for full details and programme of meetings. (For Minutes of Meetings see Appendix S2)

9.

This Team was very much the driving force behind the Review; planning strategy, commissioning projects, reviewing progress, and making decisions on matters arising. The requirements of the 4 C’s; to Challenge, Compare, Consult and Compete, were discharged in the manner described below, which follows the strategy outlined in the Council’s Best Value Toolkit. (See Appendix S3 for details)

10.

This project was undertaken by Helen Curtis & Richard Charters, who interviewed key personnel at all levels of the organisation, using a model supplied by the European Foundation for Quality Management. The EFQM is a self-assessment tool used to identify service strengths, areas for improvement and the action necessary to improve the service.

11.

The Self-Assessment identified 27 areas in which key strengths were evident, as well as 27 areas of potential improvement.  22 of the proposed improvements have been agreed and implemented. The remaining 5 could not be dealt with immediately but have been included in the Best Value Improvement Plan and will be implemented, in due course

12.

EFQM Conclusion:      “In summary, the EFQM exercise demonstrated that Taxation & Benefits is a high performing service that has continuously improved over the last 5 years. The Service also has well established plans in place to maintain and enhance this development in performance and service provision”

13.

A copy of the EFQM Summary (Final Report) is attached at Appendix 2 and includes details of the recommendations made and the action taken in response to those recommendations.

14.

This Team comprised the following:

§

Cora Carvey – Manager, Chesham, Amersham & District Citizens Advice Bureau

§

Stuart Bishop – Chiltern Hundreds Housing Association

§

Jeff Membury – Benefits Manager, Aylesbury Vale District Council

§

Claudia Tucker – Local Service Delivery Manager, The Pensions Service, Aylesbury

§

Andy Green – Revenues Customer Services Manager, Wycombe District Council

§

David Lunn – Revenues Manager, Chiltern District Council

§

Helen Curtis – Senior Revenues Officer, Chiltern District Council

15.

The documents grouped at Appendix S 4 were forwarded to the Team prior to the first meeting, to advise and inform. Andy Green from Wycombe District Council was elected Chairman. The Team met on 4 occasions and made a significant contribution to the Best Value process. A total of 34 recommendations for service improvements were made and the majority of these have been adopted, or scheduled for implementation in the Best Value Improvement Plan.  After careful consideration, a number of suggestions were deemed to be inappropriate to the situation at Chiltern.

16.

External Challenge Team Conclusion:          A letter from the Chairman of the ECT is awaited. However, this Team was uniquely placed to identify any shortcomings in service quality, or any failings in service delivery. The fact that all of the recommendations for change are fairly minor in nature serves to confirm that we are in ‘good shape’. Potentially, this was one of our sternest tests and we have emerged with flying colours.  

17.

An External Challenge Team summary report, together with details of the 34 recommendations, and our response to each, is attached at Appendix 3. (Minutes of the ECT Meetings are at Appendix S5)

18.

This exercise was undertaken by Merry Halliday and covered 7 broad topics, as follows:

·

Resources

·

Partnerships & Stakeholders

·

Processes

·

Leadership & Management

·

Policy & Corporate Focus

·

Customers, and

·

Performance

19.

Over 50 points were raised for discussion and / or clarification. These were reviewed by Richard Charters and Neil McCulloch and changes have been introduced, where it was feasible to do so. A reply to each and every point has been circulated to all staff.

20.

Staff Consultation Conclusion:      “A very positive response, which demonstrates a strong commitment to customer support and to the Team working together, to provide a comprehensive service”

21.

A summary of the Staff Consultation exercise is attached at Appendix 4 and this details the action taken or explanation given in respect of each item.

22.

This exercise was undertaken by Sue Trotter & Ed Bowen – who were required to answer a range of challenging questions about the Service, as follows:

-

What would happen if we stopped?

-

What will the service look like in 5 years time?

-

What is bad about the service?

-

What would improve the service?

-

SWOT Analysis

23.

See Appendix 5 for the full range of Questions to be answered in the Revenues Challenge, and the answer to each.

24.

The Challenge ended with a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats). All of the Opportunities and Threats have been addressed by the Best Value Review Team and, where appropriate, carried forward for further consideration. The main potential threat to the business was identified as the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified staff.

25.

Revenues Challenge Conclusion:      “The main conclusions arising from the Internal Challenge are that we operate an efficient and effective Revenues Service, with a well-trained and stable workforce. It is apparent that if we are to maintain our current performance, we cannot afford to stand still. There are several forthcoming changes and opportunities identified in the Challenge and we must consider the impact these will have on our service and what will be required in order to deliver these changes”

26.

The self-assessment against the 846 Benefit Performance Standards was undertaken by Neil McCulloch, Sue Trotter & David Lunn. The Standards cover 7 main topics as follows:

·

Strategic Management (298 Standards)

·

Customer Services (115 Standards)

·

Processing of Claims (135 Standards)

·

Working with Landlords (37 Standards)

·

Internal Security (52 Standards)

·

Counter Fraud (136 Standards), and

·

Overpayments (73 Standards)

27.

Out of the total of 846 Standards, 69 do not apply to Chiltern. These cover such areas as Contractors, where the service, or part of the service, is outsourced, rent rebates for Council dwellings, etc. This leaves a net target of 777 and our assessment is that we comply with 744 of them. Full details of the Self-Assessment have been forwarded to the Audit Manager with a request that he vet and (hopefully) ratify the assessment, as soon as his work programme permits him to do so. The remaining 33 Performance Standards fall into the following categories:

·

No plans to adopt – 28. We don’t comply with these Standards and don’t want to! Some of them are misguided and some might be suitable for a large LA, but unsuitable and unnecessary for a LA like Chiltern.

·

To be actioned – 4. These will be complied with as soon as we can. 3 of them will be achieved when the Benefit Form is reprinted next January / February, and we make some minor changes to the wording. The other will be achieved when we get our Benefit Form on the Internet.

·

Action underway – 1. This concerns the need to process claims within 14 days of all information and (by October 2002) has been achieved.

28.

See Appendix 6 for a summary of the Performance Standards Scorecard, together with full details of the Standards, which are not applicable or unsuitable for Chiltern. (Details of the 744 Standards with which we do comply, are at Appendix S6)

29.

BFI / DWP Benefit Performance Standards Conclusion:      LA’s are expected to work towards achieving these Standards over a number of years. In the case of Chiltern, only 4 out of 846 remain outstanding and arrangements are in hand for these to be implemented very shortly. Overall, this represents an impressive performance, in keeping with a high quality service. With a few exceptions, most of the changes necessary to comply with the Standards were very much ‘in the margin’.

30.

This project was undertaken by Ed Bowen and Helen Curtis and came about as a result of points raised during the EFQM exercise, and the Staff Consultation. It was also a key issue, identified as one of the aims and objectives of the Best Value Review. (See 2 iv above)

31.

The exercise covered all aspects of written communication with our customers, encompassing existing strategy and policy. This included:

·

Letters

·

Leaflets

·

Outreach Strategy

·

Partnership (CHHA, CAB, ONE)

·

Customer Services

32.

As a result of this project a large number of improvements were introduced to give the Revenues Service a much higher profile, with leaflets distributed over a much wider area. All notification letters have been reviewed and simplified. New leaflets have been introduced to cover Discretionary Housing Payments, Information for Landlords, Service Standards, etc.

33.

The Access to Revenues report is attached at Appendix 7 and this details all of the recommendations made during the exercise and the action taken in response.

34.

Access to Revenues Conclusion:      “We are now much more ‘accessible’ to our Customers. A greater stock of advice leaflets is available in the Customer Services area and attention is drawn by the use of a colourful poster. Additional leaflets have been introduced. Around the District, our Service is better publicised by the distribution of our leaflets to 50 outlets in the area and the use of promotional bookmarks at libraries. Leaflet stocks are monitored monthly, which will help identify particular areas of interest and whether the increased promotion impacts on the number of customers accessing the Service.”

35.

The Revenues Team handle large volumes of confidential material and it was apparent that this was not being held or disposed of in a fully secure manner. Richard Charters undertook to review the situation and devise a strategy to deal with the problem

36.

As a result, all confidential material is now held under lock and key overnight. A confidential paper shredding and recycling system has been introduced to ensure sensitive documents are destroyed in a secure manner. (A copy of the Report is attached at Appendix 8.)

37.

Clear Desk / Security Strategy Conclusion:      “A significant improvement in the way we protect the confidentiality of the information entrusted to us by our customers.”

38.

Consultation with customers included the following:

·

Benefits Customer Satisfaction Survey (June/July 2000)

·

Benefits Customer Satisfaction Survey (November/December 2000)

·

Council Tax Customer Satisfaction Survey (June/July 2002)

·

Business Rate Customer Satisfaction Survey (September 2002)

·

Analysis of Customer Complaints, April 2001 – June 2002.

39.

A summary of the Survey Results is attached at Appendix 9, together with notes on the progress made on areas of potential improvement. (Full Survey details and supporting information at Appendix S7) Overall levels of satisfaction as follows:

§

Benefits Service:                     83%

§

Council Tax:     Telephone          89%

§

Business Rates:     Telephone          91%

40.

The following additional information for 2001/2 was recorded from internal control systems:

§

DDI calls answered within target (20 seconds)     98.5%

§

Letters answered target (10 Working Days)     98.5%

§

Council Tax Direct Debit Payers               81%

§

Business Rate Direct Debit Payers          70%

41.

Consultation Conclusion:      “Generally speaking there is a very high level of satisfaction, which supports the view that the Revenues Team (Benefits & Taxation) achieves a high standard and delivers a quality service.”

42.

The Benchmarking Team comprised the following:

·

Sue Trotter, Revenues Manager

·

Helen Curtis, Senior Revenues Officer

·

Vera Head, Councillor, and

·

Alison Howes, Principal Accountant

43.

At the start of the Best Value process, it was assumed that we would be benchmarking against the other Districts in Buckinghamshire, the LA’s in our Benchmark Club and the LA’s in our CIPFA Family Group.

44.

As the BVPI comparison information became available it soon became apparent that Chiltern was a high performing authority and to make the most of the Benchmarking opportunity, we needed to focus on those LA’s which were also high performers.

45.

There are 10 Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI’s) for Revenues, covering 10 key areas of work. The Government want all LA’s to strive for a ‘Top Quartile’ performance in each area, this being the performance achieved by the top 25%.

46.

We wanted to identify those LA’s with a high performance ‘across the board’. So we ‘trawled’ the BV performance data for all of the English LA’s and created a ‘league table’, showing the number of top quartile scores for each LA, out of a maximum of 10.

47.

Surprisingly, only 13 LA’s scored more than 6 out of 10, only 3 scored 8 out of 10, and only 1 (Chiltern) scored 10 out of 10.

48.

Therefore, for benchmarking purposes, we have focused on the 12 top performing LA’s in the Country, namely:

49.

A comprehensive Benchmarking Form was sent to all 12 of the top performing LA’s. In addition, site visits were arranged with Christchurch, Purbeck and East Dorset. Again. See Appendix 10 for a copy of the Benchmark Form.  Copies of the replies received are at Appendix S8.

50.

The following documents are attached at Appendix 11:

51.

Details of the ideas generated through the site visits are listed in Appendix 12, with a comment against each. In total 50 points were reviewed as a result of the Benchmarking initiative.

52.

Benchmark Visits Conclusion:           “We found that these (3) LA’s are indeed all well run and provide efficient Revenues / Benefits services. Although our structure and working practices are considerably different, the visits confirmed our belief that our innovative approach has many benefits and firmly places us among the ‘best of the best’.

53.

Financial Benchmarking Conclusion:           “No benchmarking exercise can ever be an exact science because of the differences in cost classification, methods of allocation and local circumstances. However, it does give an indication of how similar authorities perform and in this instance has shown that Chiltern compares favourably with the other Councils visited. In order to arrive at more meaningful figures, direct costs of service provision were identified separately from support costs, which are usually outside the control of the business unit.”

54.

Staff Ratio Benchmarking Conclusion:     “Each member of staff at Chiltern deals with 464 Benefit Claimants, whereas the figure is 402 at Christchurch, 388 at Purbeck and 380 at East Dorset. The increased case ratio at Chiltern reflects higher productivity, as a result of our fully generic, more streamlined, structure.

55.

Buckinghamshire Benchmark Conclusion:      “The Buckinghamshire group of LA’s is very interesting in that it contains one of the best performing LA’s (Chiltern), one of the worst (Milton Keynes), and South Bucks, out-sourced to IT Net. Chiltern’s performance is far better than that of our neighbours – who link their problems directly to difficulties with staff recruitment and staff retention.”

56.

Fraud Group Benchmark Conclusion:      “Chiltern has the lowest level of resource devoted to fraud yet our performance is equal to, and usually exceeds, the best performing LA’s”  

57.

There are 10 BVPI’s in total, covering the following:

·

Proportion of Council Tax Collected

·

Proportion of Business Rate Collected

·

Number of Working Days Lost to Sickness

·

Whether the LA has a written and pro-active strategy for combating fraud and error which embraces specific initiatives sponsored by the DWP

·

Cost per Housing Benefit / Council Tax Benefit Claim

·

Average processing time for new Benefit Claims

·

Average processing time for Changes of Circumstances

·

Percentage of Benefit Renewal Claims processed on time

·

Accuracy of processing

·

Percentage of Benefit Overpayments recovered

58.

The following documents are attached at Appendix 13:

§

Explanation of the Best Value Performance Indicators which apply to Revenues

§

BVPI’s for Top 13 LA’s in England

§

All England LA Performance Indicator Comparison

59.

Best Value Performance Indicators Conclusion:     “Subject to the reservation that we are comparing Chiltern 2001/2 performance against national data for 2000/1, the BVPI’s confirm that Chiltern is achieving a very high standard and providing a quality service – across the board.”

60.

This is attached at Appendix 14, together with a statement of the recently endorsed Benefits Strategic Vision. The report provides a useful summary of benefits performance and activity during 2001/2.

61.

During the course of the Best Value Review, significant progress has been made to develop the e-government Strategy. A payment facility via the Internet for Council Tax and Business Rates was introduced in September / October 2002 and the Revenues software supplier (IBS) is making good progress to provide taxpayers and claimants with secure access to the relevant computer systems. A copy of the e-government Strategy is attached at Appendix 15.

62.

The BFI / DWP Performance Standards call for each LA to carry out a detailed Risk Assessment on a regular (annual) basis, having regard to the proposed work programme for the next financial year. To assist with this process a Revenues Horizon Plan was introduced. This Plan gathers together all of the forthcoming legislative changes and Government initiatives, as well as any local priorities for service improvement. The main purpose of the Plan is to ensure we are adequately resourced for each year’s work programme. (A copy of the Horizon Plan is attached at Appendix 16)

63.

As part of the Best Value process the Review Team is required to identify any potential threats to the business – which may undermine attempts to move forward and secure improvements in service delivery.

64.

The Revenues Challenge (Appendix 5) included a requirement for a SWOT analysis to identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. This process identified many more strengths than weaknesses and confirmed that we take swift advantage of opportunities as they arise. Nevertheless, we are still vulnerable in one key area. Staffing issues (recruitment and retention) emerged as the single biggest potential threat to the business – and this threat was repeated at every turn of the Best Value project. The Benchmarking Exercise in particular, provided a worrying glimpse of the problems currently being experienced by the vast majority of LA’s, and convinced us that we need to take positive action to protect our present strong position. If we rest on our laurels and wait for staffing problems to materialise, it will already be too late.

65.

There are a number of significant changes to the Benefits system scheduled for introduction next year and these will impact directly on current staffing levels. Therefore, the existing (staffing) threat to the business was included in the Horizon Plan and a Risk Assessment, covering both issues, was carried out by the Best Value Review Team.

66.

The outcome of this Risk Assessment is summarised towards the end of this Report (See Extract from Horizon Plan) and it is hoped that the recommendations made by the Best Value Review Team will be approved. Certainly, there is complete agreement within the Team that a pro-active approach is essential if we are to keep service standards high and avoid the very costly pitfalls experienced by the majority of LA’s.

67.

Attached at Appendix 16 is a copy of the Best Value Timetable

68.

Staff have been kept fully informed at each and every stage of the Best Value process, by means of ‘e’ mail ‘Best Value Updates’, and regular monthly meetings. In total there were nearly 50 Best Value Updates over the 6-month period from April to October – copies at Appendix S11.

A.

CHALLENGE

§

EFQM Self Assessment.

§

External Challenge Team.

§

Staff Consultation Exercise.

§

Revenues Challenge.

§

BFI / DWP Benefit Performance Standards.

B.

CONSULT

·

Customer Satisfaction Surveys for Benefit Claimants, Council Taxpayers and Business Ratepayers

·

Analysis of Customer Complaints

·

External Challenge Team

·

Staff Consultation

·

EFQM

C.

COMPARE

·

All England Best Value Performance Indicators

·

Bucks LA Benchmarking Exercise

·

Benchmarking Exercise with Top 13 LA’s in England

·

Benchmarking Site Visits to Christchurch, Purbeck and East Dorset

·

Benchmarking – Staff Ratios

·

Fraud Group Benchmarking Exercise

D.

COMPETE

·

This process started in 1997 when we called in Barony Consulting Ltd to carry out a market assessment. By introducing a Document Image & Workflow system, closely followed by a fully generic ‘Open Revenues’ computer system, we reduced staffing levels (by 20%) to below the level prescribed by Barony as the private sector equivalent level.

·

BVPI’s have been used to assess whether or not we are competitive. Although it is difficult to gain access to private sector comparison data, the Bucks Benchmark data shows that South Bucks (IT Net) is way adrift of Chiltern in terms of service performance, with much higher costs. Details as follows:

·

Chiltern’s Cost per Benefit Claim is ‘top quartile’ at £34.54. By contrast South Bucks Cost per Benefit Claim is £85.86

·

On a national level, of the 14 LA’s in England where new claims took more than 100 days on average to process, 9 had contracted out their benefits administration. 8 out of 10 of the worst performers are Contractors.

·

Again on a national level, it is now generally accepted that Benefits (in particular) is too complex a system for outsourcing to the Private Sector, as demonstrated by the situation at South Bucks. Nor have we been able to identify any private sector partnership opportunities which are likely to lead to either improvement in service standards or a reduction in costs.

1.

The Terms of Reference for the Revenues Best Value Review are detailed at the beginning of this Report.

2.

At the meeting of the Best Value Review Team on 3rd September 2002, progress against the Terms of Reference was considered in detail. It was unanimously agreed that all of the issues had been addressed in a comprehensive manner.

·

Quality, efficiency and effectiveness has been improved by a whole raft of measures – most of which are identified in Appendix A to this Report. (See also Appendix B.)  

·

The e-government Strategy at Appendix 15 identifies the latest position with regard to e-government. An Internet payment facility for Council Tax & Business Rates was introduced in September / October 2002, and IBS anticipate providing Open Access to relevant computer systems by October / November 2002. There has been significant progress during the period covered by the Best Value Review.

·

We have compared performance against all of the LA’s in England, and as a result, came to the conclusion that we are a ‘high performing’ authority. This view was confirmed by the Benchmarking Exercise with the Top Performing LA’s in the Country, the Benchmarking Exercise with the Bucks LA’s and the Benchmarking Exercise with the Fraud Group.  

·

The methods by which we communicate were fully explored, mainly by the ‘Access to Revenues’ project (Appendix 7) but also by the External Challenge Team, the EFQM assessment, the Staff Consultation process, etc.

·

Service cost has been tested and challenged as part of the Revenues Challenge and compares very well indeed. In particular, the Benefit Cost per ‘weighted’ claim is low, having regard to the ‘top quartile’ costs for both South East LA’s and England LA’s. A comparison with South Bucks (IT Net) confirms that we provide a significantly better service at a significantly lower cost.

1.

At every stage of the Best Value process a record has been kept of all suggestions and recommendations for service improvements, whatever the source.

2.

All of these ideas have all been considered by the Best Value Review Team and categorised, as follows:

·

Appendix A – List of all Service Improvements introduced during the period April to October 2002, together with a note of what prompted the improvement.

·

Appendix B – List of all Service Improvements which could not be introduced immediately, but which will be introduced as soon as possible. In effect, this is the Best Value Improvement Plan. The List notes the anticipated date that the service improvement will be introduced – and in each case the item will be carried forward to the Revenues Service Plan to ensure ongoing monitoring.

·

Appendix C – List of all Service Improvements suggested during the Best Value process, which were rejected as inappropriate, or unnecessary, having regard to the situation at Chiltern.  

3.

Code for source of suggestion / recommendation as follows:

·

EFQM     – European Foundation for Quality Management – Self Assessment

·

CSS     – Customer Satisfaction Survey

·

ECT     – External Challenge Team

·

BSV     – Benchmarking / Site Visits

·

ATR     – Access to Revenues

·

SC          – Staff Consultation

·

RC          – Revenues Challenge

·

HZ          – Horizon Plan

·

BPS     – BFI / DWP Benefits Performance Standards

·

EGS     – E Government Strategy

·

BVPI     – Best Value Performance Indicators

·

CDSS     – Clear Desk / Security Strategy

4.

A copy of the Revenues Business Plan is attached at Appendix 18, incorporating all of the service improvements listed in the Best Value Improvement Plan. The Revenues Business Plan is reviewed on a monthly basis – and this is the means by which we will ensure that the various measures are introduced / completed.

·

Staffing Issues / Recruitment / Retention - this is perceived to be the number 1 threat to the business.

§

87% of LA’s had experienced problems recruiting skilled benefit assessors. Problems recruiting assessors were seen to have the greatest effects. The vast majority of LA’s agreed it was a cause of delays and backlog in benefit administration and low staff morale.

§

87% of LA’s reported that training up inexperienced recruits using existing resources was a problem.

§

62% of LA’s reported that the recruitment of experienced managers / supervisors was a problem. The main impact of recruitment difficulties for this staff type was said to be low staff morale. 74% of LA’s cited this as an effect.

§

64% of LA’s had taken action to address recruitment problems. Most commonly, this had involved recruiting and training inexperienced staff. Action to address turnover issues most commonly involved improving / extending training opportunities (37%) and reviewing salaries (24%)

§

72% of LA’s agreed most strongly with the assertion that the diversion of experienced staff to train inexperienced recruits was a cause of delays and problems in benefits administration.

·

Key Benefit Changes 2003

§

5 Year Review of Pensioner (over 65) Benefit Cases

§

WFTC and DPTC to be replaced by Working Tax Credit and Children’s Tax Credit.

§

Pension Credits to be introduced

1.

It is recognised that the Council is ‘strapped for cash’ and that to be successful, any proposals regarding staffing need to be cost moderate.  

2.

The last time we recruited an experienced Benefits Assessor was in May 1999 – over 3 years ago. Since then, competition has intensified, quite significantly.

3.

Agency staff are being used extensively at the other LA’s in Buckinghamshire, and elsewhere. The cost of one, often poorly trained, agency worker is approximately, £50,000 pa. If the Benefits Service deteriorates and we are forced down this road in desperation, the extra costs will be prohibitive.

4.

One of our neighbouring LA’s has spent £90,000 so far this year on agency benefits staff and £200,000 last year. The other Bucks LA’s ‘won’t say’ but the figures, especially in the case of Milton Keynes, are likely to be staggering.

5.

We have one of the best-trained workforces in England and probably the only workforce which is fully generic across Taxation & Benefits. Almost certainly, we have a proportionately higher level of qualified staff than any other LA. These factors all contribute to our success.

6.

A comparison of staff numbers against the top performing sites we Benchmarked with, shows that we are more efficient at Chiltern. Each member of our staff deals with 464 Benefit Claimants, whereas the figure is 402 at Christchurch, 388 at Purbeck and 380 at East Dorset. The increased case ratio at Chiltern reflects higher productivity as a direct result of our fully generic, more streamlined structure.

7.

When a vacancy arises, it is usually approximately 10 weeks before a replacement starts. With advertising, interviewing, etc, this is unavoidable but coupled to the fact that the leaver may have leave to take, often means there is a two month gap between leaver and replacement. This assumes a suitable replacement is found on the first advertisement. After induction, 3 months will have passed (at best) before we begin to make good the loss. Obviously, this is detrimental to the business.

8.

There will always be a need to train at least some of our staff from scratch, although we cannot do this all of the time. The Modern Apprentice Scheme may be a suitable and cost effective way (£5k per person pa) of training youngsters in a background support role – and bringing suitable candidates into the Team as and when a vacancy arises.

9.

The Department of Work & Pensions has just designated Buckinghamshire as a Special Pay Zone, which adds £1500 - £1700 to the salaries of all staff at the Jobcentre and Pensions Office. (This is before the Annual Award.) Clearly, the DWP have taken action to try and avert a staffing crisis.  

10.

The Verification Framework was introduced at Chiltern in 1999 and the DWP contributes £54,000 pa towards our administration costs, which pays for 2 members of the Team. The Local Authority Associations have been arguing for some time that the level of financial support is inadequate for the increasing workload and this has paid off. From April 2003, the contribution will increase by 50%, which will pay for an additional Benefit Assessor, leaving a balance in the region of £5000.

11.

Also, the DWP intend to provide funding for the ongoing cost of administering the benefit changes scheduled for introduction in 2003. Again, any funds forthcoming will need to be used for additional Benefit Assessors, and it is almost inevitable that initially, just like the Verification Framework, the project will be under-funded.

12.

In both of the situations described in 9 & 10 above, it would be a great asset if we could be authorised to start the recruitment process well in advance of the operative date for funding. There might be a relatively modest cost attached to this, if an appointment commenced a month or two prior to the date funding commenced, but it would allow us to properly market test the salary package on offer, and take remedial action, if necessary, to secure experienced staff. (By experienced, we mean people with 3 years in a Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit office, which is a fairly minimalist definition.) If an additional cost arises, it can be funded from the (excess) VF funds referred to at Paragraph 10 above.

13.

All LA’s (and Jobcentre Plus and the Pensions Service) will be advertising for additional staff later this year or early next year and, for obvious reasons, all will be hoping to attract experienced people.

14.

A local and not so local comparison of Benefit Assessor salaries:

§

Aylesbury Vale District Council -      £15,400 to £19,500

§

Wycombe District Council -           £15,393 to £18,537

§

Milton Keynes Borough Council -      £14,500 to £21,300

§

Hart District Council –                Salary to £19,770

§

Surrey Heath Borough Council -           £16,296 - £19,778

§

Reigate & Banstead -                £17,502 - £20,805

§

Chiltern District Council -           £9,648 to £17,784

15.

It is also relevant to mention that Chiltern staff are multi-skilled and can deal with any query across Council Tax or Benefits, whereas staff at the other LA’s are less skilled, having been trained to a less demanding level.

1.

We amend the Contract of Employment for existing ‘experienced’ staff to require 3 months notice of resignation, for which an additional 2 increments would be payable. (This would not apply to professionally qualified staff who are already paid a ‘professional premium’ of 7.5% and who are already required to give 3 months notice.) Based on existing staffing profiles this would cost £19k - £20k pa. This measure would effectively ‘plug’ the 2 / 3 month gap, which invariably arises when there is a resignation.

2.

We extend the Health Care Scheme to include experienced Benefit Assessors, who, in turn, could opt to pay for their partner and any dependants. This is viewed as a significant incentive. Again based on existing staff profiles this would cost approximately £6k.

1.

We are authorised to recruit staff prior to the availability of VF and DWP funding, subject to any overlapping costs being held to a reasonable level, and that,

2.

We use the first such appointment to market test the salary package on offer, to secure the services of an experienced Benefits Assessor.

3.

We recruit 2 Modern Apprentices with a longer-term objective of training to a suitable standard, so we can appoint to future vacancies. (Cost £10k pa.)

a)

The cost of the Modern Apprentices (£10k) to be met from the existing casual / temporary staff budget – which will be reduced by £5000, from £20k to £15k.

b)

By focusing additional resources on likely fraud cases, for Administrative Penalties, Official Cautions, and / or Prosecutions, we will be able to generate ‘additional’ subsidy from the DWP, forecast at £10k.

c)

We have budgeted for the WIB / SAFE Scheme to generate subsidy of £20k – we think it feasible to increase this to £30k, thereby raising a further £10k.

APPENDIX A

SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS INTRODUCED

List of all service improvements suggested and introduced during the best value review period (April to October 2002), together with a note of what prompted the improvement.

·

Carry out a Customer Satisfaction Survey for 5000 Council Taxpayers and 500 Business Ratepayers in June 2002. (EFQM) – Completed on Schedule. Results incorporated in Best Value Review

·

Review Outreach Strategy and consider whether a more extensive benefits take-up campaign would be worthwhile. (EFQM) – Completed. Welfare Officer involved in a take-up campaign at the Gladstone Road Surgery in Chesham and with the CHHA for Sheltered Accommodation. Also, Bookmarks promoting the availability of Housing & Council Tax Benefit distributed via the Library Network (including the Mobile Libraries for outlying areas) and Leaflet distribution via the 50 sites participating in the Council’s Brochure Display Scheme.

·

Use Customer Satisfaction Survey to test awareness of Council Tax discounts, exemptions, and the availability of Housing & Council Tax Benefit. (EFQM) – Completed.       Survey Form designed accordingly and results reported to the Best Value Review Team.

·

Fix dates for monthly manager / team meetings well in advance. (EFQM) – Completed. This suggestion resulted in an improved two-tier structure for team meetings within Revenues, which streamlined the process and the flow of information.

·

Deputies to attend meetings in the absence of Team Leader. (EFQM) – Agreed with immediate effect, from April 2002 onwards.

·

Introduce mid-year performance and training reviews for each member of staff on a 1 – 2 – 1 Team Leader basis. (EFQM) – Agreed and implemented with mid-year appraisals scheduled for June / July 2002. Team Leaders to report any issues arising to next meeting of Revenues Management Group.

·

Raise awareness and inform staff of ‘e’ government plans by circulating the ‘e’ government strategy. (EFQM) – Completed May 2002. Strategy circulated under cover of Best Value – Update(19). Staff invited to contribute / comment. Strategy to be reviewed and updated quarterly during 2002 / 3 as per Business Plan.

·

Introduce more better defined and individualised Aims & Objectives. (EFQM) – Agreed. Aims & Objectives for year ending 31st December 2002, revised accordingly.

·

Negotiate new flexitime arrangements. (EFQM) – Completed. New, more flexible, flexitime arrangements introduced with effect from April 2002, and generally welcomed by all.

·

Health & Safety / Working Conditions to be on Agenda for monthly meetings. (EFQM) – Agreed. This is now a regular agenda item.

·

Review salary scales as part of the benchmarking process, gathering information from external sources. (EFQM) – Agreed. This issue to be addressed during Benchmarking / Site Visits. Key areas of comparison to include Staffing Levels, Staff Structure, and direct Staff Costs. See also Horizon Plan.

·

Carry out more formal benchmarking with other comparable LA’s. (EFQM) – Agreed. We will focus on the top performing LA’s and prepare a detailed assessment for each site based on Performance Indicators and additional information from direct contact, in advance of any site visit. This will make the most of the benchmarking opportunity.

·

Procedure Notes to be re-titled and re-organised and staff to be provided with a laminated Index, for ease of reference. (EFQM) – Completed. A double-sided A4 laminated Index has been distributed to all staff. This Index lists all Procedure Notes on the Readme Directory, together with key management documents; for example, Business Plan, Performance Indicators, Outreach Strategy, etc. It is intended as a visual aid, to ensure staff know where to look for information and guidance.

·

Set up a centralised electronic filing system for minutes of all meetings. (EFQM) – Completed. See I Drive / Tax / Minutes of Meetings. Covers Minutes of Meetings with CHHA, Bailiff, Clerk to Magistrates Court, New Business Team, Team 1, Team 2, ONE Partnership, Rent Officer, Revenues Management Group and IT.

·

Teams to exchange information on Best Practice with a view to adopting a common approach. (EFQM) – Ongoing with full agreement between the 3 Teams on the need to adopt a common approach. A good example is the (agreed) use of the Groupwise Tasklist facility to monitor follow-up action, rather than the variety of methods previously in use.

·

Develop use of electronic diary system. (EFQM) – Completed. Access to the diary system has been extended on a ‘need to view’ basis, using the proxy facility. In addition to making or cancelling appointments in the absence of any individual, this allows items on the Task List (awaiting follow-up action) to be dealt with in a timely manner by any member of the Team.

·

Apply pressure to IBS (Software Supplier) to clear outstanding Incident Reports (IR’s). (EFQM) – Completed. Pressure applied through Local Authority Panel Meetings with IBS who, henceforth, will report monthly on the number of IR’s cleared, the number received during the month, and the new balance outstanding. Also, IBS will set targets for reducing the number of IR’s outstanding. Situation to be monitored by the LA Panel Group.

·

Provide all staff with a summary of Performance Targets. (EFQM) – Completed. Distributed to staff under cover of Best Value – Update(28). To view, see I / Revenues / Readme / Service Targets. This summary details all of our more specific performance targets on a single A4 page.

·

Review current back to work interview process for absence through sickness. (EFQM) – Completed. See Best Value – Update(13) which was circulated to all staff following a comprehensive overhaul of procedures for dealing with sickness, which is considered to be higher than it should be for a LA like Chiltern. In particular, the Return to Work interview must be carried out in a private room and cover all of the issues referred to in the guidance notes.

·

Compare cost per claim for benefit processing with other LA’s in the South East. (EFQM) – Completed. Cost per benefit claim at Chiltern was initially estimated at £52.98, which was a ‘top quartile’ performance, compared with other LA’s in the South East. However, this calculation failed to take account of the income stream generated from the recovery of benefit overpayments. This reduces the cost per claim for 2001/2 to £34.54.

·

Under each Performance Indicator there should be an explanation of what they mean, and how they are measured and verified. (ECT)- Completed. See Explanation of Revenues Performance Indicators at Appendix 15.

·

Publish more information on Performance Indicators in the Chiltern Chronicle. (EFQM) – Completed. Article prepared for inclusion in Autumn issue of the Chronicle, with a ‘local interest’ slant.

·

BFI / DWP Performance Standards call for the LA to regularly risk assess all operational and change plans. (BPS) – To assist with this process, a Horizon Plan has been introduced. This Plan gathers together all of the issues / proposals that may impact on operational efficiency, so that a Risk Assessment can be carried out as soon as this may be appropriate. The main purpose of this Plan is to ensure we are adequately resourced for whatever changes may arise.

·

Benefit Performance Standards call for all benefits documentation to be reviewed to ensure it is written in plain English. (BPS) – Review completed. The main document is the Claim Form, which incorporates Explanatory Notes. This Form has been benchmarked against the BFI model form, and has been submitted for the Crystal Mark accreditation.

·

Benefits Performance Standards call for the Benefits Training Programme to include a formal mechanism for evaluating the training provided. (BPS) – A formal evaluation was introduced, with effect from May 2002, to replace the previous informal procedure.

·

Staff consultation identified a bottleneck in the checking and scanning of VF files, causing a problem locating the file, if the claimant telephoned to discuss. (SC) – Procedure reviewed and streamlined to make sure that the file is readily available at all times.

·

Staff consultation queried the need for all leaflets to be sent each time a (revised) bill is issued. (SC) – Procedures revised to send ‘repeat’ leaflets only where necessary. This should be popular with taxpayers.

·

Staff consultation identified the need for another printer at the end of the office nearest Customer Services. (CS) – Agreed and installed.

·

Benefits Performance Standards stipulate that the LA should provide clear, practical advice to landlords by having help-sheets and leaflets available. (BPS) – To comply with this requirement we have prepared and printed a Landlord Leaflet for distribution to all existing landlords, which is also available to new landlords.

·

Benefits Performance Standards recommend a letter to landlords once a year giving up to date information on the landlord’s responsibilities and encouraging them to co-operate to prevent overpayments, etc. (BPS) – Letter introduced as a result of this Standard – scheduled for September / October each year.

·

Benefits Performance Standards recommend Post Room is secure and locked, whenever unattended. (BPS) – Completed. Key Pad locks installed to meet the security requirement.

·

Benefits Performance Standards recommend that all decisions not to recover Benefit Overpayments be recorded and reviewed by the LA. (BPS) – New monitoring report introduced to better comply with this requirement – to be reviewed monthly by Revenues Management Group.

·

Benefits Performance Standards recommend that all confidential material is held under lock and key when not in use and when finalised, is destroyed in a secure manner. (BPS) – This project was undertaken by Richard Charters and has been completed. See Clear Desk / Security Strategy. Arrangements have been made for all files to be locked away at close of business and secure Shredding Bins introduced for the timely disposal of all confidential material.

·

Benefits Performance Standards recommend the LA adopt a comprehensive Vision Statement and regularly review performance against all of the relevant Performance Indicators. (BPS) – See Annual Benefits Service Report endorsed by the Executive in September 2002. This report format will continue in future years.

·

Revenues leaflets should be more readily available in Customer Services. (ATR) – Part of Customer Services designated as Revenues Area and all leaflets displayed, together with a ‘Help with your CTAX / Rent Poster.

·

All letters, explanatory notes, and leaflets should be held on a central file and regularly reviewed. (ATR) – Agreed. Ed Bowen has a master list of all items, which will be reviewed annually in December, or when changes arise.

·

Need for additional leaflets identified. (ATR) – New leaflets introduced to cover Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP’s), Service Standards, Information for Landlords, and Bookmark for distribution via library / mobile library network.

·

Opportunity identified for a Plasma Screen to be sited on the wall next to the door between Customer Services and Revenues. (ATR) – Agreed. Screen funded by advertising and supplied free of charge. Revenues or other CDC information to be interspersed with advertising.

·

Need for leaflets to be circulated more widely. (ATR) – Chiltern Brochure Display Network adopted and 5 copies of each Revenues leaflet are now displayed in 50 key locations within Chiltern area. Network is monitored and leaflets renewed on request.

·

External Challenge Team recommended that ‘Appeal Rights’ should be presented in a clearer fashion. (ECT) – Agreed. All relevant letters revised to show appeal rights against bullet points.

·

Challenge Team commented on the need for a policy for ‘e’ mails, covering form of reply, monitoring, response times, etc. (ECT) – Agreed. Situation reviewed by Richard Charters and draft Procedure Notes approved by BV Review Team, prior to circulation to all staff. Situation to be reviewed in 3 months in light of experience. Revenues Business Plan noted accordingly.

·

Improve staff empowerment in certain areas, for example, making recovery arrangements. (EFQM) – Agreed. Revised guidelines issued – see CDC / CAB Service Agreement and Recovery Strategy. Matter discussed at Team meetings and no further suggestions forthcoming.

·

Good practice guidance from the national Association of CAB’s recommends the introduction of a Service Agreement between the LA and local CAB – Agreed and introduced. See CDC / CAB Service Agreement. This summarises all of the special arrangements in place for dealing with joint clients.

·

Staff consultation identified 3 Business Rate letters that needed to be automated. (SC) – Completed. The 3 letters concerned, covering returned cheques and direct debits have been automated and are now available on mail merge.

·

External Challenge Team proposed a number of amendments to Leaflet on Service and Performance Standards. (ECT) – Leaflet amended accordingly and printed. Called ‘Our Promises to You’

·

Add HBINFO.ORG to ‘E’ Government Strategy document. This is a new national website for all HB Circulars, Guidance, legislation, etc. (ECT) – Completed.

·

Circulars / Guidance Notes to be included as a regular standing agenda item on all Team Meetings. (BSV) – Suggestion adopted with immediate effect.

List of all service improvements which could not be introduced immediately but which will be introduced, as soon as it is feasible to do so. In effect, this list is the Best Value Improvement Plan.

·

During 2001/2 we failed by 0.1% to achieve our Council Tax collection target of 99%. Subsequent analysis by the Revenues Management Group prompted 2 changes to our recovery strategy for the final quarter of 2002/3 as follows:

a)

Another Reminder / Cancellation Run to be scheduled for March, and

b)

Remove instalment option for period January – March 2003

·

Publish more internal and external Performance Indicator information on CDC Website. (EFQM)

·

Continue to apply pressure to IT to set-up a Service Level Agreement, as recommended by IT Best Value Inspector. (EFQM)

·

Consider contingency plan for IT key staff long term absence. (EFQM)

·

Introduce further automated processes for Direct Debits (AUDDIS / ADDACS / PDD) in accordance with the Revenues Business Plan. (EFQM)

·

Develop remote access computer links, initially for a Revenues Surgery in Chesham.  (EFQM)

·

Benefits Performance Standards encourage LA’s to demonstrate awareness of common quality standards and charter marks. Benefits claim form submitted for Crystal Mark ‘plain English’ accreditation. (BPS)

·

Staff Consultation identified a difference in working practices between Teams 1 & 2, when dealing with Occupations and Vacations over the telephone. (SC)

·

Benefit letters to be reviewed when IBS supply access to raw data. Proposal is to get all key financial information together on a separate page and thereby, speed the process and simplify the letter. (SC)

·

Benefit Claim Form to be made available on the Website, for printing off and return to LA. (BPS)

·

PC based system to be introduced to Customer Services to monitor ‘wait times’ on a case by case basis, with monthly performance monitoring against a (maximum) target of 4 minutes. (BPS)

·

Claim Form to be revised to include ‘consent wording’ whereby landlord can be advised (on request) of progress of claim. Consent wording to be included next January / February, when the form is due to be reprinted. (BPS)

·

Response to Survey suggests a limited demand for extended telephone opening hours. However, the situation is marginal and there needs to be some sort of work-related initiative to make it viable. Decision needed in due course. (CSS)

·

Survey confirmed that the annual Council Tax leaflet ‘Information About Your Local Taxes’ needs to be completely redesigned. The same applies to the Explanatory Notes issued to Business Ratepayers. To be actioned by April 2003, if at all possible. If not, by April 2004. (CSS)

·

Wording, lay-out and overall appearance of Reminder Notices, Cancellation Notices and Summons Notice needs to be improved, perhaps with greater emphasis on payment by debit / credit cards. To be dealt with as part of an on-going process. Review progress in December 2002. (ECT)

·

Benefits Performance Standards to be reviewed on an annual basis to confirm that appropriate measures are still in place. (BPS)

·

Consider installation of Ovaltech Benefits Calculator on CDC Website (ECT)

·

Assess ability to download RATS EDT straight into DIP system. (ECT)

·

Liase with DWP and the other Bucks LA’s over Tax / Pension Tax Credits publicity / take-up campaign. (BSV)

·

Develop a Training Plan which makes provision for Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale. (BSV)

·

Revenues Management Group to review procedures for taking discount / exemption details by telephone. (BSV)

·

Consider sending Change of Circumstances Form with all Benefit Notifications. (BSV)

OTHER SUGGESTIONS – REJECTED

List of all suggestions generated during the best value process, which were considered and rejected, together with a note clarifying the reason for rejection.

·

(ECT) – Suggestion that we increase number of benchmark sites, perhaps against CIPFA Group or CIH online benchmark club.

·

(ECT) – Use of different languages and Braille on our correspondence.

·

(ECT) – In the Survey, target people who have had recovery action taken against them.

·

(ECT) – Team thought it may be useful to enclose a short separate note with letters / notices "Do you understand this ....?”. Suggestion considered but no support. The consensus was that many customers would take offence and accuse the Council of adopting a patronising attitude. All letters and notices already provide a contact number for queries, further information, etc.

·

(ECT) – Recommended changes to Complaints Form.