Review Of Income Support - Report - 10 July 2009

Health, Social Security and Housing

Scrutiny Panel

Review of Income Support

Presented to the States on 10th July 2009

S.R.5/2009

CONTENTS

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................................3
2. PANEL MEMBERSHIP.............................................................................................4

0. Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Sub-Panel Membership: Income Support.............................................................................................................................4

1. Advisers.................................................................................................................4

3. CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................5
4. KEY FINDINGS.........................................................................................................7
5. RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................10
6. INTRODUCTION:....................................................................................................14
7. MAKING AN APPLICATION ...................................................................................16

0. Administration of Income Support........................................................................16
1. Over-burdensome forms......................................................................................18

8. SERVICE DELIVERY..............................................................................................20

0. Turn-around time and backdating........................................................................20
1. Personal contact..................................................................................................23
2. Appointments and privacy ...................................................................................24
3. Benefit entitlement...............................................................................................25
4. Clarity of Correspondence...................................................................................26
5. Training ...............................................................................................................27

9. CLIENT SUPPORT.................................................................................................29

0. Home Visits. ........................................................................................................29
1. Advocacy.............................................................................................................30

10. INCENTIVES TO SAVE ......................................................................................33

0. Savings Levels ....................................................................................................33
1. Special Payments and Levels of Contribution .....................................................36
2. Divorce ................................................................................................................40

11. THE INCOME SUPPORT UNIT ..........................................................................42

11.0  The Income Support Unit.....................................................................................42

12. APPEALS AND OVERPAYMENTS.....................................................................45

0. Income Support Appeals .....................................................................................45

1. Special Payments – Minister's Discretion............................................................48
2. Overpayments.....................................................................................................48

13. HEALTH CARE – HOUSEHOLD MEDICAL ACCOUNTS...................................50

0. Household Medical Account (HMA) and former HIE recipients ...........................50
1. Dental Care .........................................................................................................55
2. Charges for MRI scans and X-Rays....................................................................56
3. Personal Care Component..................................................................................58
4. Payment for medical supplies..............................................................................60

14. WORK FOCUS....................................................................................................62

0. Incentives to Work...............................................................................................62
1. Childcare components.........................................................................................64
2. Changes in earned income..................................................................................65
3. Maintenance........................................................................................................67
4. Income Support funding for study and re-training................................................67

15. TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS AND RESIDENCY RULES ..................................69

0. The 5-year residency rule....................................................................................69
1. Transitional Protection.........................................................................................70

16. GLOSSARY OF TERMS – ..................................................................................73

16.  METHODOLOGY AND EVIDENCE CONSIDERED............................................75

0. Call for evidence..................................................................................................75
1. Evidence Considered ..........................................................................................75

0. Legislation:.......................................................................................................75
1. Oral Questions to Ministers asked in the States Assembly:.............................76
2. Written Questions to Ministers asked in the States Assembly: ........................77
3. Other Written Material:.....................................................................................79
4. Written Submissions:.......................................................................................79
5. Requests made to interested parties ...............................................................79
6. Public and Private Hearings:............................................................................79 APPENDIX 1 ..................................................................................................................81

1.  TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. To review the implementation of the Income Support system and report upon its effectiveness.
2. To assess whether the Income Support system meets the objective of the Department of Social Security to establish a fair and integrated system that meets the requirements of all clients.
3. To assess the levels of manpower resources, training and support for those delivering the Income Support system.
4. To consider any other pertinent matters that may arise during the course of the review.

2. PANEL MEMBERSHIP

0. Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Sub-Panel Membership: Income Support

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : Chairman Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier : Vice-Chairman Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin

Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour

1. Advisers

Reverend G. Houghton – The Reverend Geoff Houghton's Christian roots lie in the work of the Iona Community, with its concerns for social justice. Ordained in 1990 he began ministry in a challenging area of social housing in Southampton and has been Vicar of All Saints and St. Simon, in St. Helier , since 1994, Vice-Dean since 1999 and Rector of Trinity since 2005. Pastoral ministry in the Town has kept the issues facing some of the Island's most vulnerable and marginal to the forefront of his concerns. He was a co-founder of the Jersey Homeless Outreach Group and continues to work closely with the Shelter Trust. Between 1995 and 2005, he was a chaplain at Clarkson House where he continues to sit on the Ethics and Governance Committee, and has been involved with the Independent Advisory Group for the States of Jersey Police.

Mr. E. Le Quesne – retired in 2001 as Head of Science at Victoria College, a post he enjoyed for 27 years. He has taken an interest in local issues, for example as a founder member and current Treasurer of JHOG (Jersey Homeless Outreach Group). He is secretary of the CTJ Housing Trust, which has over 120 properties to rent. He is chairperson of the Amos group of Christians Together in Jersey, which meets monthly to look at social issues in Jersey and comment on proposals put forward by States ministers. The group made comments and were consulted on the original proposals for an income support system.

3. CHAIRMAN'S INTRODUCTION

When I first set out to examine the structure and delivery of the Income Support system, little did I realise the scale of the task, nor the range of responses we would receive. Indeed, I believe that all concerned have seriously underestimated the complexity of creating a system to deliver 14 separate benefits through a single administrative mechanism.

At the outset, let me offer praise to the staff at Social Security, especially those dealing with the day-to-day issues presented by applicants who require assistance in difficult times. They have often sought to go "the extra mile" in their attempts to find solutions to particular problems. They have been let down by a series of decisions at the higher political and administrative levels, which have markedly reduced the flexibility of the system to respond to individual need in a timely and appropriate manner.

In the three and a half years that I have been involved in examining the activities of the Social Security Department especially with regard to the introduction of Income Support I have been aware that Departmental resources have been increasingly stretched. It appears to me that the Department has taken on additional responsibilities in areas such as employment law, redundancies and the massive overhaul of benefits; it has done so without demanding additional resource in an effort to drive down costs I believe these additional workloads have increased the stresses on staff and actually reduced efficiency. I believe that the Minister should admit that if he wishes to deliver essential additional services and to do his job properly he must now accept that a bid for additional resource, especially staffing must be made. I urge him to do so.

This report contains a large number of key findings which taken together add up to a description of a bureaucratic system that is difficult for both clients and staff to understand. It fails therefore to meet the strategic aims outlined in recent social policy statements of encouraging independence and autonomy. In short, Income Support is not a "hand up" but has all the characteristics of a "hand out".

The key findings are many and varied, but can be grouped largely in three areas:

• Communication
• Individual needs
• Incentives

In addition, the level of benefits and the manner in which Income Support was introduced need to be addressed to view the system in context.

First, it must be recognised that in the build up to the creation of Income Support, a decade of research into minimum budgetary standards (levels of incomes needed in a range of circumstances) carried out by Loughborough University, known as the CRSP reports, was abandoned as too costly by the previous minister for Social Security. Complaints that Income Support does not stretch as far as it should have to be seen in the context of that reduction in levels of benefit.

Second, it must be recognised that Income Support was brought in to a deadline that was driven by the political need to introduce GST. I believe that preparations for "going live" were therefore somewhat curtailed.

Communication

There  can  be  no  doubt  from  the  evidence  gathered  for  this  review  that  poor communication from the department has been an issue from the outset. The 26-page application form combines with letters written apparently by a lawyer to produce total confusion. The department has failed to produce clear information about what benefits are available (job seekers allowance), how benefit is calculated and how some benefits are delivered  (Household  Medical  Accounts).   It  is  widely  known  that  one  of  the  major problems with the delivery of any benefits system is the lack of awareness in clients of what benefits they may be eligible for and consequent under claiming. The absence of clear information and publicity is a major failing on the part of the Ministers responsible.

Individual need

Whilst the replacement of the Parish Welfare system constitutes only a minor part of Income Support in monetary terms, it is absolutely critical in human resource terms. Many clients of Income Support need individual assistance in getting their benefit. A home visit may be required for the elderly or those with mobility or learning difficulties. This help is being delivered expensively by social workers, family nurses and other bodies. A whole layer of help has been stripped out of the system and not replaced, leaving a highly bureaucratic but depersonalised core.

Incentives

Incentives to work and to save are very poor. The opportunity to promote self-support and independence  has  been missed.  It  is my  view  that  whilst  the  introduction of  greater incentives may be a short-term cost, if we can establish greater numbers of clients in stable work then costs will be less in the medium to long term.

All of the above issues, some major and some minor, need to be addressed. The Income Support system as it exists today must be seen as simply a starting point. Nor, I believe, can the issues raised in this report be put on the back burner to await a departmental review in 2010. Some of the minor changes could be put into force at little cost today; others may require greater planning and costs, but all require action to start. I urge the Social Security Minister to demonstrate an open mind and to include some of the changes required in the 2010 Business Plan for immediate action.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier ,

Chairman, Health, Social Security & Housing Scrutiny Sub-Panel: Income Support

4. KEY FINDINGS

Please note: Each key finding is accompanied by a reference to that part of the report where further explanation and justification may be found.

Key Finding 23: Section 14.4

The value of the existing skills assessments and training is recognised. The Sub-Panel is mindful that this is a resource hungry service with ever-increasing demands.

Key Finding 25: Section 15.1

The Sub-Panel welcomes the delay to the phasing out of transitional payments but is concerned about the impact of the loss of benefit.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Please note: Each recommendation is accompanied by a reference to that part of the report where further explanation and justification may be found.

Recommendation 11: Section 9.1

Given the demonstrated need for clients to be assisted in getting IS we recommend that the Minister investigate setting up free access to an independent advocacy service.

Recommendation 12: Section 10.0

The Minister must examine ways to improve incentives to save.

Recommendation 23: Section 13.1

Ministers need to resolve the outstanding issues outlined in P.145/2007 as a matter of urgency.

6. INTRODUCTION:

The Sub-Panel has focused its attention on Income Support and the ability of the system to deliver to its clients a simple and equitable system one year after its introduction. A background  to  the  policy  development  of  Income  Support  (IS)  was  outlined  in  the Chairman's foreword in S.R.17/2007[1] presented to the States on 2nd October 2007. The introduction of Income Support as currently presented is the culmination of 12 years of work, which as we shall see in this report is still very much work in progress.

The first work on this subject was conducted in 1997.

Tthe Centre for Research in Social Policy – Loughborough University (CRSP) undertook a series of research exercises on "basket of goods" costs between 1997 and 2001. The work was not "abandoned" in 2003. It was completed in 2001. CRSP provided a further paper on income support systems in 2004 and Nottingham University published a report commissioned by the Department in 2006 on Social Protection.

This work was rejected by the Minister as too costly in 2006.

Income  Support  is  based  on  Components –  individual  elements  of  Income  Support comprising a discrete set of payments.

Basic Components weekly rates:

Adult  a basic sum to cover daily living expenses  £90.30 Single Parent  a basic sum to cover daily living expenses  £129.92 Child  a basic sum to cover daily living expenses  £60.90 Household  a basic sum to cover general household expenses  £46.20

Impairment weekly rates: three types available:

1. Personal care –  for people who need some assistance with  level 1  £21.77 their own care:  level 2  £96.32 level 3  £138.25

Mobility weekly rates:

2. Mobility –  for people with an impairment

which seriously affects their  a non earner  £21.77 mobility:  a mobility earner  £45.54

Clinical Costs weekly rates:

3. Clinical cost – for people who need to visit

their GP regularly because of a 5+ consultations  £2.73

chronic or progressive

condition 9+ consultations  £5.53

Carer weekly rates:

Available to people who look after someone who is disabled or has a serious medical condition weekly payment – £44.66.

Childcare hourly rates:

Covers day care and the hourly rate varies according to the age of the child ranging from £5.58 for under-3s to £3.14 for 5-11 year-olds.

The Sub-Panel recognises that the merger of 14 benefits into one structure was always going to prove to be challenging. It is recognised that ongoing changes, such as those concerned with Attendance Allowance and adjustments for GST, etc. have added to those challenges. The Sub-Panel finds that the policy and legislation as they currently stand still require some development; and issues such as the impact of the cessation of transitional payments, savings disregard and special payments, amongst others, remain to be addressed.

The Sub-Panel has identified a number of key issues of concern highlighted in both the written and oral evidence received. Key challenges facing the system are: its complexity; the inability of the Department to provide clear information to clients on what their entitlement is. The Sub-Panel believes that in the transfer to a single centralised system essential support which used to be delivered by the welfare system has been lost. A replacement for this must be found.

The Sub-Panel is aware that the people who require Income Support may be elderly, or isolated, or have learning difficulties so it is not surprising that many complaints have been made by clients and agencies over the difficulties faced in completing the form required by the system.

We also have concerns over the impersonal nature of the system, the levels of staff training which have been undertaken and the level of staffing required to deal with increased demands on the service.

7. MAKING AN APPLICATION

0. Administration of Income Support

The previous report on Income Support, S.R.17/2007 highlighted the need for sufficient resources to cope with the amount of claimants, processing such claims and dealing with queries from claimants.

Sadly  the  level  of  resources  remains  a  concern.  The  public  and  community  service agencies have highlighted many areas in the service provided by the Social Security Department which require improvement.

The case studies below illustrate best some of the difficulties faced by elderly people and were provided anonymised to the Sub-Panel from FN&HC. They highlight the difficulties that vulnerable individuals face in completing the initial application for Income Support. The cases indicate the level of advocacy required to support clients through the initial application stage. They also illustrate the length of time and the hours of professional input that have been, and still are, required in such cases –

Similar cases were outlined by individual clients and other professional bodies and have led the Sub-Panel to conclude that if the basic application process is so difficult for vulnerable people to navigate, it is unlikely that they will be in a position to undertake appeals.

1. Over-burdensome forms

The basic goal of achieving greater efficiency through the co-ordination of several benefits into one centralised system remains valid. However, the claim forms currently in use are similar to or the same as those produced in early 2007.

It was acknowledged then that the forms were cumbersome but we were told that this was necessary for the initial change over to the new IS system. There was an undertaking from the then Minister for Social Security to address the issue. However the forms remain the opposite of user-friendly, and appear to have none of the design innovations used by the UK benefit system to encourage claiming at the same time as ensuring probity.[2]

The Sub-Panel has received evidence from a number of community assessment services and service providers that the clients they support are so daunted by the task of completing the forms that in some cases they do not bother claiming Income Support.

A senior Social Worker advised –

We have people who will not fill them in because they cannot get their heads around it, really'[3]

That the form is particularly prohibitive to the vulnerable in the community was further reinforced by Mr. J. Hodge, Shelter Trust, who stated –

I do not think there is a single client that we have not had to support through making the application'

. it would be quite daunting for people who are not vulnerable, never mind people who are quite vulnerable.'

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier advised the Sub-Panel of his concerns at a Public Hearing on 23rd February 2009 –

"We are dealing with those who are unable to access or understand the benefit system which requires forms to be completed for every need. These clients may be illiterate, disabled, elderly, frail, with mental health problems, or simply not be able to cope without assistance. If the form is not completed then no assistance is provided. This is causing hardship."

The Sub-Panel is aware that in the build-up to the launch of Income Support in January 2008, staff did give many hours of assistance in the Department and in people's homes to ensure that forms were completed properly. However, that practice has ceased or been severly curtailed with the result that hours and hours of the time of highly-paid professionals in the community is wasted. The Department insists that home visits are available to those who are genuinely housebound. However this ignores those who are able to get to the Department only with difficulty and the message that home visits are readily  available  has  not  been  clearly  communicated  to  clients  and  other  agencies involved.

Many find the form difficult to fill out and social workers are often required to help and support them filling it out, which we will do, we are happy to do, but it is ... that is the kind of role that I would foresee for a community support worker role because it is not the best use of a social worker's time, effectively, but we do it because we have little choice, really.'[4]

Family Nursing and Home Care indicated that, in addition to clients finding completion of the form beyond them, access to the form itself was difficult as it had to be collected from the Department, which added significant costs to those with little or no mobility.

The Sub-Panel accepts that forms have never had to collected from the Department. They have always been available by post. Once again the Departments appears to have failed to get this message accross to clients and agencies involved.

8. SERVICE DELIVERY

0. Turn-around time and backdating

Any benefit system has to be able to deliver the right level of support at the time it is needed. The Sub-Panel has received a number of submissions, from both individuals and service providers, which suggest that this is not always the case.

The completion of the Income Support application form and the provision of every single piece of supporting information within a 2 week window as required by the Department is unrealistic.

If the claimant fails to meet the 2 week deadline, a new form is issued with a new date stamp.  Consequently,  any  benefits are  paid  from  the  date of  the  new  form  and  not backdated. This obviously can result in hardship.

However, the Income Support (Jersey) Law 2007 (at Article 4(3)(b)) says that Orders may prescribe circumstances in which a claim for IS shall be backdated[5].

The Income Support (General Provisions) (Jersey) Order 2008 (R&O.12/2008), at Article 6(4) states –

Manner in which claims are to be made

(4)  If a claim is defective at the date when it is received or had been made in a manner otherwise than as required by paragraph (1), the Minister may refer the claim to the claimant or, as the case may be, supply him or her with the form, and if the form is received properly completed within 14 days from that date on which the claim is so referred, or the form is so supplied, to the claimant, the Minister shall treat the claim as if it had been duly made in the first instance.

The use of the word shall' means that it is mandatory that the Minister should act; it is not permissive. The Sub-Panel is of the opinion that such backdating to the first claim date must take place and is not the current practice.

One particular case (Written Submission 2.37) illustrates some of the hardship and debt which can be incurred by families as a result of the process, which was compounded by a series of errors by the Department.

This submission relates to a brother and sister sharing the brother's home. The brother was providing a full care package to his elderly sister who had undergone open heart surgery in 2008. This required him to give up his job in September 2008. He was advised by the Department that he would be eligible for Income Support and a Carer's Allowance and was assisted by FN&HC to complete the forms which were submitted in December 2008. The Department lost his form.

He re-submitted in January 2009, and after 5 weeks had elapsed his claim was refused. Completely disheartened, he provided a submission to Scrutiny, and the situation has now (following an advocacy intervention) been rectified. Although his claim was subsequently accepted as valid and the Department agreed to backdate it to the date of the initial application. The Department also agreed to pay two outstanding accounts to the clients GP and FN&HC but has failed to do so. This situation provides an example of 2 individuals requiring a backdating facility, or at the very least being able to claim benefit from the date when the claim is applied for.

The Sub-Panel accepts that given the amount of claims dealt with, some errors will occur, but it is concerned at the apparent regularity of these and similar issues which require the intervention of a third party to assist the client to achieve an acceptable outcome. It is clear to the Sub-Panel that the Orders under which the service is provided, and the requirement for completed forms to be submitted within 14 days, whilst administratively feasible in a business environment, is not feasible in a benefits environment.

The Sub-Panel believes that the pressure to complete the form in such a short time is unreasonable. Particularly for clients who are vulnerable and leading chaotic lives.

At a Public Hearing on the 3rd March 2009, the Minister for Social Security undertook to provide information on the timescales for processing IS applications. The departmental response dated 31st March 2009 stated –

Once the form is returned with proofs, the Department will aim to process the claim within five working days

Whilst the five working days is a laudable target, the Department has produced no evidence that this turnaround time is being measured and is being met. In addition, the period of time which should be of concern is the total time taken between a request for the application form and the final delivery of benefit.

The Sub-Panel was extremely concerned at evidence suggesting that normal Income Support can take a considerable time period to access.

At its hearing of the 27th February 2009 the Sub-Panel was advised by Mrs. J. Hinks –

At the moment it appears that the minimum time to access payments is 11 weeks, so people are finding the gap difficult'

The Sub-Panel asks that the time taken to process claims be accurately recorded, and reviewed on a regular basis as it believes that clients who have to wait for extended periods must suffer considerable hardship.

Evidence received by the Sub-Panel from the Prison Chaplain and Shelter Trust suggests that the application process causes particular difficulties for prisoners following their release as they are unable to register for IS until they have actually been released. The Sub-Panel believes that the system should allow prisoners to apply for IS prior to the end

of  their  sentence  via  the  Prison  Market  Fair'  enabling  them  to  receive  payment immediately upon their release.[6]

they are not allowed to sign on until they leave prison so no benefit is in place when they come out. They have to come from the prison and if they are going to sign on they have to come from the prison and sign on and there is no benefit there. We are often in a position where we are lending money to prisoners. I personally do find the money for the prisoners because they cannot sign on until after they come out.'[7]

1. Personal contact

The Sub-Panel has become aware that many of the difficulties faced by clients are caused by long waiting times, as witnessed by the FN&HC and others. Long processing times caused by the complexity of the form and the amount of detail required are also a problem as highlighted in 7.1 . Part of the problem is that clients are unable to see the same officer on each occassion when they attend the Department, this often results in completely different advice being offered. This points to a continuing defective training process –see 8.5  The other key issue raised is the inability for vulnerable clients to build a relationship with an officer and the feeling of security that provides.

The lack of a personalised system is pervasive and exacerbates the anxiety that vulnerable people may feel when required to attend the Department. For some individuals leaving home can be intimidating, and being faced with an added 45 minutes to 2 hours' wait in a queue is unacceptable. On occasion these clients have even been accompanied by a professional member of staff fom one of the Community Agencies being paid to sit and wait with them.[8] Whilst a first-come, first-served basis is fair in many situations, the added challenges of mobility, health and mental well-being of clients should be considered and factored in to the delivery of service. It is also unacceptable for Income Support recipients with mobility problems to be expected to pay for a taxi fare to attend a meeting or to collect documents at the Social Security Department's behest.

The professionals spoken to have been unanimous in their suggestion that an appointment system and allocated officers would make a significant difference to the clients that they are supporting. Mr. J. Cox, Service Manager, Adult Social Work, stated in respect of waiting times at the Department –

I appreciate the difficulties of this but I, myself, have on a number of occasions queued at Social Security for a variety of reasons and has any thought been given to the appointment system? Because it would help, I think.'

The Sub-Panel has found that some of the agencies who noted improvements in client/Department relationships identified as the main factors the development of a relationship with a named officer, and having a point of direct contact. Mr. J. Hodge, Shelter Trust said –

One of the things that we asked after the introduction was if we could have a continuity of the people that we spoke to at Social Security and Social Security came back to us with a couple of named individuals who we contact when, for instance, we have anyone who has issues at Aztec House, so we are through to a named individual who is used to us and we are used to them.'

This view has been repeated by the other organisations who have presented to the Sub- Panel. The allocation of a single officer to deal with a particular agency appears to be effective. The Sub-Panel sees no reason why such an approach should not be adopted for all clients. This is basic good practice in the finance sector and used to exist in the Parish welfare system. This has been a major loss in the transfer from the former welfare system.

2. Appointments and privacy

The Sub-Panel received evidence from a number of individuals on the issue of privacy . A Finance Sector Human Resources Manager, who needed some assistance from Income Support, provided evidence on her personal experience of the process. She was severely emabarrased at the way she was treated in a public area but did receive very good support from other members of the Department's staff. The individual concerned proposed the following –

Go back to interview rooms, open plan is far too embarrassing and you have no privacy'[9]

The view was also supported by Mr. J. Hodge, Shelter Trust –

We feel when we go in there; there is a presumption against privacy rather than a presumption in favour of privacy.[10]

The Sub-Panel believes that clients should automatically be extended the courtesy of being provided with a private area in which to discuss their personal affairs. It finds that the presumption that clients should discuss personal and confidential issues in a public area is a retrograde step which needs to be addressed as a matter of some urgency. The Sub- Panel was encouraged by the response of the Minister for Social Security who said –

To be fair, you or I, if we had a private issue, might go the desk and say: "I would like a private room." Some of the individuals that come to us at the department might not necessarily feel able to make that request and therefore we need to make it as easy as possible for them.'[11]

The Sub-Panel is encouraged that the Minister will seek to address this issue in the short term. However, we have to point out that the private rooms are run on an appointment system and a client requesting privacy may be told that no room is available.

The Sub-Panel was advised by the Minister on the 3rd March 2009 –

I cannot tell you whether the screens and the privacy, we might call them pods or screens to give that privacy, are yet on order or it is slightly before that. But this, again, is another priority. I would hope to see this in the next couple of months because I think it is critical'.

The Sub-Panel is disappointed that privacy screens were only installed in March 2009, over a year after IS began.

3. Benefit entitlement

On the issue of benefit entitlement, the Sub-Panel is concerned that clients do not appear to be provided with clear advice on all the benefits available.

Mr. R. Bell, Chief Executive, Social Security, advised at the Public Hearing of 3rd March 2009 –

You remember the way the department was prior to Income Support is The ideal would be to go back to that sort of zone system (Pension, health, family and work) if you are a pensioner.. So you go to the pension zone as a pensioner to deal with your Income Support as well as your pension is where I would like us to move.'

The Chief Executive summarises the system as it was presented to the States, Income Support was seen as the top-up' to other benefits or sources of income. Under the current system, applicants for IS do not always receive the information they may need on other benefits. For example the applicant referred to in Submission 2.37 (Section 8.0 of this report) was not told about the relevant health benefits when his IS application was turned down. In referring to having a named officer as a point of contact Mr. Bell stated –

there are pros and cons to it, the pros of what you just touched on relate to, you will have an individual person relating to your case.. What we do at the moment is if you (an officer) have been involved in the initial rating of a query, you should not (be) involved in the next review, so if there is any fraud issues they can be picked up.'[12]

The Sub-Panel is of the opinion that the current system, based on an audit principle as outlined above, which means that you rarely see the same face twice, is ineffective. All research into the effectiveness of benefit systems points to the fact that the most common error is not that of fraud, but of clients under-claiming, that is being unaware of what benefits they are entitled to, and therefore not claiming them. The Sub-Panel concludes that the current system has the wrong priorities.

It is accepted that the volume of work generated as a result of introducing the Income Support  system  has  placed  an  onerous  burden  on  the  officers  at  the  Department. However, the Sub-Panel is concerned that the process of claiming benefits via separate designated areas (pensions, health, income support, etc.) is adding to the confusion for clients, who may, as a result, not be receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled.

In contrast, the UK benefits system has a more holistic approach to applications for benefit. The application form is clearly laid out and uses simple language throughout. Another significant advantage to the UK system is that the application process is available online or over the telephone and clearly indicates other benefits for which applicants might be eligilble, as outlined in Appendix 1.[13]

4. Clarity of Correspondence.

The Sub-Panel has, in its consideration of some 50 submissions and through the course of its Public Hearings, formed a view that one of the key issues is that clients struggle to understand the purpose and language used in the correspondence that they receive from the Department.

Evidence from community support agencies outlines the confusion felt by clients. A Senior Social Worker advised –

I  know  social  workers  who  have  visited  people  because  they  have  received something and they have no idea what it is or why they have it and they are frightened. The winter fuel payment was quite a good example. People received a cheque: "What is this for? Why have I got this? Am I allowed to spend it? What should I spend it on?" It is about how clear the information is because once we had contacted Income Support and found out, we were able to then translate that to people and it was fine.'[14]

The Sub-Panel received private submissions, which advised –

 I defy anybody to understand the letters that are sent out explaining what your benefit is.'

The Sub-Panel has heard from: the Citizens Advice Bureau; Shelter Trust; Family Nursing and Home Care; Social Workers; the Prison Chaplain; and other agencies. They identified that poor or incorrect communication was a cause of significant stress and anxiety to clients. The examples provided to the Sub-Panel lend support to its view that the following key communication issues need to be addressed –

1. All  correspondence  should  use  plain  English.  Where  an  assessment  of benefit entitlement or change to benefit entitlement is referred to, it should include a simple breakdown of components.
2. Income Support Calculators, such as those used by the Citizens' Advice Bureau and the reception staff at the Department, should be more widely used to give potential claimants an idea of what they would be entitled to. They should also be used to show clients how calculations are arrived at.
3. Consideration  must  be  given  to  claimants  who  are  sight-impaired,  and appropriate file notes should be kept to ensure that they are accommodated.
4. Clients who fail to respond to correspondence may have a learning difficulty or physical impairment(s) which prevent them from doing so, and a follow-up telephone call system should be put in place to accommodate these cases.

5. Training

The Sub-Panel has been provided with a limited overview of the training provided to officers at the Department, but is aware that both community agencies and individual applicants have questioned the accuracy and consistency of information given at the Department.

Conflicting advice provided by the Department causes confusion, anxiety and stress to vulnerable people, who then place further strain on community service providers due to the need  for  advocacy.  Further  comprehensive  training  is  considered  essential  for Departmental Officers, not only for the benefit of the clients but also to support the officers in what is a very stressful environment, given the scale of the task.

Ms. J. Hinks, FN&HC Public stated on conflicting advice –

It is reported, and I do not want this to be criticism of the staff, that Social Security staff give conflicting advice and this can result in numerous visits to the department and the clients will feel quite distressed and upset about the fact that they have to go back and get conflicting advice and then go back again.'[15]

The need for some of these skills was further highlighted in a submission from a member of the public which advised -

The Sub-Panel believes that training for the delivery of a benefit service needs to be more rigourous.  It  must  include  appropriate  levels  of  training  in  negotiation  skills,  conflict resolution and case work with claim forms and associated paperwork.

9. CLIENT SUPPORT

0. Home Visits.

The Sub-Panel is aware that in the introductory stages of setting up IS staff were made available to visit people in their homes in order to ensure that application forms were properly completed. This practice appears to have stopped.

The Minister advised that Departmental officers would undertake home visits to assist clients  unable  to  attend  the  department  to  complete  application  forms.  However, submissions  received  suggest  that,[16]  home  visits  are  not  being  conducted  to  assist potential claimants who may have reading difficulties, language problems, mobility issues or partial blindness. At the Public Hearing on the 3rd March 2009 the Minister stated –

I do have staff and it is department's policy that if somebody is struggling to complete the form then, yes, we will help, even to the extent of making a home visit to help them complete the form.'

He further stated

I would agree with you entirely, it is. People should be able to complete the application forms and if they are struggling they should know that they can contact the department and that someone will help them to do that. If they cannot get in then we will go out and visit them and help them to do that. As I say, I do not have the figures off the top of my head but we can provide those for you.'

The evidence received by the Sub-Panel from Community Support Agencies does not support the Ministers assertion. Ms. J. Hinks of FN&HC on 27th February 2009 advised –

The other thing that staff have identified though is that there was a perception, particularly from the people who did the community work with the parishes, that there would be some home visiting and people would be supported at home and that has not happened. So that is another burden on the staff.'

The combination of all the factors contained in this section builds to a clear and damning conclusion that the system has developed into a largely impersonal bureaucratic minefield for clients to negotiate.

1. Advocacy

The Sub-Panel finds that the role that was previously played by the Parishes in the delivery of welfare has been underestimated, and that many of the flaws in the current system appear to be the direct result of the removal of community-based visiting. Whilst this is not a criticism of Departmental staff who are working hard to make the best of things, it is a criticism of the design of the scheme. No consideration appears to have been given to a replacement for community visiting as was previously delivered by the Parishes. The attitude taken by the previous Minister was that it was not part of his remit and that Social Security staff were not trained to deliver this aspect of the work. The result is that no replacement was created. It is an issue which we believe requires urgent attention.

The Sub-Panel received evidence from Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier , highlighting his own and the St. Helier Community Visitors' concerns, namely:

The former welfare structure managed by Parish officials meant that benefit recipients became known to officers. The parochial system ensured the Parish staff and community workers had personal interaction with vulnerable clients. The clients could be monitored to ensure that they received the money they needed to live. The Connétable advised –

the old system meant that if someone who is getting a weekly payment did not arrive to collect it then a phone call would be made and if that did not work a visit would be made to find out'.

It appears that the withdrawal of the Parish community visitor and welfare function has placed significant demands on Social Workers, Family Nursing and Home Care and other community service resources. These agencies now find themselves in the position of having to encourage and assist clients with completing IS application forms.

The Sub-Panel is aware of and encouraged by initiatives for cross-agency training which have so far included FN&HC and Adult Social Services. It believes that it is essential that this activity is encouraged to ensure that all service providers understand what is a complex system to navigate. However, it must be recognised that delivery of such assistance is extremely expensive if performed by highly trained and highly paid Social Workers or Nurses.

The Sub-Panel concludes from the evidence it has received that many of the most vulnerable in the community require advocacy to support them through what is an onerous benefit application process. The current application system does not accommodate those individuals who lead chaotic lives; neither does it address the many anomalies which may arise in a welfare or benefits environment.

The Sub-Panel is mindful that some of the agencies are working closely with Social Security to ensure that they are allocated a client case officer. This is particularly important for the most vulnerable.

The role of providing advocacy through the benefits system is vividly described in the case studies provided by FN&HC in the begining of this chapter. In addition, Ms. J. Hinks, Family Nursing and Home Care states that problems start early in the sytem –

It is very difficult to get hold of the forms because in fact the forms are kept behind at Income Support. So you cannot sort of practice either and get used to the forms because they are individualised, they are personalised, and there is a date stamp put on them. In fact, I am not sure if the system is still the same but you used to only have a 2-week window to get that form, all the supporting evidence and everything back to the department. ..For a lot of elderly people it is just not possible to complete something in a 2 week turnaround time.'[17]

In addition to the lack of replacement of community visiting which previously played an essential role in the delivery of benefits, and given the high demand on community professionals (Social Services, FN&HC), the Sub-Panel believes that there is an opportunity to develop an independent advocacy service to assist vulnerable clients to get the benefits they need.

Ms. R. Byrne Shore, Jersey Mencap, provided a definition of the advocate's role at a Public Hearing on 3rd March 2009, which states –

'The empowerment of individuals to articulate their views themselves, or through a competent and independent voice.'

The purpose of advocacy should be:

• To empower advocacy partners to make informed decisions enabling them to take greater control of their lives.
• To support advocacy partners to get their views heard.
• To represent the views of the advocacy partner. Advocates will represent these views as if they were their own when requested to do so by their partner, regardless of the advocate's personal view.
• To support advocacy partners in seeking resolution to issues that concerns them.
• To help safeguard the rights of advocacy partners – both rights under policy, law and rights as citizens.
• To feedback issues raised by advocacy partners to both statutory and voluntary service providers so that services can be constantly improved.
• Based on recognition of everyone's right to autonomy, dignity and respect.

At the Public Hearing of 17th March 2009, following an exchange on the need to support vulnerable clients, Deputy G.P. Southern asked the representatives from Adult Social Services:

Is the mechanism for delivering that additional support ... it is an issue that we have been meeting recently in all sorts of contexts. Is it an advocacy system? You want somebody alongside there that can help you through the system, has got some understanding of it and can advocate on a client's behalf.'

Ms. C. Richards, Senior Social Worker responded Yes'.

The Sub-Panel believes that the supportive and enabling role of an independent advocacy service is essential to vulnerable people.

In  the  IS  Policy  Guidelines  10.2  it  is  tacitly  accepted  that for  some  clients  such  an advocate is essential –

If a claimant is unable to make a claim on their own behalf someone can be appointed to act for them if they do not have a curator.'

If clients have a physical or learning impairment, a process must be in place to allow a designated individual or body (advocate) to act on their behalf to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled. This should be a simple process which can be activated rapidly by post or online. This would mean that the client would not have to attend the Department. From the evidence received from community agencies including FN&HC the process by which another person can be appointed to act on behalf of a client appears to be more difficult than it ought to be.

The Department claim that they already have a simple process in place. Once again they appear to have failed to clearly communicate this to clients and agencies.

Recommendation 11:

Given the demonstrated need for clients to be assisted in getting IS we recommend that the Minister investigate setting up free access to an independent advocacy service.

10. INCENTIVES TO SAVE

0. Savings Levels

The Sub-Panel has received public submissions illustrating disincentives to save or accrue capital that are inherent in the Income Support system. It has become aware of individuals being forced, by the Department's policy, to use savings on every-day living expenses until they have dwindled to a set minimum.

The current levels of disregard which apply to savings are set out in the table below, the table  also  indicates  the  level  down  to  which  clients  will  be  required  to  contribute  to situations –

The issues that have been raised in the review concern 3 factors –

1. the levels of disregard themselves;
2. the treatment of those levels (the 25% rule relating to Special Payments);
3. the rates charged on savings.

The Sub-Panel is concerned that the existing policy acts as a disincentive for people to save. The current system appears to be punitive in its treatment of those who have lived within their means and striven to become modestly financially secure. It is also concerned that the current economic climate will further impact on people in this bracket, who are dependent on access to, or income from dwindling savings.

Of particular concern is when individuals are required to use small savings when moving accommodation; examples of this situation were provided at a private hearing –

The other thing that we are finding is that the level of savings is set at £11,800 and whatever it is. But that level of savings – the client is expected to use those savings for expenses, which is fair comment. But if the client only has £2,000 they are still expected to use that balance to buy carpet if they are moving and pay for removal, leaving them with next to nothing in the bank. Very short-sighted. A lot of these people are unwell; they could die 6 months later, no money to pay the funeral.' [18]

In many cases, those with significant savings are those in their 50s, 60s and beyond. For large numbers of these people, their savings represent an element of security around the dangers of them falling ill and especially of being able to pay for a decent funeral. The Sub-Panel has ascertained that such funeral costs may be of the order of £3,500 to £4,000. At the very least the Sub-Panel believes that funeral costs must be covered by an absolute minimum limit.

The current rule as indicated in the table above states that savings for every-day expenditure and special payments for exceptional items must be taken from savings until the mark of 25% of the total savings limit is reached. That level is also shown in the table.

At a Private Hearing on the 27th February 2009, Community Service Workers advised the Sub-Panel as follows with regard to savings levels –

.......... we used to have a savings level of about £7,000, which we let the person keep, basically. We very rarely asked them to use it. That was their sort of safety net, that £7,000 and then over that we would assist them with. But now people with £2,000, £2,500 are being asked to pay for things which are reducing their level of safety net and at the same time Income Support are increasing the savings level all the time.'

High levels of anxiety are seen in the example below which highlights the difficulties faced by one elderly couple; the wife is still living in the matrimonial home and the husband has been placed in a care home as his wife could no longer care for him. The couple, having saved and purchased their home, are now penalised as a result and are being forced to use their lifetime savings –

With dad having to pay £1,800 per month to the care home for accommodation and food (a matter in which there is no choice) and having to pay such high transport costs, my parents' modest savings will soon be exhausted and they will have to claim means-tested benefits – which in turn will be eventually offset against the home that they worked so hard to get.'[19]

The Sub-Panel is aware of numerous incidents where people with relatively small savings have been required to use them on items it considers should be funded through Special Payments.

Whilst it is very difficult to compare two very different benefit systems, the Sub-Panel explored the approach to savings adopted in the United Kingdom, which provides for a cap on the amount of savings (albeit a lower amount of £6,000) that you can have and still receive benefit.[20] That capital amount is set as the absolute minimum and affords a safety net for the client together with an incentive to save. The Sub-Panel is disappointed that the existing IS system provides clients with a higher savings cap but expects up to 75% of those savings to be used for unforeseen events that are not fully covered under special payments.

The Sub-Panel believes that it is important that within the savings allowance there should be a level of saving  which is sacrosanct. The effect on lifetime savings is far more profound and potentially distressing for elderly clients. A number of people have told the Sub-Panel that they have been worried and upset by the policy's effect on their savings. That impact was outlined above in relation to the elderly couple and is further evidenced in the case outlined at 10.0 of this report.

Currently clients have £1 deducted from their weekly benefit for every £250 of savings above the maximum permitted amount. This actually amounts to an effective interest rate of 20.8%. The Sub-Panel considers the current levels of reduction in benefit for people who have savings above the personal allowance threshold is punitive.

The example below shows the impact of someone with two different savings above the disregard amounts and the resulting reduction on their income support.

The Sub-Panel finds the level of reduction to be punitive and questions whether the £1 reduction for every £250 above the savings allowed is a fair reflection of the actual benefit brought by those extra savings.

Prior to the introduction of IS the limit for savings on a single person to qualify for rent rebate or rent abatement purposes, introduced in January 2004, was set at £50,000. At that time, all income on savings or investments was included in the assessment for rental benefits. The level now for a single person is £7,911.

The Sub-Panel finds that the overall effect of the new rules is to substantially reduce any incentives to save. Given the instability, we have witnessed in financial markets in recent times it would be more equitable in the opinion of the Sub-Panel to return to the practice of declaring actual income received from any savings or investments in the assessment of IS.

Recommendation 12:

The Minister must examine ways to improve incentives to save.

1. Special Payments and Levels of Contribution

The issues that have been raised in the review concern two factors –

1. Turnaround times.
2. What is included? What is excluded?

Turnaround times

The Sub-Panel is concerned about clients' access to Special Payments and the length of time it takes for payments to be made.

The Minister informed the Sub-Panel that the Department aimed to process applications for Special Payments within 5 working days, and stated that the vast majority of cases are meeting  that  deadline.  However,  the  Sub-Panel  received  contradictory  evidence  from Mr. F. Le Gresley of the Citizens Advice Bureau who stated to the Panel that –

The turnaround (of applications for Special Payments) is too slow The ones that we have been involved in, we have people whose chances of a property because the deposit was too slow and forthcoming from the department.[21].'[22]

The  Sub-Panel  was  advised  that  the  time  taken  to  process  applications  for  Special Payments had resulted in some clients experiencing inconvenience, hardship and anxiety. The Sub-Panel heard that the experience of the CAB in assisting clients was that –

it helps to have ourselves or a States Deputy or somebody fast-tracking a special payment if it is for something fairly crucial.'[23]

The Sub-Panel is concerned that the Social Security Department maintains that it is processing the vast majority of applications for special payments within the specified 5 day period, when the evidence received from the CAB and individuals is that it is often/generally taking much longer. The Sub-Panel believes that the Social Security Department should examine the way in which it monitors the length of time taken to process applications, and ensure that: the system itself delivers on the promise to process claims within the specified 5 day period; that it is unnecessary to enlist the assistance of the CAB or States' politicians to speed applications through the system; and that the system for monitoring the length of time taken to process applications is robust and accurate.

The Sub-Panel was informed by a number of witnesses that some claimants had lost the opportunity to rent property because it had taken the Social Security Department too long to process the request for a special payment to cover the deposit.

The Sub-Panel was even more concerned that clients requiring urgent dental treatment were required to wait some time for the confirmation of a special payment to allow them to get treatment. Mr. J. Hodge of Shelter Trust stated –

We have had several instances of people at Shelter needing dental treatment and being required to seek out at least 2 quotes, and on one occasion 3 quotes, for dental work to take place. Certainly, on several occasions this has happened when people have been in pain and having to go to get a dental quote from A dentist, a dental quote from B dentist, take the stuff back to Social Security who then accept a quote and direct the person to go to one or other dentist. I just think it is needlessly complicated and an unnecessary burden on someone who is in pain.........'

The issue of dental care provision is further addressed at 10.1.2 of this report.

A claim for special payments is often required to be dealt with as a matter of some urgency the Sub-Panel is concerned that so many of the complaints should be made about payments not being made promptly where speed is the essence as in the cases above for rent deposits and dental treatments.

What is included? What is excluded? Items covered by a Special Payment are –

Essential furniture and household equipment

Rental deposit – but there must be a reason that the household needs to move

Removal expenses – but there must be a reason that the household needs to move

Expenses involved in taking up paid employment, i.e. clothing, tools, etc.

Medical and similar expenses – mainly dental or optical

The cost of work necessary to prevent a serious risk to health, safety or welfare – this includes essential repairs to maintain a property wind and watertight

Funeral expenses for a member of the household – including repatriation of the body

Repatriation of the claimant or a member of the household from Jersey to another country.

The Connétable of St. Helier confirmed to the Sub-Panel that a number of his parishioners were falling through the Income Support net, and were being assisted by the Parish from charitable funds. These requests for financial assistance included help with bills relating to dental care, carpets, moving house and funeral expenses, and were occurring on a weekly basis. The Connétable could not confirm why some of his parishioners were not being assisted under the Income Support system, other than speculating that some may be a few months short of the minimum residency requirement. He confirmed that the nature of requests were now being logged in order to provide a monthly report to inform the Minister for Social Security.

The Sub-Panel was advised by FN&HC at a Public Hearing on the 27th February that –

I think the staff are making applications from our charity to other charities to try and find payment for special items'.[24]

it is now, even over the months I have been there I am seeing an increase in talking about: Can we get this from that someone else?"[25]

The Sub-Panel is concerned that the list of things covered by Special Payments is extremely limited and treated by staff as exhaustive. There are many occassions where some sort of urgent payment can help a client get over a crisis, whatever its failings might have been the Parish welfare system, could and did, deliver such timely intervention when it was needed. The emphasis in the Department seems to be driven by bureaucracy and not a balanced assesment of need. In short, officers seem to take the view that if an item is not on the list it's reason enough to exclude it. The Parishes also had the ability to offer loans rather than grants where appropriate. The use of loans as a means to help someone out of a crisis seems to have been markedly reduced under IS.

The sort of items which the Sub-Panel considers might be included are below. It believes that the principle should be inclusive rather than exclusive –

• Driving lessons
• Fees for training courses
• Respite Care
• Maternity Grants (for those who have not worked the prescribed length of time especially young people).

On  the  subject  of  what  is  and  what  is  not  included  on  the  list  of  items for  Special Payments, the Sub-Panel have had it brought to their notice that the provision of safety equipment to families in need by FN&HC has been overlooked.

The Sub-Panel are concerned that this further illustrates deficiencies in the Department's ability to communicate with stakeholders and clients. FN&HC stated –

'. Family Nursing & Home Care are still supporting financially the total cost of safety equipment, which is we have a charity that supports fire guards, safety equipment, those sorts of things. I think previously the parish did help out with those sorts of things. At this moment in time we have got child accident prevention set-up within our system and it is supported by other charities as well. It is a sort of a third split and we are supporting those sorts of things that do not fall into the remit of the Income Support system at all. So these are families that are in hardship that cannot really afford the safety equipment to keep their children safe.'[26]

The failure to transfer the responsibility for assisting with payments for such items as fire- guards, stair-gates and car-seats from the Parishes has consequently put an unexpected and  unwelcome  strain  upon  the  financial  and  manpower  resources  of  the  charities concerned. FN&HC commented that their time (and resources) would be better utilised in the community doing the job they are very good at.

When questioned about this, the Minister for Social Security assured the Sub-Panel that fire-guards and stair-gates were covered under special payments – health and safety at home. It was further claimed that FN&HC had been informed of this –

I had a meeting with Family Nursing a little while ago. I will check it is being implemented  but  we  definitely  agreed  that  we  would  do  stair  gates  and fireguards.'[27]

The Sub-Panel has not received confirmation that this occurring.

2. Divorce

The Sub-Panel considered the issues of savings, inheritance and divorce settlements that include provision for the benefit of children.

It received a submission outlining a case which highlights the lack of long-term vision encompassed within the current policy –

 I have been getting family allowance since February 2006 and rent rebate since August 2006.This was due to separating from my husband and being on my own with 4 young children'.  (Following lengthy divorce proceedings) ..I was awarded 72% of the funds' (from the sale of the house in November 2007)

At the time of this settlement, the court officers worked basis that, the savings limit for rent rebate services was £50,000. The intention of this person was to use her funds to look after her children's future.

the viscount gave me the money because I had the children and because I was going to invest some for the children ..'

..and I said I would have to pay full rent on the rent rebate system until my money got to £50,000.I would then be investing £10,000 for each of the children. For their future '

The savings limit were reduced to £7,911 following the introduction of IS in January 2008. As a result, this single parent has had her benefit cut for herself and 4 children to £312 a week. She pays full rental of £1,026 per month and will continue to do so –

.. by having this money I have lost £362.56 a week! This is a staggering £18,853 a year! At this rate in 2½ years time I will have no money left!'[28]

The problem here is the definition of IS unit which includes any householders or savings belonging to any member of the unit. In this case, the parent is unable to make provision for her children. The Sub-Panel considers that such treatment of assets resulting from divorce, which under the current rules cannot be disregarded unless they are directed to the purchase of accommodation, is wrong. We urge the Minister to examine the system in order to make it fairer.

The Chairman of the Sub-Panel would like to draw the Minister's attention to the treatment previously applied by the Housing Department in the case of divorce resulting in a potential house sale where an individual was asking for States accommodation, rent rebate or abatement. It would identify the amount the individual was likely to realise from the house sale once the mortgage was paid off. Once that calculation was completed the individual was treated as if they had that money and as if they were earning 5% on that money. That amount of capital was included in the calculation for rent rebate which enabled them to get rent rebate and to be housed during the time of their divorce.

The Sub-Panel believes that the treatment of capital resulting divorce settlements in the same way as other capital is incorrect. A means must be found to examine individual circumstances and to allow Ministerial discretion over divorce settlements.

11. THE INCOME SUPPORT UNIT

11.0  The Income Support Unit

The definition of a household unit causes confusion. It appears that the Social Security Department is inconsistent in the way it interprets the definition. The Income Support Policy Guidelines explain that –

An Income Support Unit can be one person, a couple or a family living together at the same address. Couples can be married or unmarried – including same sex relationships. There can be more than one Income Support Unit living in the same property.

The Guide goes on to explain:

that young adults 16 – 19 years and seeking work are treated as a separate IS Unit;

that elderly parents living with adult children will be assessed separately; and,

that adult siblings will likewise be treated separately.

Evidence received indicates that the guidelines have not been applied correctly on a number of occasions which has led to significant hardship to the individuals concerned.

We concentrate our efforts here on the impact on young people in particular.

The following case appears to be a departure from the policy of assessing young adults independently from the family unit for the purposes of Income Support. This case involves a woman on long-term disability, who has a 21 year-old son living at the family home who has just been made redundant. The son applied for Income Support in his own name and was refused Income Support due to the family income[29]. The policy clearly states that an adult child who is a jobseeker and contiues to live at home with his/her parents, can make a separate claim to IS and be in a seperate IS Unit.' The people involved are in the process of challenging the Department's decision.

On 16th September 2008, Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier asked the Minister for Social Security an oral question in the States –

The Minister answered in his reply to me: "I am sure if people now go to the Skills Executive; if they are appropriate for Income Support hopefully they will get it." Well, sorry, that is not good enough. .(if). you are an individual seeking work on no income. They do have to be a jobseeker, they do have to go for interviews, but this is the only way we will get 16 to 18 year-olds where we want them, and that is looking for work'.

Senator P.F. Routier:

I am struggling to remember the actual age we start at for Income Support, I am afraid. Sorry, I think I will need notice of that before I confirm the actual age, but the principle, certainly the Deputy is quite right that a young person within a household is able to make a claim in their own right.[30]

The Department initially failed to publicise that 16-19 year-olds were eligible to claim £90 per week if seeking work and living with their parents. As the recession bites and jobs have become scarcer, the Department must ensure that young people are made aware of their benefit entitlement.

The problem that young people appear to have with IS is highlighted by the following anonymised diary of events provided by Vicki Twohig, Senior Youth Worker at Youth Enquiry Service (YES).

14th January 2009: X came into YES to ask how she went about receiving income support as she had recently lost her job. We went to income support to register her as unemployed and to pick up the relevant forms for her to complete. She applied for Job seekers as well as for help with her rent while she in unemployed.

4th February 2009: I went back into Income Support with X as she had already handed in her completed forms the previous week. Today she was told she needed to get a letter from her employer. After handing her forms in – X was not contacted by anyone to tell her she didn't have the right paperwork so she had to wait till she went in to be told she needed extra letters. This delayed the whole process.

10th February 2009: X was told by Income Support that they would be unable to help with her rent costs as she needed to prove she had been living independently for 12 months. I accompanied X to income support to find out more. She was told to complete an Appeals Form, which she did. I also wrote a letter from myself at the Youth Enquiry Service explaining X's situation.

20th February 2009: X came back in to YES after talking to the Appeal department who told her that she should not have been given their form to complete as she needed to have had a formal rejection from Income Support. X went back into Income Support with a member of my staff. They were told that X had been given the wrong form and now needed to complete a re-determination form and that this could take a while to process.

I made a phone call to Income Support to explain that if X was unable to receive any financial help from them she would be made homeless. I spoke to someone in IS who said they needed proof that she had been living independently for 12 months and also asked for an official letter from someone like Social Services to explain why X was unable to return to the family home should she become homeless. They said a letter from her mother and any previous landlord may help her case. The member of staff told us to bring the completed re-determination form in on Monday with any other paperwork. They said they would look at her case on Monday (23.02.09) and they would get in touch with X the same day. They also took my contact details so I could be made aware of the outcome.

21st February 2009: X came into YES to complete her re-determination form. She was concerned that if she was told no again by Income Support, she would have no other way of paying her rent and would be made homeless.

23rd February 2009: X's forms were handed into Income Support this morning. I received a call from Income Support during the afternoon to tell me that they were prepared to pay and backdate her rent. They would pay £148.82 per week as long as she could provide letters from her previous landlords. I spoke to X who came back into YES to make contact with them and asked them to send letters to her.

On more than one occasion X was sent away to bring back more letters/evidence. It needs to be made clear to young people when they go in for a claim what kind of paperwork will be required from them to save them going back and forth. It caused a lot of upset and stress for X who was unsure for the 5 weeks that it took to get this sorted whether she was going to be made homeless. X did not want permanent financial support but just wanted some help with rent costs while she looked for another job.

The  Sub-Panel  is  concerned  that  young  people  still  appear  to  be  facing  significant challenges when seeking

 their benefit entitlement whilst they are job seeking.

12. APPEALS AND OVERPAYMENTS

0. Income Support Appeals

Any benefit system has to provide a mechanism to enable recipients to appeal against decisions made by departmental officials.

The Sub-Panel is aware that the Income Support Law includes a clear procedure for challenging any decision made by a Determining Officer. The first step is to ask for the claim to be re-evaluated by a different officer (Second Determination). If an adult in the Income Support Unit is still dissatisfied after this internal review, s/he has the right to seek an independent appeal.