Contact Officer: Helen Bishop, Head of Customer Services

Tel: (01865) 252233, email: hbishop@oxford.gov.uk

The Head of Customer Services submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning the Benefits Fundamental Service Review. Helen Bishop (Head of Customer Services) attended the meeting and presented this report to the Committee. She highlighted the fact that new claims were now processed within 17 days, which is within the top quartile for performance, and that the average telephone response rate is now over 90%, with an abandonment rate of under 10%. Consultation with stakeholders had shown that they would be willing to have self-service terminals within their own premises.

Councillor Val Smith (Board Member for Regeneration and Customer Services) added that Members had made an important contribution to the review through a Member Advisory Group. Whilst there was a desire to reduce costs, there was also a need to remember that the service dealt with some very vulnerable people; and that there was no desire to see them disadvantaged by any changes. Councillor Smith had personally tested the telephone service and felt that it had improved a great deal.

Introduction

The following additional information was then provided in response to questions posed by members of the Committee:-

(1)    It was expected that a “resilience contract” would help with services over the Christmas period. This was a contract which allowed a provider to assist the Council when its workload reached a peak in order to help maintain Council performance;

(2)    Sick leave had been reduced for a variety of reasons. Many long term sick members of staff were now back at work, or had moved to work elsewhere. The Attendance management Policy was being applied in order to keep levels of sickness down;

(3)    It was hoped that excess paperwork issued to landlords would be reduced or even eliminated in future. Landlords would be able to choose whether or not to receive hard copies of documentation, and they would be able to check their status on line;

Costs

Councillor Brown expressed the view that there was a lot of good work going on, that it was possible to see results, and that the Committee both noted this and was pleased with the progress made. The Committee wanted to be kept informed of costs and value for money. 

Neil Lawrence (Performance Improvement Manager) indicated that there had been a real reduction in costs occasioned by the bringing together of services in one place. Helen Bishop added that there was still a need to reduce the costs of the service, with savings of £115,000 made this year and a further £75,000 saving needed next year.  The customer service recharge has also been reduced with £85,000 of savings required in the current year and £92,000 to be found over the next 2 years.

Tim Sadler (Director, City Services) clarified that the cost of customer services had fallen for various reasons, one being the reduction in accommodation costs, leading to a new reduction of £565,000, some of which was a redistribution of costs.  Councillor Fooks asked for an itemised list of those elements that contributed towards savings. Councillor Van Nooijen wanted to be assured that customer services were becoming cheaper and more efficient as a result of changes being made.  The Committee also expressed general concern that any savings made as a result of recharged should not cause the inflation of another service area’s budget. Tim Sadler assured that the Committee that this would not happen, provided that other areas made commensurate savings as well.

Other costs

In answer to a question, it was explained that the sum of £8.84 quoted was the cost of Mouchel processing change of circumstance applications. This was a small part of the overall process. Neil Lawrence added that the benchmark figure of £111 was based on the cost of processing new claims, and did not take into account changes in circumstances. The sum of £59 was given as the benchmark average.

Recommendations

It was RESOLVED to make the following recommendations to City Executive Board:-

(1) To express to the City Executive Board support for the design principles outlined in the report and to congratulate all those involved in bringing the service to this point

(a)   Scrutiny Councillors were still unclear on the “economy principles” used within the Fundamental Service Review which they wish to highlight to the City Executive Board.  One of the significant issues for the Council and highlighted in the Audit Commission Review was the very high cost of the service in gross terms which includes that funded by the administration grant and that funded by local tax payers.  Within its scope the scrutiny committee was eager to see “real” reductions in cost to the benefit of the local tax payer. 

(b)   In response to questions the committee was told that the total reductions made within the service between 10/11 and 11/12 is estimated as £925k.  Of this amount:-

·                    £377k represents a real reduction in the councils budget through reduced staff, consultants, external processing and IT

·                    £565K represents a shift of recharges from Customer Services.  These cost are to be charged to other Council Services who are now served by this service  

(c)   The Committee is concerned that the movement of this substantial amount does not give cost increases for receiving services.  The Directors view was that this should not be the case providing the service takes advantage of the efficiencies proved.  The scrutiny committee has asked to see details of where the charges will go and the effects of these on the total costs of those services

(2) For the City Executive Board to be satisfied that the

re-allocation of support service charges from Customer Services does not increase the total cost of Services.  

(a)   The committee heard that the Fundamental Service Review was not working towards the delivery of the service to any particular benchmark.  There is an acceptance by all that the Council wishes to provide a high quality service that responds well to its client group.  So the profile ultimately would be higher than average costs accompanied by higher than average outcomes. 

(b)   A target of between £70 and £80 per claim has been chosen as a working consideration on the basis that this feels about right but effectively the real target in monetary reduction terms is to deliver the budget reductions agreed within the budget.  The committee asked to see comparative benchmarks for urban authorities with the same ambitions as ours and it was clear that there is room for further downward movement beyond the £70 - £80 articulated.  In fact it is clear that the Fundamental Service Review is likely to overshoot this.

(3) For the City Executive Board to be more ambitious in their setting of economic targets for this Fundamental Service Review and work towards a benchmark that reflects the best of those authorities with similar ambitions to us