§ Ms Roseanna CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and percentage of deduction from earnings orders in force to recover arrears of maintenance assessments carried out by the Child Support Agency on absent parents(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1355]
Mr. BradleyThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about deduction from earnings orders (DEOs) issued by the Child Support Agency.I should first of all point out that although DEOs are mainly used as a collection method where the AP has not co-operated, they may be used as a preferred payment method by absent parents and are not solely used for collection of arrears payments.It is not possible to provide the regional breakdown you requested. However information has been collected on the number of DEOs issued since April 1993. The attached table shows the number of DEOs issued and how they compare with the Agency's live load.I hope this is helpful.
Period DEOs issued Live and assessed caseload 1993–94 2,600 180,000 1994–95 32,027 368,000 1995–96 52,931 462,000 1996–97 57,898 579,000 142W
All live and assessed figures are for year end with the exception of the 1996–97 figure which is February 1997 data from Analytical Services Division Quarterly Summary of Statistics. This is the most recent data available.
§ Ms CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken by the CSA to complete an assessment review; and what action she intends to take to reduce this time. [1360]
Mr. BradleyThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency assessment reviews.The first part of your question asks about the average time taken to complete in assessment review. Under Child Support Agency legislation, there are a number of different reviews that can be requested by parties to an assessment. (which will include the absent parent, parent/person with care and child in Scotland). Any of the interested parties can ask for a review of their assessment by another child support officer if they disagree with the decision of the original child support officer. This is referred to as a second tier review. They may also request a change of circumstance review if a change has occurred that may affect their maintenance assessment. In addition, the Agency undertakes a periodic review of each case every two years.The Agency measures the number of individual reviews cleared within each of the time bands specified in Agency targets. The Agency does not measures average processing times for cases either within the time bands, or overall.The 1996–97 target for second tier reviews were;
- 55%of second tier reviews to be cleared within 13 weeks;
- 80% of second tier reviews to be cleared within 26 weeks;
- and no more than 15% to be older than 26 weeks as at 31 March 1997
The Agency met all elements of this target and performance was as follows;
- 66% of second tier reviews cleared within 13 weeks;
- 88% of second tier reviews to be cleared within 26 weeks;
- and 10% that were older than 26 weeks as at 31 March 1997.
The 1996–97 target for change of circumstances were;Of those change of circumstances cleared
- -50% to be cleared within 13 weeks
- -60% to be cleared within 26 weeks
Again the Agency met both elements of this target as follows;Of those change of circumstances cleared
- -63% were cleared within 13 weeks
- -78% were cleared within 26 weeks.
Even though these targets were exceeded last year, this does not mean that we are complacent in these areas. We will be seeking to ensure that this years performance improves further.I hope this is helpful.
§ Ms CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the average length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to complete a maintenance assessment(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1357]
143W
Mr. BradleyThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.The Agency does not collect information on average processing times, however, the Agency does have a Secretary of State target to clear 60% of new maintenance applications within 26 weeks, which has been in place for the years 1995/96 and 1996/97.In 1995/96, the Agency cleared 48% of new applications within 26 weeks; in 1996/97 the performance achieved was 54%. However in the last 2 months of 1996/97 the 60% target was exceeded overall A breakdown of the performance by Child Support Agency Centre is available for 1996/97 and is shown in the attached table.The intake of child maintenance applications is forecast to increase by 5% this year. Nevertheless, we will maintain this target.I hope this is helpful.
1996–97 performance by Child Support Agency Centre Percentage of applications cleared within 26 weeks Dudley 51 Hastings 49 Falkirk 53 Plymouth 53 Birkenhead 59 Belfast 55
§ Ms CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and percentage of Child Support Agency cases in which no moneys are being recovered from the absent parent(a) in total, (b) by regional office and (c) by gender of absent parent for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1356]
Mr. BradleyThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
144WI am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support cases where monies are not being recovered from absent parents (APs).The information you have requested by region and for all years of Agency operation, is available only at disproportionate cost. I hope the following details will be helpful to you.The attached table gives information on the current levels of compliance with maintenance assessments at Agency level. The data is taken from a 5% sample of live cases drawn from the child support computer system on the date shown. The Agency does not distinguish absent parents or parents with care by gender.
Compliance February 1997 Full compliance Partial compliance Nil compliance Full maintenance assessments Number of cases 52,200 52,100 61,000 Percentage 31.6 31.5 36.9 Interim maintenance assessments Number of cases (i) 600 4,000 51,700 Percentage 1.1 7.1 91.8 Number of cases AP paying direct to PWC 97,500 — —
The above compliance table only includes cases where the Agency collection service is used, and the absent parent (AP) has a full maintenance assessment and payment is via the regular payment account.Full compliance: All payments due to the regular maintenance accounts have been made and nothing is outstanding.Partial compliance: Some payment(s) have been made to the regular maintenance accounts during the last 3 months and there is an amount outstanding.Nil compliance: No payments have been made to the regular maintenance accounts during the last 3 months.
§ Ms CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and percentage of maintenance assessments carried out by the Child Support Agency which are challenged by the absent parent(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1354]
Mr. BradleyThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.You have asked about the number of maintenance assessments that are challenged by the absent parent. The Agency records information on the number of applications for a second tier review (STR) received from any party to the assessment. Along with absent parents this includes parents with care, persons (other than parents) with care, and a child in Scotland. The STR is the means by which any of the interested parties can ask for a review of their assessment by another child support officer (CSO) if they disagree with the decision of the original CSO.The attached tables therefore give the number of STR requests received by the Agency since inception, set against the total number of maintenance assessments made in each year.I hope this is helpful.
145W
1993–94 Number Total number of maintenance assessments 205,442 Total number of second tier reviews (STR) received 10,804
A breakdown of STRs received by each Child Support Agency Centre is not available for the first year of operation Child support agency centre Second tier reviews received 1994–95 Dudley 4,161 Hastings 3,568 Falkirk 4,256 Plymouth 5,843 Birkenhead 5,231 Belfast 4,236 Agency total 1994–95 27,295 Agency total number of maintenance assessments 250,836 1995–96 Dudley 5,231 Hastings 3,812 Falkirk 5,440 Plymouth 7,746 Birkenhead 6,356 Belfast 4,977 Agency total 1995–96 33,562 Agency total number of maintenance assessments 127,876 1996–97 Dudley 5,646 Hastings 3,554 Falkirk 5,637 Plymouth 7,237 Birkenhead 6,825 Belfast 6,349 Agency total 1996–97 35,248 Agency total number of maintenance assessments 129,255
§ Ms CunninghamTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number and percentage of Child Support Agency cases in which an interim assessment exceeded the actual maintenance assessment(a) in total and (b) by regional office for each year since the establishment of the agency. [1358]
Mr. BradleyThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Faith Boardman to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 2 June 1997:
I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency interim maintenance assessments (IMAs).The Agency is unable to answer your question in the format requested, however set out below is an explanation of interim assessments together with the number we have imposed to date, I hope you find this helpful.An IMA is usually imposed where the absent parent, parent with care or their respective partners do not provide all the information required under Child Support legislation to make a full maintenance assessment (FMA)One of four different categories of IMA can be imposed depending on the nature of the missing information, ie category A, B, C or D IMA. Category A and D are intended to encourage compliance and will normally always be punitive and higher than the liability under a FMA. A category B may, or may not be punitive depending on the circumstances of the case, it generally will not take account of any new family. A category C IMA is non punitive and is imposed in self employed cases to allow the AP extra time to provide the necessary financial evidence.146WSince April 1993 the Agency has imposed over 166,000 IMAs. I do not have break down by category, but the majority of IMAs will be category A where the liability is normally higher than the FMA.