The Impact of Welfare Reform in Kingston

Transcription

1 The Impact of Welfare Reform in Kingston October 2013 October 2016 Strategic Business Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Contents: Summary p2 Overview p4-15 Trends & Future Changes Across Kingston p16-33 Benefit Cap p34-41 Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy p42-48 November 2016

2 Introduction Since the introduction of Welfare Benefit changes from 2013 the cumulative impact has been monitored and evaluated within Kingston. This report provides detailed information on the changes from demographic, geographical and support service perspectives. The impact of the benefit changes is multi-faceted; it is not just the introduction of specific benefit changes but wider aspects of the local economy and rises in demand for other council services that need to be considered. In addition to the data, several case studies have been included in the report. It is expected that this aspect of the report will grow in the future as the Council expands the use of User Centred Design to shape service delivery. The impact of the November 2016 lowering of the Benefit Cap is yet to be seen in the data but this report will set a good baseline to monitor the changes of this and the continuing roll out of Universal Credit expected in March Headlines 94 Benefit Cap Households 389 Removal of Spare Room Subsidy Households 655 Temporary Accommodation Households 1,074 recipients of Personal Independence Payment 334 Universal Credit claimants 2

3 National, Regional and Local Overview Between October 2013 and April 2016, the number of households affected by the Benefit Cap (BC) decreased across London and England but remained almost the same in Kingston (p.4) The number of households impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) in Kingston has marginally reduced, but is reducing elsewhere in the country at a faster rate (p.7) 80% of RSRS households are impacted by /week (69% London) (p.8) In July 2016 there were 1,074 Personal Independence Payment claimants in Kingston; 25% were reassessments of DLA (p.14)

4 National and Regional Perspective: Benefit Cap National perspective - Number of households As of April 2016, 103 households in Kingston were affected by the Benefit Cap. Between October 2014 and April 2016 there was a 10% decrease in the number of Housing Benefit claimants impacted by the Benefit Cap in Kingston. Larger decreases were observed across London and England where the numbers of affected households fell by 25% and 22% respectively. Number of Housing Benefit claimants affected by the Benefit Cap Oct-13 Apr-14 Oct-14 Apr-15 Oct-15 Apr-16 Kingston London 12,179 12,598 11,616 10,265 9,963 8,723 England 23,976 25,074 23,413 20,772 20,623 18,158 Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016 Regional perspective - Number of households Kingston s number of households affected by the Benefit Cap is much lower than the London average of 273. Kingston had the 4 th lowest number of affected households in London (compared to the 3 rd lowest in October 2013). Apr 2016 Rank Local Authority Number of HB households capped in Oct 2013 Number of HB households capped in April Brent Ealing Enfield 1, Tower Hamlets Haringey Number of HB claimants capped by borough, April 2016 Hillingdon Harrow Ealing Hounslow Brent Richmond Kingston Barnet Merton Sutton 5 Enfield Haringey Redbridge Havering Camden Hackney Islington Barking & Newham Dagenham Tower Westminster Hamlets K & C H & F Southwark Greenwich Wandsworth Lambeth Croydon Lewisham Bromley Bexley 526 and over 394 to to to 263 Under 130 Map source: ESRI

5 National and Regional Perspective: Benefit Cap National perspective - Percentage of HB claimants As of April 2016, 1.14% of Housing Benefit (HB) claimants in Kingston were impacted by the Benefit Cap (BC). This was slightly higher than the percentage in London (1.10%) and higher than in England (0.45%). The percentage of HB claimants affected by the BC in Kingston in April 2016 was lower than in October 2013, in line with an overall decrease across London. Following a rise from April 2015, the percentage of HB claimants capped in Kingston fell from October 2015 to April 2016 in line with that for London. Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016 Percentage of HB claimants capped based on DWP HB claimant counts accurate as of corresponding dates 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% England London Kingston upon Thames Regional perspective - Percentage of HB claimants Kingston had the 11 th highest percentage of HB claimants affected by the Benefit Cap out of 33 London local authorities (compared to the 21 st highest in October 2013). Kingston had the highest percentage of all the south London boroughs (followed by Wandsworth, at 1.13%). Kingston has the lowest number of households claiming Housing Benefit and the 2 nd lowest rate of HB in London (6.8 per 100 of population aged 18+). Apr Percentage of HB Percentage of HB 2016 Local Authority claimants capped in claimants capped in Rank Oct 2014 April Ealing 2.31% 1.96% 2 Brent 2.62% 1.83% 3 Enfield 3.05% 1.76% 4 Westminster 2.93% 1.73% 5 Kensington and Chelsea 1.68% 1.68% 11 Kingston 1.14% 1.14% Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016; Housing Benefit Caseload, DWP, Sept 2016 Percentage of HB claimants capped by borough, April 2016 Hillingdon Harrow Ealing Hounslow Richmond Brent Kingston Barnet Westminster K & C H & F Wandsworth Lambeth Merton Sutton Enfield Haringey Camden Hackney Islington Southwark Croydon Waltham Forest Redbridge Newham Tower Hamlets Lewisham Greenwich Bromley Barking & Dagenham Bexley Havering Map source: ESRI 1.57 and over

6 National and Regional Perspective: Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) National perspective - Number of households As of April 2016, there were 398 Housing Benefit (HB) claimants impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) in Kingston. This was a 3.2% decrease from October In comparison, decreases were observed across London and England where the numbers of affected households fell by 20% and 17% respectively. Number of Housing Benefit claimants affected by the RSRS Oct-13 Apr-14 Oct-14 Apr-15 Oct-15 Apr-16 Kingston London 53,326 49,501 47,808 46,026 44,796 42,542 England 401, , , , , ,288 Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016 Regional perspective - Number of households The number of Kingston houses affected by the RSRS was much lower than the London average of 1,329. Kingston had the 2 nd lowest number of affected households of all the London boroughs Lewisham (the same rank as in October 2014). Apr 2016 Rank Local Authority Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016 Number of HB households affected in Oct 2013 Number of HB households affected in Apr Lambeth 4,145 3,196 2 Southwark 3,975 2,976 3 Hackney 3,524 2,762 4 Greenwich 3,078 2,200 5 Islington 2,570 2, Kingston Number of HB households affected by RSRS, April 16 Hillingdon Harrow Ealing Hounslow Richmond Map source: ESRI Brent Kingston Barnet Wandsworth Lambeth Merton Sutton Enfield Haringey Croydon Waltham Forest Redbridge Hackney Camden Islington Barking & Tower Newham Dagenham Westminster K & C Hamlets H & F Southwark Greenwich Lewisham Bromley Bexley Havering 2,566 and over 1,936 to ,305 to 1, to 1,305 0 to 675 7

7 National and Regional Perspective: Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) Percentage of HB claimants As of April 2016, the proportion of Housing Benefit (HB) claimants impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) was lower in Kingston than across London and England. 10% 8% 6% Proportion of HB claimants affected by RSRS Following a slight overall decrease between October 2013 and February 2014, the proportion of HB claimants affected by the RSRS in Kingston remained fairly constant. Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016 Percentage of HB claimants affected based on DWP HB claimant counts accurate as of corresponding dates 4% 2% 0% England London Kingston upon Thames Number of spare bedrooms Between October 2013 and April 2016 the proportion of RSRS affected households has dropped in Kingston and London but has remained consistent in England. 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 7.7% 5.0% 3.6% One bedroom Lewisham 1.7% 1.3% 0.8% Two or more bedrooms 6.9% 4.3% 3.7% One bedroom England London 1.4% 1.0% 0.6% Two or more bedrooms Oct-13 Oct-13 Apr-16 Apr-16 Kingston upon Thames Weekly loss In April 2016 the majority (80%) of affected households in Kingston had their HB reduced by per week. The proportion of households in Kingston with higher reductions of 15 or more was larger than across London and England. Over the year and a half prior to April 2016 Kingston saw an increase in this bracket, in line with London and England. Weekly loss of HB due to the RSRS and above Month Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016 Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016 % of RSRS affected households in Kingston London England Oct % 19.0% 65.3% Apr % 9.6% 60.3% Oct % 60.1% 28.6% Apr % 69.2% 31.9% Oct % 20.9% 6.1% Apr % 21.2% 7.2% 8

8 Housing Benefit RSRS Impact on Housing Benefit In Kingston the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy(RSRS) was implemented in April 2013 and the Benefit Cap (BC) in July April 2013 also marked the peak in the number of Housing Benefit (HB) claimants in Kingston over the three and a half year period prior to April Housing Benefit (HB) claimants since implementation of RSRS From the introduction of the RSRS until April 2016 there was a 4% fall in the number of HB claimants in Kingston. This was lower than the decrease in London, which decreased by 6%. However, the London borough average fell almost every quarter over this period whereas the number of HB claimants in Kingston fluctuated and then increased between November 2013 and January 2015, though it began dropping again after that Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October 2016 Housing Benefit claimants by rental type The chart opposite shows the proportion of Housing Benefit claimants by rental type. Unsurprisingly, the majority of Housing Benefit claimants are part of the Social Rented Sector. However, Kingston has a significantly higher proportion of Housing Benefit Claimants that live in privately rented accommodation than either London or England, which are mostly aligned. While the gap has widened across the country since October 2013, it has moved at the same rate in Kingston than it has across both London and England 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Housing Benefit Claimants in social or private housing Oct-13 Apr-16 Oct-13 Apr-16 Oct-13 Apr-16 Kingston London England Social Rented Sector Private Rented Sector Source: DWP Stat-Xplore October

9 Benefit claimants: Jobseekers Allowance & Job Centre Plus sanctions Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) The proportion of JSA claimants in Kingston is far lower than that in both London and England. Since October 2013, the proportion of JSA claimants Wandsworth in Kingston, London and Lewisham England has reduced. Croydon Source: GLA Claimant Count Percentage of the working age (aged years) who are claiming Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) % Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) Claimants Kingston London England Job Centre Plus (JCP) sanctions If an individual breaks their contract with Job Centre Plus they are sanctioned. The most common reasons for being sanctioned include: not actively seeking employment, failure to attend a training scheme, employment programme or adviser interview. The graph shows the number of sanctions applied between October 2013 and March 2016 based on those claimants who live in Kingston. To date it would appear that the welfare reform changes have had no impact on the number of sanctions applied for. The proportion of JSA claimants in Kingston represent 1% of all JSA claimants in London (Mar 2016). Sanctions applied to Kingston claimants account for 0.6% of all sanctions applied in London for the same time period. Source: DWP Stat X-plore Tool October Number of JSA sanctions applied - Kingston JSA Claimants* *Claimants are those that have Kingston recorded as their place of residence 10

10 Nov-09 Feb-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 Feb-12 May-12 Aug-12 Nov-12 Feb-13 May-13 Aug-13 Nov-13 Feb-14 May-14 Aug-14 Nov-14 Feb-15 May-15 Aug-15 Nov-15 Feb-16 Number of Claimants Benefit claimants: Employment Support Allowance claimants & sanctions Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) was introduced in October 2008 to replace Incapacity Benefit (IB), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) and Income Support (IS) paid on the grounds of incapacity. Since the introduction of ESA, existing claimants remained on their original benefits until they were reassessed by DWP for ESA instead. As a result the numbers of IS, IB and SDA claimants have declined over time, whilst the number of ESA claimants has risen. However, the total number of claimants for IS, IB, SDA and ESA combined has decreased since ESA was introduced. This may indicate that the eligibility criteria for ESA are stricter than those for the benefits that it is replacing ESA, IS, IB and SDA claimants in Kingston, November February ESA Income Support IB/SDA Total Source: DWP cited by Nomis October 2016 Employment Support Allowance sanctions Sanctions can be applied on ESA payments in the same way that it can be applied on JSA payments The graph shows the number of sanctions applied between October 2013 and March 2016 based on those claimants whose place of residence is Kingston. Much like the JSA sanctions, it would appear that the welfare reform changes have had no impact on the number of sanctions applied for. The proportion of ESA claimants in Kingston represent 1% of all ESA claimants in London (March 2016). Sanctions applied to Kingston claimants account for 0.7% of all sanctions applied in London for the same time period. There was a large jump in March 2016 but the number remained low. 25 ESA Sanctions in Kingston April 14 - March Source: DWP Stat X-plore Tool October

11 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a benefit for people aged 16 to 64 with a disability or long-term health condition, designed to help towards some of the extra costs arising from ill-health or disability. PIP is based on how a person s condition affects them, not the condition they have. It aims to ensure that financial support is targeted at those who face the greatest challenges living independently. PIP is made up of two parts - daily living and mobility. Each part has two rates; standard or enhanced. PIP is not affected by income or savings; it is not taxable and it can be claimed whether someone is in or out of work. PIP was launched nationally for new claimants in June Existing Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claimants are being reassessed for PIP on a phased roll out. Existing DLA claimants in Kingston started to be reassessed in July PIP claimants in Kingston As of July 2016, there were 1074 PIP claimants in Kingston (574 female and 497 male). The largest proportion of PIP claimants in Kingston are aged between 45 to 54 (29% of female claimants and 22% of male claimants) and between 55 to 64 (26% of female claimants and 28% of male claimants). Between July 2015 and July 2016 the proportion of female PIP claimants by age has seen little change; however, the proportion of male PIP claimants aged in Kingston has increased from 13% in July 2015 to 18% in July 2016 and is higher than that in both London and England. % Male PIP Claimants by Age Group % Female PIP Claimants by Age Group Source: DWP Stat X-plore Tool, Sept

12 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) PIP claimants by Disability In both July 2015 and July 2016 the highest proportion of PIP claimants in Kingston, London and England were due to Psychiatric Disorders; the proportion of claimants in Kingston is also higher than that in London and England. Disability July 2015 Rank July 2016 Rank Kingston London England No. of PIP Claimants % of PIP Claimants July 2015 Rank July 2016 Rank No. of PIP Claimants % of PIP Claimants July 2015 Rank July 2016 Rank No. of PIP Claimants % of PIP Claimants Psychiatric disorders % % % Musculoskeletal disease (regional) % % % Musculoskeletal disease (general) % % % Neurological disease % % % Malignant disease % % % Respiratory disease % % % Cardiovascular disease % % % Visual disease % % % Genitourinary disease % % % Diseases of the liver, gallbladder, biliary tract % % % Source: DWP Stat X-plorer Tool, Sept 2016 % PIP claimants with Psychiatric Disorders by Age and Gender Overall in July 2016, there were a higher proportion of people receiving PIP for psychiatric disorders aged (60%) than over 40 years of age in Kingston compared to both London (50%) and England (53%). The largest proportion of claimants receiving PIP for psychiatric disorders in Kingston were males aged and females aged (both 24%), both of which are higher than London and England. Source: DWP Stat X-plorer Tool, Sept 2016

13 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Reassessment of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claimants In October 2013, the DWP started a phased approach of re-assessing existing DLA claimants for PIP for those under 65. DLA claimants started to be reassessed in Kingston in July In July 2016, 25% of PIP claims were awarded following a DLA reassessment which is in line with national trends Kingston London England Number of new PIP claims 803 (75%) 64,881 (75%) 486,101 (65%) Number of PIP claims as a result of a DLA reassessment 273 (25%) 22,107 (25%) 261,933 (35%) Total number of PIP claimants , ,031 In July 2016, there were a larger proportion of DLA claimants aged (22%) and (15%) being reassessed for PIP compared to both London and England (both 15% and 11% respectively). % DLA claimants reassessed by Age Source: DWP Stat X-plorer Tool, Sept 2016 Mandatory reconsiderations for PIP Claimants can request that the DWP reconsider their PIP decision before starting the appeal process this is called a mandatory reconsideration. This information is not available at local authority level but in July 2016 in Great Britain there had been 353,900 mandatory reconsiderations in Great Britain, 242,800 related to new PIP claims and 111,100 to reassessed DLA claims 40% of mandatory reconsiderations resulted in a successful PIP award Source: DWP Personal Independence Payment: Official Statistics to July 2016

14 Universal Credit Roll-out and caseload Universal Credit will simplify the benefits system by bringing together a range of working-age benefits, including Jobseeker s Allowance, Housing Benefit and Child Tax Credits, into a single streamlined payment. The national roll-out of Universal Credit began in early 2015 for all new claims from single claimants with or without housing costs, but with no children. Universal Credit claims started at the Kingston Jobcentre on 2 November 2015 for single would be Jobseeker s Allowance claimants. As of July 2016 the Kingston Jobcentre Plus caseload was 496 and the number of people living in the Kingston Local Authority area claiming Universal Credit was lower at 334. Of the claimants living in the borough, a much larger proportion were male (65%) compared to female (35%) and 70% were under the age of 35. Between December 2015 and July 2016 there was an average of 70 new starts per month at the Kingston Jobcentre Plus. Starts and caseload by month LA caseload by age (July 2016) LA caseload by gender (July 2016) Data source: DWP Stat-Xplore. The data does not account for claimants on the full service. Total figures may not equal the sum of their parts due to the use of statistical disclosure control. The Kingston Jobcentre Plus caseload could include people that started at a different Jobcentre Plus. What are we doing in Kingston? From 2 November 2015, Kingston went live with Universal Credit for all new claims from single would be Jobseeker s Allowance claimants with no dependants. Locally, the Council put in place arrangements with Kingston Information and Advice Alliance (KIAA) to provide personal budgeting support and on line support for those claimants that the work coach has assessed as requiring additional support. A small number of claimants have been referred for additional support, but none of these have taken up the offer of personal budgeting support. This is reviewed at our quarterly partnership meeting with the Kingston JCP and we are exploring ways to ensure this is 15 consistently offered to new claimants.

15 Trends & Future Changes Across Kingston 25% rise in the number of households in Temporary Accommodation in the last year from 575 to 655 (p.21) 25% of queries to Citizens Advice Kingston relating to Benefits and Tax Credits are about Housing Benefit (p.25) Decreases seen in the number of Housing Benefit claimants, however turnover remains high amongst LHA claimants (p.18) Council Tax Reduction Scheme has seen a 9% decrease in claimants since 2013 (p.24) 34% of households affected by the Reduction in the Spare Room Subsidy are in arrears to the Council (p.28)

16 Housing Benefit (HB) claimants The map shows the density of HB claimants in Kingston by LSOA (lower super output areas). LSOAs are small geographical areas that allow data to be presented on a more local scale than wards; there are typically between people living in an LSOA. In September 2016, 82 of the 99 LSOAs in Kingston had HB claimants within their boundaries. Since September 2014 the numbers have remained relatively stable, decreasing by less than 5%; 13 areas have had no change; 52 have had a decrease and 18 have seen an increase in HB claimants. The number of HB claimants in all of the top ten areas has decreased between September 2014 and September Rank Sept 2016 (and no on map) Ten LSOAs with the highest number of HB claimants in Kingston in September 2014, 2015 and 2016 Rank Sept 2014 Top 10 LSOA name No of HB claimants Sept 2014 No of HB claimants Sept 2015 No of HB claimants Sept 2016 % change since Sept 2014 Sept Cambridge Road Estate % 2 2 Alpha Road % 3 3 Acre Road/Elm Road/Canbury Ave % 4 4 Fairfield/Hogsmill % 5 5 Kingsnympton Park Estate % 6 6 Sheephouse Way % 7 7 Garrison Lane % 8 8 Cambridge Gardens % 9 11 Devon Way/ Woodgate Ave % Selbourne Ave/Fullers Ave % Housing Benefit claimants September 2016 Turnover of HB claimants In September 2016 there were 288 households claiming HB who were not claiming HB in September 2015 and 431 households were no longer claiming. The net result is a small drop in the number of claimants by 174 households out of a total of 3,432; however, this is higher than the net reduction between September 2014 and 2015 (89 households). Map source: ESRI 17

17 Local Housing Allowance (LHA) claimants The map shows the density of LHA claimants in Kingston by LSOA (lower super output areas). LSOAs are small geographical areas that allow data to be presented on a more local scale than wards; there are typically between people living in an LSOA. In September 2016, 98 of the 99 Kingston LSOAs had LHA claimants within their boundaries. Since September 2014 the overall numbers have remained relatively stable, decreasing by 4%. There has been a higher number of areas that have had the number of LHA claimants decrease (63 LSOAs) compared to those that have had an increase (27 LSOAs). Remaining 8 LSOAs have had no change in the number of LHA claimants Greatest increase: LHA claimants in the Blagdon Road/Egmont Road LSOA increased by 83% (41 in Sept 2014 compared to 75 in Sept 2016) 2 4 Rank Sept 2016 (and no on map) Ten LSOAs with the highest number of LHA claimants in Kingston in September 2014, 2015 and 2016 Rank Sept 2014 Top 10 LSOA name No of LHA claimants Sept 2014 No of LHA claimants Sept 2015 No of LHA claimants Sept 2015 % change since Sep Sep St Marks Hill/ Victoria Rd % 2 2 California Rd/ Springfield Place % 3 3 Royal Quarter/Canbury Gdns % 4 8 Albany Road/Selwyn Road 131 Area % 5 10 Fairfield/ Hogsmill % 6 4 Merritt Gdns/ Leatherhead Rd % 7 6 Berrylands Rd % 8 5 Sunray Ave % 9 7 Kent Way/ Gladstone Rd % 10 9 Birkenhead Ave to Hawks Rd % Turnover of LHA claimants In September 2016 there were 878 households claiming LHA who were not claiming in September 2015 and 985 households were no longer claiming. This has resulted in a net loss in the number of claimants by 232 households out of a total of 5,555; however, this is much higher than the net reduction between September 2014 and 2015 (6 households). 6 Map source: ESRI Local Housing Allowance claimants September

18 Migration of Housing Benefit (HB) claimants into Kingston 1 October 2013 and 30 September 2016 (3 years)* Moves from Between 1 October 2013 and 30 September 2016, 1,861 households applying for Housing Benefit (and Local Housing Allowance) declared a previous address which is outside Kingston. This is an average of 56 households per month. Oct 2013 Sept 2014 Oct 2014 Sept 2015* Oct 2015 Sept 2016 Number of new HB claims Average HB claims per month Between October 2013 and September 2016^: The highest proportion of new HB claimants moved to Kingston from other parts of London and from neighbouring boroughs (35% and 32% respectively between October 2015 and September 2016) The proportion of new HB claimants moving into Kingston from Surrey has increased steadily from 11% between October 2013 and September 2014 to 15% between October 2015 and September 2016 The proportion of those moving to Kingston from abroad reduced from 3% to no moves from abroad whereas the proportion of moves of new HB claimants from both the Home Counties and the rest of the UK has fluctuated Please note that proportion of new HB claimants moving into Kingston without a previous postcode increased significantly between October 2015 and September 2016 (69%) compared to the previous two periods (both 39%) 1 October 2013 and 30 September October 2014 and 30 September 2015* 1 October 2015 and 30 September % ^Please note that HB claims with an unknown previous postcode have not been included in this analysis (252 unknowns excluded from 1 Oct Sept 2014, 161 unknowns excluded from 1 Oct Sept 2015 and 553 unknowns excluded from 1 Oct Sept 2016) *Please note there was no postcode data collected between October and December Moves into and out of Temporary Accommodation (B&B, YMCA and Hostels) have been excluded from the figures to avoid skewing the results towards moves to and from where these properties are located.

19 Migration of Housing Benefit (HB) claimants into Kingston 1 October 2013 and 30 September 2016 (3 years)* Moves to Between October 2013 and September 2016^: In total the wards with the highest number of new HB claimants were Norbiton (99), Canbury (81) and St Mark s (76). The wards with the lowest number of new HB claimants were Chessington North and Hook (28) and Alexandra (30) 14 of the 16 wards in Kingston saw a decrease in the number of new HB claimants, with the largest decreases being seen in Surbiton Hill (decreasing by 18 claimants from 29 between Oct 2013-Sept 2014 to 19 between Oct 15-Sept 16) and Coombe Vale (decreasing by 17 claimants from 27 between Oct 2013-Sept 2014 to 10 between Oct 15-Sept 16) The only increase in the number of new HB claimants were in Alexandra and Chessington South; however, this was only by one new HB claimants and the number moving to both wards has fluctuated between October 2013 and September October 2013 and 30 September October 2014 and 30 September 2015* 1 October 2015 and 30 September 2016 ^Please note that HB claims with an unknown previous postcode have not been included in this analysis (252 unknowns excluded from 1 Oct Sept 2014, 161 unknowns excluded from 1 Oct Sept 2015 and 553 unknowns excluded from 1 Oct Sept 2016) *Please note there was no postcode data collected between October and December 2014 Moves into and out of Temporary Accommodation (B&B, YMCA and Hostels) have been excluded from the figures to avoid skewing the results towards moves to and from where these properties are located. 20

20 Migration of Housing Benefit (HB) claimants within Kingston 1 October 2013 and 30 September 2016 (3 years) The map below shows the net moves of LHA claimants in privately rented accommodation by ward, for those who moved within the Borough between 1 October 2013 and 29 September The map below shows the net moves of HB claimants in social housing properties by ward, for those who moved within the Borough between 1 October 2013 and 29 September Number of households who have moved: 819 Number of households that have stayed within the same ward: 225 (27%) Beverley had the largest exchange of households with 135 moving in and 56 moving out Number of households who have moved: 690 Number of households that have stayed within the same ward: 82 (12%) Norbiton had the largest exchange of households with 112 moving in and 63 moving out Beverley (+79) had the highest net in-migration. Moves to this ward appear to be concentrated around new developments, primarily 59 Kingston Road and Crown House also in Kingston Road and Sun Gate House in Cocks Crescent in New Malden. Norbiton had the highest net in-migration (+49) St Mark s had the highest net loss of households (-51) Grove (-23) and St Mark s (-22) had the highest net loss of households Map source: ESRI Labels indicate ward name and number of moves Size of arrow increases as the net number of moves increases Map source: ESRI 21

21 Migration of Housing Benefit (HB) claimants within Kingston 1 October 2013 and 30 September 2016 (3 years) The maps below shows the net moves of HB claimants in social housing properties by ward, for those who moved within the Borough. Between 1 October 2013 and 29 September 2016: The number of those moving within the same ward has decreased over the last 3 years (from 30 moves to 23 moves) Following on from having the highest net loss of households between October 2013 and September 2014, the number of moves into Tolworth & Hook Rise has increased and St Mark s has had the highest net loss of household for the last 2 years Norbiton has been the ward with the highest net in-migration and the largest exchange of households for the last 3 years 1 October 2013 and 30 September September 2014 and 30 September September 2015 and 30 September 2016 No. of moves 224 No. of moves 266 No. of moves 200 No. of moves within same ward 30 No. of moves within the same ward 29 No. of moves within the same ward 23 Highest net inmigration Norbiton (+13) Highest net inmigration Norbiton (+18) Highest net in migration Norbiton (+18) Highest net loss of households Tolworth & Hook Rise (-16) Highest net loss of households St Mark s (-25) Highest net loss of households St Mark s (-21) Largest exchange of households Norbiton (40 moving in & 27 out) Largest exchange of households Norbiton (38 moving in & 20 out) Largest exchange of households Norbiton (34 moving in & 16 out) Labels indicate ward name and number of moves Map source: ESRI Size of arrow increases as the net number of moves increases 22

22 Migration of Housing Benefit (HB) claimants within Kingston 1 October 2013 and 30 September 2016 (3 years) The maps below shows the net moves of LHA claimants in Privately Rented accommodation by ward, for those who moved within the Borough. Between 1 October 2013 and 29 September 2016: The number LHA claimants moving within the Borough has decreased over the last 3 years (from 319 moves to 233 moves) Following on from having both the highest net in-migration and largest exchange of households between October 2013 and September 2014, the number of moves into Canbury has decreased and Beverley has had the highest in-migration and exchange of households for the last 2 years There have been no LHA claimants moving into or out of Chessington South for the last 3 years 1 October 2013 and 30 September September 2014 and 30 September September 2015 and 30 September 2016 No. of moves 319 No. of moves within same ward Highest net inmigration Highest net loss of households Largest exchange of households 94 Canbury (+32) Coombe Hill (-16) Canbury (53 moving in & 21 out) No. of moves 267 No. of moves within the same ward Highest net inmigration Highest net loss of households Largest exchange of households 60 Beverley (+42) Norbiton (-24) Beverley (55 moving in & 13 out) Labels indicate ward name and number of moves Map source: ESRI No. of moves 233 No. of moves within the same ward Highest net in migration Highest net loss of households Largest exchange of households Size of arrow increases as the net number of moves increases Beverley (+21) Surbiton Hill (-9) Beverley (39 moving in & 18 out)

23 Crisis Fund and Community Care Fund Localised Benefits and Payments Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) From April 2013 the Social Fund was transferred from a national to a locally awarded benefit. In Kingston this is known as the Crisis Fund and Community Care Fund which assist residents in crisis due to an emergency situation or residents struggling to stay in the community/set up home. Kingston has joined up with the Community Furniture Project and Kingston Food Bank to provide vouchers for furniture and food. From November 2015 to the end of September 2016, there were 11 successful applications to the Crisis and Community Care funds. The graph categorises the successful applications by reason. Partners are not seeing an adverse impact due to the reducing number of applications made to the Crisis Fund and Community Care Fund, although the Citizens Advice Kingston (CAK) are seeing an increase in requests for food vouchers. Successful Crisis Fund and Community Fund applications by award (Nov Sept 2016) Four years after the introduction of the CTRS (April 2013), the number of claimants have reduced by 9%. Month Number of CTRS Claimants Apr-13 9,377 Oct-14 9,192 Oct-15 8,928 Oct 16 8,547 The groups of claimants have proportionally remained the same when comparing October 2015 to October 2016, with the largest number being Pensioners. The graph below shows the figures at October Council Tax Reduction Scheme claimants October

24 Citizens Advice Kingston (CAK) Break down of Benefits and Tax Credits queries Over the last year (October 2015 to September 2016) 1,223 Benefits and Tax Credits queries were made to Citizens Advice Kingston by residents of the borough. The highest number of queries concerned Housing Benefit (25%), Employment and Support Allowance (18%) and Personal Independence Payment (12%). Top 10 sub-categories of Benefits and Tax Credits queries made to Citizens Advice Kingston, October 2015 to September 2016 Source: CAK monthly statistics. Benefits and Tax Credits queries do not represent all CAK queries. ESA and PIP queries Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are both relatively new benefits that were launched in October 2008 and April 2013 respectively. ESA and PIP will replace certain existing benefits with claimants being re-assessed in gradual roll outs. ESA and PIP queries made to Citizens Advice Kingston by month From October 2015 to September 2016 there was a rough trend of a slight increase in ESA and PIP queries made to Citizens Advice Kingston. In the case of PIP, this may have been due to the fact that existing Disability Living Allowance claimants in Kingston started to be re-assessed very recently in July Source: CAK monthly statistics. The number of PIP queries in October 2015 has been excluded as it was less than 5. Please note that the analysis is only of queries made by residents of the borough. Queries from service users of unknown residence have been excluded (62 from Oct 2015 to Sep 2016). Some service users may have made more than one query. 25

25 Citizens Advice Kingston (CAK) Benefits and Tax Credits queries by ward From October 2015 to September 2016 the largest numbers of Benefits and Tax Credits queries were from residents living in Norbiton, Coombe Hill, Canbury and Grove wards at 136 (11%), 97 (8%), 92 (8%) and 92 (8%) respectively. The wards in the north of the borough generally had the highest numbers of queries (excluding Tudor). The 1,223 queries from residents of Kingston equated to 89% of all the Benefits and Tax Credits queries received by Citizens Advice Kingston. 85 (6%) queries were made by service users from outside the borough and 62 (5%) queries were made by service users of unknown residence. Number of Benefits and Tax Credits queries by ward, October 2015 to September 2016 Tudor Grove Canbury St Mark s Surbiton Hill Norbiton Berrylands Alexandra Tolworth and Hook Rise Chessington North and Hook Chessington South Coombe Hill Coombe Vale Beverley St James Old Malden 100 and over Under 60 Source: CAK monthly statistics, map source: ESRI Benefits and Tax Credits queries by ethnic group Between October 2015 and September 2016 the majority (64%) of Benefits and Tax Credits queries were from residents of the White ethnic group. When benchmarked against the population of the borough (aged 16 and above), this was lower than the proportion of residents in the White ethnic group recorded in the 2011 Census (76%). The proportions of queries from residents of the Asian / Asian British (21%), Black / African / Caribbean / Black British (6%) and Other ethnic groups (6%) were higher than the corresponding proportions of residents recorded in the 2011 Census (16%, 2% and 3% respectively). Proportion of Benefits and Tax Credits queries by ethnic group Sources: CAK monthly statistics and Nomis referencing the Office for National Statistics. CAK percentages exclude Unknown and Declined to Reply groups (12% of queries). 26 Please note that the analysis is only of queries made by residents of the borough. Queries from service users of unknown residence have been excluded (62 from Oct 2015 to Sep 2016). Some service users may have made more than one query.

26 Temporary Accommodation The total number of households in temporary accommodation was 655 at the end of September 2016, which is a 22% increase from September 2014 (510 households). Total number of households in temporary accommodation September 2014 September 2015 September 2016 % change between Sept 2015 and Sept % The total number of households in temporary accommodation who meet the family definition (those with children or pregnant women) was 516 at the end of September 2016, which is an 25% increase from September 2014 (385 households). Total number of households in temporary accommodation who meet the family definition (those with children or pregnant women) September 2014 September 2015 September 2016 % change between Sept 2015 and Sept % The increase is a consequence of continued demand for accommodation from homeless households whilst the anticipated supply of vacant units of permanent Social Housing has not occurred. This in turn has resulted in growth of numbers of households within Temporary Accommodation generally and specifically within 'nightly-paid' temporary accommodation. However, despite the increase in numbers of households within Temporary Accommodation, we have maintained our Policy not to accommodate households with dependent children into bed and breakfast accommodation. Households are exempt from the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy while in temporary accommodation; however, once they are re housed in permanent accommodation, they could become vulnerable to these benefit changes should their household change. 27

27 Finance Overview Current arrears of households affected by the Benefit Cap and the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) The current arrears balances are as of 20 October 2016 (after rent and Housing Benefit transfers*) and are for households that were affected by the Benefit Cap or RSRS on 30 September The analysis only accounts for current arrears balances of 50 or more and for residents living in council properties or temporary accommodation. Number of households: 14 (15%) of the households affected by the Benefit Cap and 131 (34%) of the households impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) had current arrears. Benefit Cap (BC): 64% of the households affected by the Benefit Cap and in arrears had current arrears balances of 1,000 or more. Arrears amounts of households affected by the Benefit Cap Total arrears: The current arrears balances of the households affected by the Benefit Cap totalled 23,302 and the average per household was 1,664. The current arrears balances of the households affected by the RSRS totalled 232,504 and the average per household was 1,775. Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS): 44% of the households affected by the RSRS and in arrears had current arrears balances of 1,000 or more. Arrears amounts of households affected by the RSRS Sources: Kingston Housing Database and Kingston Housing Benefit System. *Some households pay by standing order or weekly direct debit so the timings of transactions may be different 28

28 Finance Overview Households affected by Welfare Reform with current arrears, by composition As of October 2016, 74% of the households affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) and in arrears were adult only households. In contrast all of the households impacted by the Benefit Cap (BC) and in arrears had dependant children. 64% of these households were single parent households. Compositions of households affected by Welfare Reform and in arrears, October 2016 Households affected by Welfare Reform with current arrears, by ward In October 2016 the largest numbers of households affected by the Benefit Cap or the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) and in current arrears were located in the wards of Norbiton (33), Chessington North and Hook (20) and Coombe Hill (16). It must be highlighted that the wards of Norbiton and Chessington North and Hook had the highest numbers of households affected by the RSRS (page 48). Number of households affected by the Benefit Cap or the RSRS, with current arrears, by ward, October 2016 Tudor Grove Canbury St Mark s Surbiton Hill Norbiton Berrylands Alexandra Tolworth and Hook Rise Chessington North and Hook Coombe Hill Coombe Vale Beverley St James Old Malden Chessington South 20 and over Under 5 Sources: Kingston Housing Database and Kingston Housing Benefit System. Please see the previous page for details on how the data was collected. Sources: Kingston Housing Database and Kingston Housing Benefit System, map source: ESRI. Please see the previous page for details on how the data was collected. 29

29 Finance Overview Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) Households affected by welfare reform can apply for Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). It is awarded for a number of months whilst the household puts in place an outcome to manage or mitigate the impact, such as moving or finding qualifying employment. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) collects information on the expenditure on DHP which requires local authorities to provide figures at the end of each financial year for accounting purposes and the voluntary monitoring returns from local authorities are used to record how the DHP budget is being spent. 24 of the 32 London boroughs submitted DHP monitoring forms in both 2013/14 and 2015/16. DHP awarded to households affected by the Benefit Cap Since 2013/14, the proportion of DHP allocated to those affected by the Benefit Cap has decreased in 11 London boroughs and increased in 13 London boroughs. In 2015/16, Kensington & Chelsea had the highest proportion of their DHP budget used to support households affected by the Benefit Cap (75%) whereas Hounslow had the lowest proportion (22%). In the last three years, the proportion of the DHP budget in Kingston and London used to support those affected by the Benefit Cap was higher than that in England. In 2015/16 the proportion of DHP expenditure in Kingston on households affect by the Benefit Cap was higher than that of London. % of DHP Expenditure on households affected by the Benefit Cap Hillingdon Harrow Ealing Hounslow Richmond Brent Kingston Barnet Wandsworth Merton Sutton Enfield Haringey Croydon Waltham Forest Lewisham Redbridge Tower Newham Hamlets Greenwich Bromley Barking & Dagenham Bexley Havering Over 60% 45-59% 30-44% 15-29% 0-14% No data Rank Rank % of DHP allocated to households affected by the Benefit Cap Name % change to Kensington & Chelsea 41.0% % 33.9% 2 5 Lewisham 47.0% 61.0% 74.8% 27.8% 3 4 Tower Hamlets 49.3% 70.0% 70.1% 20.8% 4 6 Newham 46.8% 60.8% 65.8% 19.0% 5 13 Waltham Forest 37.1% 57.2% 63.0% 25.9% 6 18 Westminster 29.8% 63.0% 52.8% 23.0% 7 14 Kingston 33.0% 46.8% 48.4% 15.4% 8 9 Ealing 43.1% 50.6% 46.7% 3.6% 9 1 Brent 61.5% 64.2% 43.5% -18.0% Hackney 28.7% 49.8% 35.1% 6.4% London 38.6%* 46.7%** 40.9%*** 2.3% England 19.6%^ 20.0%^^ 14.7%^^^ -4.9% Source: DWP - Use of Discretionary Housing Payments: financial year 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 and map source: ESRI. Please note that due to rounding to the nearest 5, the percentages may not add up to 100% and the 2013/14 figures were based on committed expenditure whereas the 2014/15 and 2015/16 figures are based on total expenditure. *Excludes Bromley, Croydon, Haringey and Lambeth who did not submit data. **Excludes Bromley, Enfield, Haringey, Kensington and Chelsea and Sutton who did not submit data. ***Excludes Barnet, Croydon, Enfield, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Merton and Wandsworth who did not submit data. ^Excludes data from 38 local authorities in England ^^Excludes data from 29 local authorities in England ^^^Excludes data from 78 local authorities in England 30

30 Finance Overview DHP awarded to households affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy Since 2013/14, the proportion of DHP allocated to those affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) has decreased in 14 London boroughs and increased in 10 London boroughs. In 2015/16, Greenwich had the highest proportion of their DHP budget used to support households affected by the RSRS (75%) whereas Westminster had the lowest proportion (4%). In 2015/16, the proportion of the DHP budget in Kingston used to support those affected by the RSRS increased to 35% which was higher than that in London (26%) but lower than England (45%). % of DHP Expenditure on households affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy Hillingdon Harrow Ealing Hounslow Richmond Brent Kingston Barnet Camden Wandsworth Merton Sutton Enfield Haringey Westminster Hackney Croydon Waltham Forest Tower Newham Hamlets Lewisham Redbridge Greenwich Bromley Barking & Dagenham Bexley Havering Over 60% 40-59% 25-39% 11-24% 0-10% No data % of DHP allocated to households affected by the Removal of Spare Room Subsidy Rank Mar Rank Mar Name % change to Greenwich 78.7% 70.1% 75.1% -3.5% 2 - Bromley % Southwark 42.5% 41.8% 52.0% 9.5% 4 - Lambeth % 48.5% Havering 45.4% 41.4% 47.6% 2.2% 6 9 Islington 37.7% 46.3% 46.9% 9.3% 7 10 Richmond 35.7% 44.0% 41.8% 6.1% 8 7 City of London 39.8% 37.7% 38.1% -1.7% 9 22 Kingston 15.4% 19.5% 35.3% 19.9% Camden 34.1% 35.7% 33.4% -0.7% Hackney 26.1% 25.6% 32.5% 6.5% 12 4 Newham 42.9% 27.5% 30.2% -12.7% London 24.2%* 22.8%** 26.2%*** 2.0% England 43.4%^ 43.9%^^ 44.9%^^^ 1.5% There is a where no data was submitted by the local authority to DWP. Source: DWP - Use of Discretionary Housing Payments: financial year 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 and map source: ESRI Please note that due to rounding to the nearest 5, the percentages may not add up to 100% and the 2013/14 figures were based on committed expenditure whereas the 2014/15 and 2015/16 figures are based on total expenditure. *Excludes Bromley, Croydon, Haringey and Lambeth who did not submit data. **Excludes Bromley, Enfield, Haringey, Kensington and Chelsea and Sutton who did not submit data. ***Excludes Barnet, Croydon, Enfield, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Merton and Wandsworth who did not submit data. ^Excludes data from 38 local authorities in England. ^^Excludes data from 29 local authorities in England. ^^^Excludes data from 78 local authorities in England. 31

31 Work and Health Programme Background In the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) the government announced the creation of a new Work and Health Programme after the current Work Programme and Work Choice contracts end in This will be aimed at: Long-term JSA claimants - out of work for over 2 years (25% of cohort) mandated attendance Those with disability / health conditions (75% of cohort) voluntary attendance National funding will be 130m per annum (considerable reduction - 600m and 150m for the two predecessor programmes - but provision for those unemployed up to 24 months will be handled through JCP working more intensively for claimants). This programme is key to the manifesto commitment to halve unemployment for those with health and disability needs. London Local Authorities commissioning providers The Greater London Authority argued for greater local involvement in driving better services and improved employment outcomes, especially for the most disadvantaged residents. The government has agreed to jointly commission the Work and Health Programme with London boroughs. The only other place this is happening is Greater Manchester. In London there will be four contracts in the four subregions. Kingston falls within the South London Partnership (with Croydon, Merton, Richmond and Sutton). The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have announced that there wouldn t be any funding attached for the four London Work and Health Programmes. London Councils and London Local Authorities themselves, are lobbying to for London to receive the funding to deliver this programme. Local Impact Early estimations indicate that there would only be 32 mandatory beneficiaries (Job Seekers Allowance clients) to this programme locally and a further 222 places that might voluntarily participate (those with health conditions/disabilities). However, the CSR included other commitments on employment and skills which may develop into additional sub-regional activity in time. Notably, DWP has committed to work with London on the development of universal support, to enhance the core JobcentrePlus offer with local wraparound services (including via co-locations). And, at least 40m has been included in funding for the DWP/Department for Health Joint Work and Health Unit for a health and work innovation fund, to pilot new ways to join up across health and employment systems. 32

32 Kingston Lowering of the Benefit Cap The Benefit Cap has been reduced further to 23,000 for a family in London and 15,410 a year for single people from 7 November Elsewhere in the country the new cap amount will be 20,000 a year for a family and 13,400 a year for single people. The weekly breakdown for Kingston has been set out below: Currently 350 per week for single adults 500 per week for families and couples without children From 7 Nov per week for single adults 442 per week for families and couples without children From 7 November 2016 those in receipt of Carers and Guardians Allowance are exempt from the Benefit Cap. In September 2016 we received a list from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of 280 households they have identified will be impacted by the lowering of the Benefit Cap in November This breaks down into 74 households that are already impacted by the Benefit Cap and 206 households that will be newly impacted. Cap differences: the largest proportion (45%) of households affected by the lowering of the Cap will lose 50 or less per week, 36% between and 19% will be affected by over 101. Household composition: the majority of households affected by the lowering of the Cap continue to be single parent households (64%). Single adult households will account for 14% of the cohort; this group sees the largest rise in those affected. Property type: as currently, the majority of affected households by the lower cap are privately rented (62%). The proportions of household type affected remain fairly similar to those currently capped, with the largest increase in Housing Association properties (9% to 13%) % Single parent with children 23% Couple with childen 14% Single adult only Location: The largest proportion of the households affected by the lowering of the Cap will be located in Beverley ward (11%). This households will also have the highest number of newly capped households (24), followed by Norbiton (18) and Grove (16) wards. 33

33 Benefit Cap: Affected Households Within the Borough As of 30 September 2016 there were 94 households that were currently impacted by the Benefit Cap (BC). 74% were lone parent households (p.35) 33% of capped households have been previously capped at least once. 52% of those were capped for less than three months (p.39) 60% of people affected by the benefit cap in Kingston are children (p.36) 65% of households affected by the benefit cap live in private rented accommodation (p.38) 95% of households affected by the benefit cap have dependent children (p.37) Source: All data in this section is from Royal Borough of Kingston databases

34 Benefit Cap - Affected Households As of 30 September 2016 there were 94 households that were currently impacted by the Benefit Cap (BC) and 341 households that had been, but were no longer impacted. Number of households affected Over the last year, there has been a 17% decrease in the number of households impacted by the Benefit Cap in Kingston. The on flows and off flows have on average been lower over the last year when compared to the year prior. This may suggest a lower turnover of cases. However, it may also be due to the regularity of the Benefit Cap updates (regular updates are more likely to capture fluctuation between being capped and not capped). *Figures for end of quarter. On-flow: Newly capped households; Off-flow: Households no longer capped. Length of time capped 53% of the no longer capped households were affected for less than 6 months and 80% were impacted for less than a year. This indicates that households tend to remain capped for a short period of time. However, a large proportion of households are then re-capped (page 39). No longer capped households by length of time capped The data only accounts for the most recent period of being capped when a household has been capped more than once. Please note that historic data has been updated with notifications of changes so may differ from the data in the rest of this section of the report. 35

35 Benefit Cap Overview (active cases only) In September 2016 there were 94 households (369 people) impacted by the Benefit Cap (BC), which was a decrease from October 2013 when there were 98 households (448 people) affected. Age The largest proportion of people affected by the Benefit Cap in both October 2013 and September 2016 were aged Between October 2013 and September 2016 the proportion of people impacted by the Benefit Cap that were aged increased by 3.6 percentage points, which was the largest increase in an age group. Individuals aged under 16 and over 65 are not directly affected but are living in a household affected by the changes. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. % people impacted by the BC by age - Sep % 8.3% 10.5% 1.8% 1.6% 5.4% % people impacted by the BC by age - Oct % Gender (where known) In September 2016 a larger proportion of the people affected by the BC were female compared to male. The proportion of people that were female was 2.3 percentage points higher than in October Sep 2016 Oct 2013 (61.3%) (38.7%) 239 (59.0%) 166 (41.0%) Ethnicity (where known) Ethnicity data has been sourced from the Adult Social Care system and the School Census. Between October 2013 and September 2016 there was a decrease in the proportion of individuals affected by the BC from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups. However, in September 2016 the proportion was still much higher than that of the resident BAME population in Kingston of 25.5%*. It must be noted that data was only available for 41% of individuals. Oct-13 People from BAME groups % People from white ethnic groups** % Total % **In Sep 2016 this included 20 people from the White Other ethnic group compared to 27 people in Oct Sep % % % 36 *Source: Census 2011 (Nomis referencing the ONS) Data in this section of the report as of 03 October 2013 and 30 September 2016 (unless stated otherwise)

36 Benefit Cap Overview (active cases only) Household Type (where known) In September 2016 the majority of the Housing Benefit claimants affected by the Benefit Cap were living in privately rented accommodation (66%). Household Composition In September 2016 the majority (74%) of the Housing Benefit claimants affected by the Benefit Cap were lone parents. Number of claimants by Household type, September 2016 Number of claimants by household composition, September 2016 Impact on Children (0-16 years) Of the 217 children aged 16 and under impacted by the Benefit Cap in October 2016, 127 of these children were attending Primary, Secondary or Special schools in Kingston* compared to 168 pupils in October The data on Kingston school pupils is collated in the School Census which provided the following information: % of pupils affected by the BC Oct 2016* % of pupils affected by the BC Oct 2013 % of children living and attending a school in Kingston SEN EAL BAME 21% 25% 43% (26) (32) (55) 17% 50% 54% (28) (84) (93) 11% 33% 37% (2,625) (8,168) (7,497) In both October 2016 and October 2013, the proportions of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and those of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups was greater in BC affected households than across the resident school population of the borough whereas the proportion of pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL) reduced compared to that in October 2013 and now is below that of the resident school population. Social Care In September 2016, 15 (4.1%) of the people affected by the Benefit Cap had an open referral to Children s Services, which was a decrease from 25 (5.6%) in October The largest category of the open cases was Domestic Violence (40% of cases). In both October 2013 and September 2016 there were less than 5 people affected by the Benefit Cap with an open referral to Adult Social Care (ASC). As of September 2016 none of the capped households had an open referral to the Strengthening Families Team. The open ASC cases exclude referrals to Kingston s Mental Health and Safeguarding teams. Carer referrals are also not included. The Sep 2016 ASC and Children s Services cases were checked using a slightly different Benefit Cap cohort to that to which they have been benchmarked, which is consistent with the rest of the report. *BC data as of 26 October 2016 and School Census data as of January

37 Benefit Cap Impact by Area In October 2013 the wards with the highest numbers of affected households were generally located to the east of the borough. The ward with the most households impacted by the Benefit Cap was Beverley (15). In September 2016 the households affected by the Benefit Cap were more evenly spread around the borough. Alexandra, Beverley and Canbury had the highest numbers of capped households (each with 10). Number of households affected by the Benefit Cap by ward, October 2013 Number of households affected by the Benefit Cap by ward, October 2013 to September 2016 Number of households affected by the Benefit Cap by ward, September 2016 Tudor Grove Canbury St Mark s Norbiton Berrylands Coombe Hill Coombe Vale Beverley St James Tudor Grove Canbury St Mark s Norbiton Berrylands Coombe Hill Coombe Vale Beverley St James Surbiton Hill Alexandra Old Malden Surbiton Hill Alexandra Old Malden Tolworth and Hook Rise Chessington North and Hook Tolworth and Hook Rise Chessington North and Hook Chessington South 13 and over 9-12 Chessington South 13 and over Under 5 Under 5 The maps were created using ESRI. 38

38 Re-capped households Capped households by number of times previously affected Number of times previously capped Of the households currently affected by the Benefit Cap, 26% have been previously capped on one occasion and 7% on two or more occasions. In total 33% of the currently impacted households have been previously capped at least once. Number of days since last capped Of the currently affected households that have been previously capped, the majority (68%) were last impacted less than 6 months before the start of their current cap periods. These households therefore remained uncapped for a short period of time after their previous cap periods. 52% of the households stayed uncapped for less than 3 months before being re-impacted. One reason for this may be the frequency at which Housing Benefit claims are cancelled and then re-started. Previously capped households by number of days since last capped (currently affected) On average the households remained uncapped for 165 days before being re-impacted. 39

39 Outcomes for households affected by the Benefit Cap Households affected by the Benefit Cap are contacted by a member of the Royal Borough of Kingston Welfare Reform Team to identify how they are going to manage their reduction in Housing Benefit. Of the closed cases* (as of 30 September 2016): 101 households have Stay and Pay agreements in place and manage the cap by covering the shortfall from other sources of income. 22 households have moved to more affordable accommodation. These households have reduced their shortfalls or have moved below the cap threshold. 132 households have found qualifying employment and have become exempt from the Benefit Cap through claiming Working Tax Credits There are other possible outcomes. For example, households may have become exempt through claiming DLA, PIP or the support element of ESA. *The outcomes were recorded at the time of closure and have only been counted for cases that have remained closed. Some households may have had more than one outcome. Therefore the total number of outcomes is unlikely to equal the total number of closed cases. 40

40 Case studies of households affected by the Benefit Cap Two case studies have been included below, of Benefit Cap households supported by the Welfare Reform Officers: Lucy is a single parent with two dependent children. Lucy suffered from complex mental health problems and had been housed by the Tenant Finder Team. Lucy had been open to the Strengthening families team. Lucy was not subject to the Benefit Cap as her dependent child received Disability Living Allowance. Once Lucy s dependent child reached 16, Disability Living Allowance was not re-applied for. Lucy then was capped at per week and had a threat of homelessness due to rent arrears caused by the shortfall in the rent. Lucy contacted the Tenant Finder team who put her in contact with the Welfare Reform Team. Due to Lucy s mental health Lucy was not able to attend at the Council Offices so home visits were carried out. Lucy was then referred to the Resettlement team for further help and support. Lucy s mental health doctor was contacted and they provided details of Lucy s mental health to assist with the Discretionary Housing Payment application (to cover Lucy s rent shortfall). The Welfare Reform Officer then worked with Social Services, Tenant Finder, Housing Benefit, the Resettlement Team and MIND to ensure that Lucy received appropriate levels of support. The teams all worked closely together and Lucy was assisted to claim Personal Independence Payment and awarded with Discretionary Housing Payments in the short term. Lucy now receives Personal Independence Payment and is no longer affected by the Benefit Cap. Anna, aged 23, is a single parent with 3 dependent children and is living in Council accommodation. Anna was affected by a Benefit Cap of per week. She was already in receipt of DHP when she was invited to attend a Benefit Cap group session. Anna participated fully in the session and discussed her work options once her middle child started school in September. Anna engaged with Citizens Advice Kingston at the Benefit Cap session and followed this up with a one to one session with a Citizens Advice Kingston Advisor. Anna also had a follow up meeting with one of the Welfare Reform Officers on the basis of a possible exemption which was highlighted at the briefing session (her son suffers from ADHD and was potentially entitled to DLA). The Welfare Reform Officer gave Anna advice on completing the form as well as providing additional blank copies of the form. The Welfare Reform Officer encouraged Anna to complete the form promptly. Anna is now in receipt of DLA and is therefore exempt from the Benefit Cap. The Welfare Reform Officer continued to support Anna with a request for a Housing Benefit backdate appeal for previous tenancy. This was important as her rent arrears were preventing her from being housed in permanent accommodation. She was supported to provide all the relevant information as well as writing her appeal. The Welfare Reform Officer liaised closely with the Housing Benefit team and Anna was successfully awarded a Housing Benefit backdate of

41 Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy: Affected Households 389 households in Kingston are impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (p.43) Most households that are no longer impacted by the RSRS were impacted for less than 18 months (p.43)

42 Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy - Affected Households As of 30 September 2016 there were 389 households that were currently impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) and 294 households that had been, but were no longer impacted. Number of households affected Over the last year, there has been a 2% increase in the number of households impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) in Kingston. During this period there was a rise in the number of affected households between March and June The number of affected households has since decreased. *Figures for end of quarter. On-flow: Newly impacted households; Off-flow: Households no longer impacted. Length of time impacted The majority (66%) of the no longer affected households were impacted for less than 18 months with the peak duration being 12 to 18 months. However, there was a greater spread of durations when compared to the Benefit Cap (page 33). 21% of the households were impacted for 2 years or over in contrast to only 3% for the Benefit Cap. No longer affected households by length of time impacted Please note that historic data has been updated with notifications of changes so may differ from the data in the rest of this section of the report. 43

43 Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (active cases only) In September 2016 there were 389 households (704 people) impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS), which was a decrease from October 2013 when there were 405 affected households (735 people). Age (where known) Between October 2013 and September 2016, there were increases in the proportions of people aged and 55+ across the households affected by the RSRS. The largest proportion of people affected by the RSRS in both October 2013 and September 2016 were aged % people impacted by the RSRS by age - Sep 2016 % people impacted by the RSRS by age - Oct 2013 Individuals aged under 16 and over 65 are not directly affected but are living within an impacted household. Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Gender (where known) In September 2016 a larger proportion of the people affected by the RSRS were female compared to male. The proportions were very similar to those in October Sep 2016 Oct 2013 (62.4%) (37.6%) 442 (62.5%) 265 (37.5%) Ethnicity (where known) Ethnicity data has been sourced from the Adult Social Care system and the School Census. Between October 2013 and September 2016 there was a slight decrease in the proportion of individuals affected by the RSRS from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups. In September 2016 this proportion was lower than that of the resident BAME population in Kingston of 25.5%*. It must be noted that data was only available for 52% of the individuals affected by the RSRS. Oct-13 People from BAME groups % People from white ethnic groups** % Total % Sep % % % **In Sep 2016 this included 59 people from the White Other (or White European) ethnic group compared to 60 people in Oct *Source: Census 2011 (Nomis referencing the ONS ) Data in this section of the report as of 03 October 2013 and 30 September 2016 (unless stated otherwise) 44

44 Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy Overview (active cases only) Household Type In September 2016 the majority of the Housing Benefit claimants impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) in Kingston were living in local authority accommodation (63%). Number of claimants by household type, September 2016 Household Composition In September 2016 the majority (75%) of the households affected by the RSRS were adult only households. 76% of the households impacted by the RSRS with dependent children were lone parent households. Number of claimants by household composition, September 2016* Impact on Children (0-16 years) Of the 127 children aged 16 and under impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy in October 2016, 82 of these children were attending Primary, Secondary or Special schools in Kingston** compared to 100 pupils in October The data on Kingston school pupils is collated in the School Census which provided the following information: Special Educational Needs (SEN) English as an Additional Language (EAL) 23% (19) 27% (27) 11% (2,625) 20% (16) 26% (26) 33% (8,168) In both October 2016 and October 2013, the proportion of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) was much greater in RSRS affected households than across the resident school population of the borough. In October 2016, the proportion of pupils with English as an Additional Language (EAL) reduced compared to that in October 2013 and now is below that of the resident school population. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups 26% (20) 40% (33) 37% (7,497) Between October 2016 and October 2013, the proportion of children of BAME groups across RSRS affected households increased by 14% to be closer to the proportion seen within the school community. Percentages are based on known data rather than total populations *Lone and two parent households are classified as having dependent children **RSRS data as of 26 October 2016 and School Census data as of January

45 Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy Overview (active cases only) Open Adult Social Care cases* From October 2013 to September 2016 there was a decrease in both the number and proportion of people affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) with an open referral to Adult Social Care. Open Children s Services cases From October 2013 to September 2016 there was a decrease in both the number and proportion of people affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) with an open referral to Children s Services. Month Number of people % of total number of people impacted by the RSRS Month Number of people % of total number of people impacted by the RSRS Oct % Sep % Oct % Sep % In September 2016 the largest category of the open Adult Social Care cases was Physical Support (52% of cases). Strengthening Families Strengthening Families is a Government funded programme, providing support to families who may be faced with factors such as being out of work, mental health issues, domestic violence, substance misuse and other disadvantages. In September 2016 there were less than 5 households affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) with an open referral to the Strengthening Families Team. *The open Adult Social Care cases exclude referrals to Kingston s Mental Health and Safeguarding teams. Carers with an open referral are also not included (where the client type is known). The cohort of people affected by the RSRS used for checking the Adult Social Care and Children s Services cases was slightly different to that to which the referrals have been benchmarked, which is consistent with the rest of the report. This was due to the use of a different system that was last updated at a different time. Please note that in October 2013 checks for open Adult Social Care cases and open Children s Services cases were not carried out for 8 and 5 of the people affected by the RSRS respectively. 46

46 Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy by Area In September 2016 the wards with the highest numbers of households impacted by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) were Norbiton (66), Chessington North and Hook (38) and Chessington South (36). The same three wards had the highest numbers of affected households in October The largest decrease in affected households occurred in Chessington North and Hook. Number of households affected by the RSRS by ward, October 2013 Number of households affected by the RSRS by ward, October 2013 to September 2016 Number of households affected by the RSRS by ward, September 2016 Tudor Grove Canbury St Mark s Norbiton Berrylands Coombe Hill Coombe Vale Beverley St James Tudor Grove Canbury St Mark s Norbiton Berrylands Coombe Hill Coombe Vale Beverley St James Surbiton Hill Alexandra Old Malden Surbiton Hill Alexandra Old Malden Tolworth and Hook Rise Chessington North and Hook Tolworth and Hook Rise Chessington North and Hook Chessington South 45 and over Chessington South 45 and over Under 15 Under 15 The maps were created using ESRI. 47