2014/15 Annual review of the Ministry of Social Development

Transcription

1 2014/15 Annual review of the Ministry of Social Development Report of the Social Services Committee Contents Recommendation 2 Introduction 2 Reducing welfare dependency 3 Stand-down period 4 Monitoring success 5 Supporting vulnerable children 5 Housing 6 Appendix 8

2 Ministry of Social Development Recommendation The Social Services Committee has conducted the annual review of the 2014/15 performance and current operations of the Ministry of Social Development, and recommends that the House take note of its report. Introduction The Ministry of Social Development provides social support services and social policy advice. It either delivers or purchases most of New Zealand s social services. It also administers benefits and superannuation payments. It provides services and assistance to more than 1 million New Zealanders every year. 1 In the year under review, the ministry administered Vote Social Development and Vote Senior Citizens, which allocated over $24 billion. In 2014/15, the ministry s total revenue was $1.392 billion, a 10 percent increase on the 2013/14 amount of $1.261 billion. Total expenses were $1.386 billion (compared to $1.25 billion in 2013/14), leaving a surplus of $5.3 million. The ministry is the country s largest government department. As at March 2015, it employed the equivalent of 10,100 full-time staff. Focus of work in 2014/15 The ministry s main work during the year included operating the benefit system and supporting people into work carrying out social housing assessments, and supporting projects relating to social housing reform working to protect vulnerable children. Reducing welfare dependency and supporting vulnerable children are priority areas under the Government s Better Public Services (BPS) results programme. The ministry leads and is directly responsible for two BPS targets: reducing long-term welfare dependency, and reducing the number of assaults on children. The ministry contributes to cross-agency work towards six other BPS targets. The ministry told us about the importance of governance and leadership for cross-agency work. It also commented on the difficulty of being flexible enough to contribute to other parts of the social sector while continuing to work towards the ministry s key performance indicators and targets. 1 Ministry of Social Development, Strategic Intentions , p.6. 2

3 Reducing welfare dependency 2014/15 ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT During the year to 30 June 2015, the number of people receiving a main benefit 2 decreased by 8,237 (2.8 percent) to 285,349. The most significant reduction was for sole parents: down 6.5 percent. Jobseeker numbers declined by 2.5 percent. Some of us are concerned that there is no tracking of those who go off benefit and no measure of employment outcomes. In February 2015, the Government announced a revised BPS target for reducing welfare dependency. The target, to be achieved by June 2018, includes reducing the projected liability of the long-term cost of benefit dependency by $13 billion reducing the overall number of working-age clients by 25 percent. We asked the ministry how it would achieve this target. Although it described the target as aspirational, it said it intends to do its best. The ministry is working closely with social sector agencies to identify a range of initiatives. One likely strategy is putting more beneficiaries into active, work-focused case management. This is the most intensive of the ministry s three streams for clients. 3 The number of clients in work-focused case management has increased from 80,000 to 120,000. The ministry has trialled intense wraparound employment services for mental health clients and for sole parents. However, the trials employment results were the same as for the standard Work and Income services. The ministry said it plans to carry out different trials based on what it has learned from the completed trials. We heard that success with clients who are ill or disabled depends not only on finding a good match between the client and the role, but also on placing the client in a workplace with a supportive and flexible culture. We look forward to hearing more about the reduction of welfare dependency. Long-term beneficiaries At 30 June 2015, 65,555 beneficiaries had been receiving Jobseeker Support for more than 12 months. This is three percent fewer than the previous year (67,531). The ministry believes this is a result of the support the active case-management approach provides. Some of us raised concerns regarding an article challenging the interpretation of information about the likelihood of beneficiaries finding work after having been out of work for a long time. We understand the ministry has said that if a person is out of work for 70 days (10 weeks), the chance of ever working again is only 35 percent. We understand this is based on an incorrect interpretation of a graph from a previous study. 4 The ministry offered to look into this matter. It commented that there are challenges for people getting back into work if they have been out of work for 10 weeks or more. 2 Under the Social Security Act 1964, a main benefit is one of the following: jobseeker support; emergency benefit; youth payment; young parent payment; sole parent support; supported living payments on the grounds of sickness, injury, disability, total blindness, or caring for a patient. 3 The other two streams are general case management, mainly for clients without work obligations or social obligations; and work search support, mainly for clients who have pre-employment obligations and preparatory obligations. 4 Purdie, G. Is the statement that if a person is off work for 70 days the chance of ever getting back to work is 35% is justified? New Zealand Medical Journal, 20 November 2015, Vol. 128, No 1425, p.84. 3

4 We look forward to receiving further information from the ministry on this. People who do not renew their benefit In the year under review, 11,300 benefits were stopped. Around 5,000 benefits were stopped because the recipients did not renew their benefit as is required every 52 weeks. The ministry does not know how many of these people found work. It said that many former beneficiaries want no more to do with it after they have stopped receiving a benefit. However, the ministry has engaged SuPERU (the Families Commission) to conduct research into what people do after they leave the benefit system. We look forward to hearing about the results. Employment and youth service providers Contracted employment providers and youth service providers get success fees for certain outcomes. Youth service providers are paid for educational outcomes: the achievement of NCEA levels 1 and 2. They are also paid if clients do not return to a main benefit within three months of leaving the service. Employment providers are paid for getting clients into training or jobs. If a client does not re-enter the benefit system after training ends, the ministry assumes they have moved into employment. We appreciate that the success fee amounts are commercially sensitive; however, we think it would be appropriate to publish providers success rates. Some of us consider that the success fees should be paid for actual employment or study outcomes, rather than simply for clients not going back onto a benefit. Safeguards should also be put in place to ensure that former beneficiaries are able to support themselves. These concerns are partly allayed by the information that in 2016, the Youth Service evaluation will look at outcomes such as employment, tertiary study, offending, and custodial sentences. We asked about the Limited Service Volunteers Programme. This is a six-week residential programme for young beneficiaries, run by the New Zealand Defence Force. It aims to improve life skills, increase motivation, and improve employment prospects. We understand that it was suggested before the 2015 Budget that the intake be increased to However, it was decided that 800 was enough, and the ministry believes 800 is about right. Stand-down period In May 2015, a court ruled on the correct benefit start date. The ministry acknowledged that it should have changed its practice at that time, and paid benefits on the last day of the stand-down period, rather than continuing to pay from the day after the stand-down period ends. The ministry said it did not change its payment date because it anticipated new legislation that would change the start date. However, such legislation was not enacted until 24 November We heard that between 29 September 2015 and the date that the legislation came into force, over 16,000 benefits were paid correctly on the last day of the stand-down period. In addition, there were more than 28,000 applications to review benefit commencement dates. We were pleased to hear that the ministry intends to establish stronger processes for reviewing and changing its practices when appropriate. We were told the Social Security 4

5 Act 1964 is complex and contains a range of anomalies and it expects to complete its stocktake of anomalies in the first two or three months of Monitoring success Social sector trials During the last two years, around 600 social sector initiatives have been trialled in communities in 16 areas in New Zealand. These trials aim to test alternative ways of delivering social services. A major focus of the trials has been to increase youth participation in education, training, and employment. The trials have enabled local community members to come together in advisory groups and work out possibilities for achieving good outcomes. We were pleased to hear that, collectively, the trials have improved outcomes in their communities. However, we have yet to sight any formal evaluations of these trials. We look forward to seeing evaluations of the trials and the successful ones extended. Subsequent child policy People receiving sole parent support who have a subsequent child must become available for work when that child turns one year old. The ministry has not yet evaluated the effect of this policy on families. We look forward to seeing any evaluations when they are completed. Home for Life We asked about the Home for Life policy, under which children can end up living with their foster families permanently. The ministry is not currently reviewing the policy. We understand that the Expert Advisory Panel on Modernising Child, Youth and Family (CYF) may look at some of the issues with the Home for Life policy. We look forward to seeing the panel s final report. Supporting vulnerable children Supporting vulnerable children is a priority BPS area, covering three result areas: increased participation in early childhood education increased infant immunisation and reduced incidence of rheumatic fever reduced assaults on children. The ministry is the lead agency responsible for reducing assaults on children. The ministry s chief executive chairs the Vulnerable Children s Board, which oversees the Children s Action Plan, children s teams, and the Vulnerable Children s Plan. In 2014/15, the ministry received 150,905 notifications of child abuse or neglect. This was three percent more than in 2013/14. Thirty percent of notifications needed further action, compared to 37 percent in 2013/14. There were findings of substantiated abuse in 16,472 cases, which was 16 percent fewer than in 2013/14. Abuse of children in care In the year under review, 40 children in the custody of the chief executive were found to have been abused by 34 CYF caregivers. Some of us are concerned that this has increased since The ministry acknowledged that this is a shameful and unacceptable statistic. However, it said that it is roughly akin to that of the general New Zealand population. 5

6 Although we accept that all New Zealanders share responsibility for reducing child abuse, the ministry has a position of leadership in this area. We note that the State is legally responsible for the care of these children. We encourage it to do all it can to reduce the abuse rate of children in its care. Regrettably, 20 of the 34 caregivers were victims family members, chosen because it is generally good practice for extended family to look after children in care. We strongly encourage CYF to carefully and thoroughly check children s risk of harm from their family members when placing children into foster care. Children s teams One of the main actions under the 2012 Children s Action Plan was to introduce children s teams in each region of New Zealand. The teams aim to support vulnerable children whose problems might not quite meet CYF s statutory intervention threshold. Team members are drawn from local professionals in the health, education, justice, and social sectors. Each child has one assessment, one plan, and one lead professional in the team. There are plans to set up 20 children s teams, one for each DHB area, by Nine teams have been established to date. We heard that about 770 children have been referred to teams; 650 have been accepted. The teams require local commitment. This local emphasis means the teams are more likely to be sustainable. However, they take longer to set up than if they were centrally run. The ministry said it prefers to focus on doing the job well rather than doing it fast. Community investment The ministry told us that it purchases more than $330 million in services from thousands of non-governmental organisations in support of vulnerable children, young people, and their families. Under its Community Investment Strategy, launched in June 2015, the ministry plans to make these contracts results-based by 2017/18. We asked about the pressure this change might put on smaller organisations that may have good innovation but could struggle with expectations about their capabilities. We heard that funding was made available in Budget 2012 for organisations to look at their strengths and weaknesses. The ministry aims to help some of them bring their capability up to an acceptable level. A possible solution for some organisations is to share back-office services. Another is combining whole organisations. The ministry is aware that a potential unintended consequence is that the bureaucracy of larger organisations could stifle the innovation that can flourish in smaller organisations. The ministry acknowledged that, in the past, it has encouraged organisations to join together to save overheads. This has led to loss of funding because there is now only one organisation. It noted that the amount of funding for a given outcome should remain consistent if organisations merge. Housing The function of assessing people s housing needs transferred from Housing New Zealand Corporation to the ministry in April During 2014/15, the ministry carried out 29,273 housing needs assessments. 6

7 Numbers on the waiting list declined from 5,840 on 30 June 2014 to 4,541 on 30 June The reduction was most pronounced in Auckland: waitlisted applicants reduced from 3,339 to 2,267. However, some of us note that this does not include all those who applied to be on the register but were unsuccessful. We were pleased to hear that an assessment of rheumatic fever risk is part of the housing needs assessment. We learnt that in 2014/15, 152 families were fast-tracked to the top of the housing waiting list because of increased risk of rheumatic fever. The ministry has signalled a plan to deliver 3,000 more social housing places over three years. Of these, 1,800 will be in Auckland. We agree that the supply of social housing needs to increase. We will take a close interest in progress. Emergency accommodation In 2015, the ministry started a review of emergency accommodation policies. Its findings were to be presented to the Minister at the time of our hearing in December We heard that an extra $500,000 was provided for emergency accommodation when the review started. This was distributed to 16 organisations delivering intensive social work services for families in emergency housing. Also, $2 million has been allocated to provide up to 120 extra emergency housing places per year in Auckland. These new places are expected to become available from early We note that clients who are put into emergency accommodation such as motels are funded through a special needs grant. The amount is treated as a loan, and they have to pay it back. 7

8 Appendix Committee procedure We met on 9 December 2015 and 2 March 2016 to consider the annual review of the ministry. We heard evidence from the Ministry of Social Development, and received advice from the Office of the Auditor-General. The advice and evidence received in relation to this annual review is available on the Parliament website, Committee members Alfred Ngaro (Chairperson) Darroch Ball Matt Doocey Jan Logie Todd Muller Jono Naylor Dr Parmjeet Parmar Carmel Sepuloni Stuart Smith Phil Twyford Evidence and advice received Ministry of Social Development, Responses to pre-hearing questions 1 268, dated 9 December Ministry of Social Development, Responses to post-hearing questions, dated 19 February Office of the Auditor-General, Briefing on the Ministry of Social Development, dated 9 December