VERIFICATION FRAMEWORK:
"Getting it right", "Keeping it right", "Putting it right".

HOW HAS IT MOVED ON?

Shifting of Emphasis.

THESE WERE THE WORDS of Stephen Timms (MP) speech that heralded the ‘shift in emphasis’ from merely a fraud detection stance to one of true fraud prevention at the beginning of a claim, and carrying on through the life of a claim. ‘Getting it Right’,
Keeping it Right’, ‘Putting it Right’ was the aim and intention of the original guise of the Verification Framework’

Claim verification was meant to be about stopping fraud through collecting true, accurate, and relevant information in relation to a submitted benefit claim, and then going through processes of rechecking and confirming that all information remained correct and up to date for the period that a claim remained in payment.

 

Was the original stringent concept flawed before it started?

I think everyone that currently works or have previously work within the benefits arena agrees that the best place to stop fraud is at the beginning of a claim.  Time after time, year after year benefit fraud has hit the headlines.  INTERNAL, EXTERNAL, LANDLORD, MULTIPLE, the list goes on and on.  1 billion? 3 billion?, or 8 billion?, your guess is as good as mine.
However, what we do know is that it does exist and it has to be stopped.  Therefore the concept of ensuring that people in need are provided with the help that they need, whilst the fiddlers are prevented from getting into the so called ‘Gateway’ of the benefits system must be applauded and embraced.

The original stringent concept was therefore not flawed, and surely could not be viewed in that manner. Indeed, if you look at some of the anti-fraud strategies over the past years, verification has really been the only true all encompassing ‘Preventative’ measures.
Having said that, a number of factors have appeared to have diluted the original verification concept recently, and therefore contributing to a weakening of the its original intentions.

Factors such as proof of evidence were originally set out in tablets of stone, and surely they had to be? The whole point after all was to ensure accuracy of claim details and therefore stopping the fraudster. In my view this area has now been watered down.

No longer does an authority have to adhere to very defined rules on acceptable evidence?

No longer does an authority have to follow the same procedures when confirming and collecting evidence?

Using the guidance of HB Circular HB/CTB A24/99 (Verification Framework – Revised Guidance on Establishing Identity), the whole ball game as changed, and in fact the situation where each authority can build up their own customer profiles, in my view has put us back where we started. Each authority has the facility of doing completely different things.

The standardisation process of collecting and confirming acceptable proof of claim evidence was the cornerstone in the fight against fraud within the Verification Framework.

Some people will say that it was too stringent and caused a lot of problems.

My answer to that is;  In order to prevent fraud you must have strict rules and procedures.  The whole point of the Verification Framework was that it went further than policies previously adopted by the most stringent authorities.  Don’t get me wrong, it is not all bad news, for instance the recent instigation of Section 19 (NINO’s) of the 1997 Fraud act supports and enhances the whole anti-fraud strategy that was instilled in the framework.  My view is however that one of the important positives about VF was that everybody would be using the same criteria. This does appear to have been lost?

Why are some have some authorities still sitting on the fence?

History as shown that some authorities will jump straight into a new strategy and one can only praise them for that stance. After all someone has to be first.

A lot of authorities will stand back to see what and how those pioneering authorities are affected.

The impact of VF to date as been:

Speaking to different authorities around the country the above are some of the main reasons for them sitting the fence at the moment. Also I am lead to believe that the DSS are concentrating on compliance for all new claims first and therefore are lengthening the time scales of full compliance for all cases.

Is it still a workable and achievable solution for the prevention of fraud at the beginning of a claim?

The Verification Framework stressed the importance of crosschecking evidence against a claims history as well as other local authority data held. It indicated what documentary checks should be done. Recommended claim visiting schedules have been introduced to ensure that claim details remain accurate. It also defined what type of documentary evidence is acceptable. The stringent nature of the Verification Framework was there for a specific purpose: To stop fraud entering the benefit environment.

In order to make this work and to achieve the goal of stopping fraud, one must look at the needs of authorities, and the mechanisms that will allow them to grasp the strategy with both hands.

Use of Data

 Fraud can only be stopped in its tracks if authorities are able to search their own and also other neighboring authorities. After all, if this cannot be successfully implemented where does it leave the concept of ‘e’ government.

Procedures

Again and again we hear the stories where fraudsters move from one authority to another just because authority B possesses weaker controls that authority A.

Systems

Proactive anti-fraud functionality by maximisation of data searching and integration to fraud detection systems, high performance customer service through speed of processing, value for money, whilst encompassing the use of latest technology.

The Verification Framework is certainly the correct strategy to follow.

It will only work if authorities take the ‘Getting it right’.

Uniform in approach, stringent checks, and reaping the advantages by using latest technology and best of bred solutions.

Steve Talbot (4/10/99)