The fraud and error prevention scheme “Targeted Case Review’” has turn into a centrepiece of the Government’s plans to save lots of billions in welfare spending. Mark Bennett, Jed Meers, and Joe Tomlinson argue that whereas the scheme could also be delivering vital financial savings, its speedy enlargement raises critical questions on procedural equity, claimant welfare, and the dangers of undermining belief within the Universal Credit advantages system.
Enjoying this put up? Then signal as much as our newsletter and obtain a weekly roundup of all our articles.
Since its launch in 2022, the Department for Work and Pensions’ Targeted Case Review scheme has grown to turn into the flagship part of the UK authorities’s plans to save lots of billions in public spending on welfare. The fraud and error prevention scheme entails a staff of round 6,000 brokers (together with a mixture of in-house and external-provider employees) checking the accuracy of funds made to thousands and thousands of Universal Credit recipients, and it has already delivered substantial projected financial savings – over £1 billion – thus far. Now nicely underway, with nearly 1 million case opinions accomplished in 2024-25 alone and incorrect funds recognized in round 1 in 5 cases, the DWP expects greater than £13 billion of financial savings to be achieved via the scheme by the top of this decade.
While such initiatives are removed from new, the speedy enlargement of Targeted Case Review (TCR) lately displays a renewed emphasis from the DWP on accelerating efforts to recoup public funds misplaced to fraud and error within the welfare system. It additionally displays the massive funding that the DWP has made to get the scheme up and working and “scale at pace” because it seeks to drive down ranges of benefits overpayments because of fraud and error which rose considerably through the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet critical questions are raised about how ramping up efforts to deal with welfare fraud and error are balanced with applicable safeguards for claimant welfare and procedural equity.
The Labour Government expands counter fraud and error efforts
Since taking workplace in 2024, the Labour authorities has dedicated to increasing TCR far past its unique five-year timescale. The Autumn Budget 2024 included pledges to extend the Department of Work and Pensions’ (DWP) counter fraud and error funding by £110 million in 2025-26 and to increase the TCR scheme by two years, “saving £2.5 billion in 2029-30”. As half of plans introduced in the recent Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, confirmed that the scheme is to be prolonged as soon as once more, taking it into the 2030s and saving “an additional £1.3 billion in 2030-31.” The Chancellor additionally confirmed that the elimination of the two-child profit cap – one of the Budget’s most headline-grabbing bulletins – will probably be absolutely costed in opposition to financial savings delivered via counter fraud and error initiatives equivalent to TCR, along with measures designed to “crack down on tax avoidance” and “reform gambling taxation”.
The findings of our latest empirical research of claimants’ experiences of TCR reveal the evaluation course of to be intrusive, distressing to many, and to contain vital and different administrative burdens.
Following the perceived success of the scheme, the federal government has introduced that it’s going to introduce comparable opinions of Pension Credit – a profit claimed by 1.4 million low-income pensioners – “starting from 2026 and ending in 2029”. Meanwhile, the DWP will “continu[e] to spend between £300 million and £400 million a year on [TCR]”, the Public Accounts Committee heard in December, which DWP officers say will “driv[e] around £3 billion to £4 billion of savings every year coming out of the system”.
What are the implications for Universal Credit claimants?
Despite the growing scale and impression of the TCR scheme, there stay vital gaps within the public understanding of its design and operation – not least its implications for the numerous lots of of hundreds of Universal Credit claimants, yr on yr, whose circumstances and ongoing entitlement to the profit are subjected to scrutiny. The findings of our latest empirical study of claimants’ experiences of TCR reveal the evaluation course of to be intrusive, distressing to many, and to contain vital and different administrative burdens, irrespective of eventual outcomes. While some individuals reported constructive interactions with supportive DWP employees who facilitated the evaluation course of, these experiences had been removed from common; others described having gone with none provide of help from the DWP or details about the best way to entry this.
In many circumstances, significantly involving those that are susceptible or have advanced wants, claimants face actual difficulties in acquiring and offering the required proof on time.
It was clear from the outset that such a large-scale administrative train, nonetheless justified, can be fraught with challenges and dangers. Our research gives early insights into the character and potential consequences of these dangers. For occasion, as half of the evaluation course of, claimants are sometimes contacted through their Universal Credit on-line journal accounts with directions to provide proof, equivalent to ID paperwork and a number of months’ price of financial institution statements, inside strict timescales (often 14 days). These communications have a tendency to come back with out warning and comprise solely transient particulars confirming that the aim of the evaluation is to verify whether or not funds made to the claimant are appropriate. Claimants are notified that failure to conform or interact with the evaluation course of at any level will end in these funds being stopped. Yet, in lots of circumstances, significantly involving those that are susceptible or have advanced wants, claimants face actual difficulties in acquiring and offering the required proof on time. There is an actual threat, subsequently, {that a} vital quantity of claimants face having their funds terminated not based mostly on any discovering of incorrectness, however because of a strict enforcement of these cut-off dates and different such guidelines constructed into the TCR course of.
That a minimum of some claimants additionally face repeated opinions, usually solely a number of months aside – a characteristic of the scheme which isn’t, to our information, referenced in any of the related publicly obtainable DWP documentation – poses further dangers, particularly regarding the antagonistic impacts on claimant wellbeing of such obvious focused suspicion. This additionally raises questions concerning the equity and legality of automated “data matching techniques” used to “examine claims and to identify fraud and error risks” in choosing circumstances for evaluation.
Above all, the mixed results of these impacts and implications of TCR threat eroding claimants’ belief in the advantages system. This could be seen to spotlight a central paradox of truthful course of and legitimacy on the coronary heart of the scheme: it’s in vital half designed to take care of or improve most people legitimacy of welfare provision by assuring the integrity of social safety administration, but it entails subjecting claimants to processes wherein many really feel so poorly handled that their belief within the system is damaged consequently. Given that individuals are extra more likely to cooperate with public authorities when they’re handled pretty, understand them to be respectable, and subsequently belief them extra, this will in actual fact do a lot to undermine the promotion of exactly the kind of cooperative behaviours that forestall cases of welfare fraud and error occurring within the first place.
The authors are grateful to LEF for supporting this analysis. The views on this put up are these of the authors and don’t essentially replicate these of LEF.
Enjoyed this put up? Sign as much as our newsletter and obtain a weekly roundup of all our articles.
All articles posted on this weblog give the views of the creator(s), and not the place of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit score: AndrewMcKenna on Shutterstock
