What category of cases come under the sum written off as irrecoverable in 2000, and how many people are involved? It is a substantial amount and might involve a large number of people. You might furnish that information to the Committee.
Paragraph 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:
35. Scheme of Community Support for Older People
Introduction
Extended media coverage in 1995 of violent random attacks on elderly people in their own homes focused attention on the need for official action. This resulted in two initiatives.
The introduction, in the 1996 Budget, of income tax relief in respect of the cost of installing security alarms in their own homes for persons aged 65 and over living alone. The work had to be undertaken between 23 January and 5 April 1996 and the maximum relief available was £800.
The establishment by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs of a Task Force to make recommendations to him by the end of February 1996 as to how the security needs of elderly people, who would not benefit from an income tax relief scheme, might be urgently and effectively addressed.
The Minister's Task Force comprised representatives of five government departments (Finance, Environment and Local Government, Health and Children, Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Social Community and Family Affairs), the Garda Síochána, the Irish Farmers' Association, SIPTU, Muintir na Tíre, the Irish Security Industry Association and the National Council for the Elderly.
Submissions to the Task Force highlighted the need for active community involvement in providing security for the elderly. The Task Force accepted the value of community based efforts in solving the problem and wished to see such efforts encouraged in every way possible.
The Task Force concluded that:
There was a need for some mechanism to provide assistance for elderly people who could not benefit from the tax relief measures.
A scheme on similar lines to the scheme for the Support of Voluntary and Community Groups administered by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs through its regional structure was a viable option.
Resources should be made available to voluntary groups to subsidise small scale security work and the installation of alarm monitoring devices in the homes of elderly people who were identified as being particularly at risk.
The Government accepted the Task Force's recommendations and in March 1996 approved the introduction of a Scheme of Community Support for Older People including the provision of £2m to fund security measures.
Administration of the Scheme
The purpose of the scheme is to provide funding for initiatives to improve security and social support for vulnerable older people. Vulnerability is defined in terms of advanced age, disability, isolation (social or otherwise) or having been previously the victim of crime.
The Department's Voluntary Community Services Section has overall responsibility for the scheme. They advise on policy and advertise the scheme nationally. They also agree an overall budget with the Department of Finance and allocate it to the Department's ten regions in proportion to each region's share of the over 65 population as determined by the 1996 census as shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Basis for Allocation to Regions
|
|
|
|
Region
|
Population 65 and over
|
Percentage
|
|
Eastern 5
|
125,271
|
30
|
|
Midland
|
33,582
|
8
|
|
Mid West
|
37,480
|
9
|
|
North East
|
34,812
|
9
|
|
North West
|
29,395
|
7
|
|
South East
|
46,590
|
11
|
|
Southern
|
66,127
|
16
|
|
Western
|
40,625
|
10
|
|
Total
|
413,882
|
100
|
5 Dublin North, Dublin South and Dublin West
Applications, which are invited annually, are processed in the Department's regional offices where decisions are made as to which groups will be supported and the amount of grant to be given. At the year-end each regional office provides statistics on numbers of applications received, numbers and amounts of grants made and the number of individuals assisted.
Details of the Scheme
The scheme is project based and applications are only accepted through voluntary or community based organizations working with or providing support for vulnerable older people. Grants are not paid to individuals. This approach is intended to encourage the pooling of resources and to emphasise community involvement in protecting the elderly. End beneficiaries must be aged 65 or over, living alone or living in households made up exclusively of older people or of older and other people who are dependent and vulnerable. They must also be unable to install or purchase the necessary equipment themselves to benefit from the scheme. The following projects may be funded
Small scale security work such as strengthening of doors and windows, and the fitting of window and door locks, door chains and security lighting
The once-off cost of installing Socially Monitored Alarm Systems (SMAS). These are systems where an alarm is activated by pressing a button normally held on a pendent around a person's neck. This sends a signal to a monitoring station or to a family member or neighbour. Annual monitoring or maintenance fees for such systems are not covered by the scheme and must be borne by the individual beneficiary.
The scheme does not apply to the provision of conventional intruder alarms.
In general, grants to voluntary organizations should cover 50% of total costs but grants up to 90% may be made. Furthermore, grants must be spent and accounted for within three months of receipt and recipients must provide a list of beneficiaries. Grant recipients must also provide
an Income & Expenditure Account showing clearly the receipt of the Department's grant
receipts and vouchers to the total value of the grant
a statement signed by the Chairperson and Treasurer to the effect that the grant was used for the purposes for which it was made
an auditor's certificate confirming that the terms of the grant were met in respect of grants over £10,000.
Key Statistics
Almost £19m has been expended on the scheme in the five years 1996 to 2000. The Department considers that demand for the scheme may now be levelling out. Table 9 shows that some 82,000 individuals were assisted under the scheme to end 2000 while Table 10 gives details by region of applications and actual expenditure for the year 2000.
Table 9 Total Expenditure on Scheme
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
Amount £
|
Groups
|
Individuals
|
|
1996
|
2,562,680
|
528
|
14,944
|
|
1997
|
4,824,159
|
839
|
21,783
|
|
1998
|
4,992,631
|
1,020
|
21,000
|
|
1999
|
2,963,124
|
619
|
12,444
|
|
2000
|
3,175,989
|
571
|
12,038
|
|
Total
|
18,518,730
|
3,577
|
82,209
|
Table 10 Expenditure by Region 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Region
|
Total Allocation £
|
Applications Received
|
Number of Grants Paid
|
Amount Approved £
|
Amount Paid £
|
|
Dublin North 6
|
|
12
|
10
|
69,114
|
342,194
|
|
Dublin South7
|
1,513,000
|
27
|
26
|
203,831
|
257,440
|
|
Dublin West
|
|
30
|
28
|
213,407
|
213,407
|
|
Midlands
|
405,500
|
63
|
59
|
291,706
|
291,706
|
|
Midwest
|
453,000
|
72
|
72
|
465,297
|
465,297
|
|
North East
|
420,500
|
79
|
77
|
305,099
|
305,099
|
|
North West
|
355,000
|
70
|
70
|
297,894
|
280,344
|
|
Southern
|
799,000
|
96
|
84
|
434,393
|
434,393
|
|
South East
|
563,000
|
71
|
52
|
151,735
|
151,735
|
|
Western 8
|
491,000
|
101
|
93
|
409,309
|
434,374
|
|
Total
|
5,000,000
|
621
|
571
|
2,841,785
|
3,175,989
|
6 £273,080 was approved in 1999 and paid in 2000
7 £53, 609 was approved in 1999 and paid in 2000
8 £25,065 was approved in 1999 and paid in 2000
Audit Objective and Scope
The audit objective was to assess the performance of the Department's Voluntary and Community Services Unit and the Department's ten Regional Offices in administering the scheme. The quality of grant decisions and the subsequent steps taken to ensure that grant recipients were complying with all conditions of the scheme were of particular interest. The question of whether or not the scheme was equally accessible to qualifying persons in different parts of the country was also addressed.
Departmental papers such as the minutes of the Advisory Committee for the scheme, a Consultancy Report of April 1999 commissioned by the Department and various statistics on grant payments were reviewed. The Department's procedures and systems for implementing and monitoring the scheme were documented and tested. This latter involved an audit of the central Voluntary and Community Services Unit in Dublin and four of the Department's ten regional offices (Dublin North, Southern, North-Western and Midland). A sample of files for payments in 1999 was examined in these four regions to ascertain if grant recipients had complied fully with the terms and conditions of the grant.
Inspections under powers granted to me under Section 8 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993 were carried out in respect of the largest recipients of grants in the North West and Midland regions. These were St Vincent de Paul, Mohill and Helplink South, Athlone.
Audit Findings
Overview
The main strengths of the scheme are the committed voluntary effort of community groups who administer the scheme at local level and the non-bureaucratic approach of the Department. In general, local groups have acted diligently in the discharge of their functions under the scheme and the audit confirmed that funds were properly disbursed.
Targeting of Funding
The scheme was intended to target elderly people who were identified as being particularly at risk - those who are vulnerable in terms of advanced age, disability and isolation whether social or otherwise. However, in practice anyone aged 65 or over who is living alone or in a household made up exclusively of older people, generally benefits from the scheme. The availability of surplus funds arising from underspends across the regions in 1999 and 2000 (as shown in Table 11) may be a contributory factor to the unofficial widening of the scope of the scheme.
Table 11 Percentage of allocation expended by region 1998 - 2000
|
|
|
|
|
Region
|
2000 % Spent
|
1999 % Spent
|
1998 % Spent
|
|
Eastern
|
54
|
26
|
100
|
|
Midlands
|
72
|
80
|
100
|
|
Midwest
|
103
|
131
|
100
|
|
North East
|
73
|
84
|
100
|
|
North West
|
79
|
59
|
99
|
|
South East
|
27
|
31
|
100
|
|
Southern
|
54
|
63
|
100
|
|
Western
|
88
|
82
|
100
|
|
Total
|
64
|
59
|
100
|
Grant Levels
Payments towards the cost of installing security were intended to cover 50% - 90% of total costs, depending on circumstances. In practice, the maximum grant of 90% is invariably paid. Again, this appears to be an unintended effect of the scheme arising from the surplus funds available.
Monitoring Committees
The spread of benefits of the scheme depends to a large extent on the existence of active voluntary and community groups which are willing to participate in the scheme. Partly because of the attendant risk that the scheme would apply unevenly in regions, the National Advisory Committee recommended the establishment of regional monitoring committees to consider how best to achieve coverage in all areas of a region and to assist in assessing grant applications. It was also envisaged that the committees would provide a forum in which practical issues that arise locally could be dealt with. In two of the regions visited on audit, there was no monitoring committee.
Administrative Controls
The Department's administrative controls did not provide reasonable assurance that
eligibility criteria are being correctly applied by groups
grant aided equipment had been installed as claimed
groups apply fair and best value procedures in their choice of suppliers and installers
grants are only paid when groups have properly accounted for prior year grants
expenditure under the scheme was being systematically monitored.
Major Supplier of SMAS
It was estimated in 1999 that approximately 50% of expenditure under the scheme was incurred on the supply and installation of SMAS equipment. During 2000, a Dublin based registered charity emerged as the dominant vehicle for channelling SMAS services to the elderly under the scheme. Applications for £930,162 were received in 2000 through this charity.
By 31 December 2000 £407,981 had been paid in respect of these applications and this figure had increased to £480,464 by 30 May 2001. Table 12 shows changes in the amounts of assistance to the elderly being channelled through this charity in the years 1998-2000 and the growth in such expenditure over time.
Table 12 Claims made by the registered charity 1998 ^ 2000
|
|
|
|
|
Region
|
2000 £
|
1999 £
|
1998 £
|
|
Dublin North*
|
449,100
|
273,080
|
0
|
|
Dublin South
|
0
|
0
|
264,476
|
|
Dublin West
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Midland
|
62,154
|
13,838
|
7,195
|
|
Midwest
|
34,095
|
14,147
|
7,067
|
|
North East
|
70,641
|
9,862
|
6,300
|
|
North West
|
45,486
|
4,312
|
0
|
|
South East
|
73,081
|
28,568
|
14,581
|
|
Southern
|
113,622
|
5,513
|
3,028
|
|
Western
|
81,983
|
3,884
|
8,200
|
|
Total
|
930,162
|
353,204
|
310,847
|
|
Total scheme expenditure
|
3,175,989
|
2,963,124
|
4,992,631
|
|
% of total expenditure
|
29
|
12
|
6
|
The following points were noted in respect of the charity concerned.
Audited financial statements, or a certificate from their auditor certifying that grants were spent for the purpose they were given, had not been requested or received by the Department at the time of audit.
Department staff in several regional offices delayed payments to the charity because of defective applications and difficulties in the provision of equipment.
The nature of the scheme is such that ownership of equipment installed vests in the entity through which the grants are paid, in this case the charity in question.
Much of the equipment installed by the charity is subject to an ongoing service charge, which must be paid by or on behalf of the elderly person.
Conclusions
82,209 individuals have availed of the scheme since 1996. The continued success of the scheme depends on it being easily and equally available to all eligible elderly people. The need to continue to operate the scheme on the present scale should be evaluated in the light of substantial underspends in 1999 and 2000.
Clear guidance should be issued by the Department to local groups to ensure that the scheme benefits are directed to those in most need.
The Department should ensure that regional monitoring committees operate in all regions.
The Department should adopt risk assessment techniques to help in drawing up a programme of inspections to test check the books and records of local groups for regularity and compliance with scheme conditions.
The Department should ensure that local groups have arrangements in place for reallocating SMAS equipment as circumstances dictate e.g. in the event of death of a beneficiary.
The Dublin based charity, through which an increasing number of applications are received, advertises its services nationally and, in particular, to tie in with the Department's annual announcement of the scheme in the national press. While the charity's forthright approach helps to publicise the availability of the scheme to the elderly and subsequent take up by using the charity's services, there is a danger that the local voluntary element, which is such a strength of the scheme, will be diminished. The scheme should be reviewed to determine if the effect of this unexpected development is in keeping with the objectives of the scheme.
Given the scale of the charity's involvement, the Department should insist that the principles underlying public procurement are applied to the supply and installation of SMAS equipment by the charity.
Observations of the Accounting Officer
The Accounting Officer states that the Department's regional and local management receive a lot of positive feedback both in regard to the way the scheme is administered and the value which is placed upon it by individual beneficiaries, other statutory agencies (Gardaí, Health Boards, etc.) and the funded organizations themselves.
The Accounting Officer informed me that in his view there had been no unofficial widening of the scheme and that the nature of the scheme and the conditions applying to it have remained constant. The 50% grant level is a specified minimum and, because of the availability of resources, the Department has generally been able to offer grants at a 90% level in recent years.
The scheme and resources required are reviewed each year in the light of feedback on the operation of the scheme and in the context of the overall estimates process and where necessary adjustments are made as appropriate. The issue of providing clearer guidelines to groups will be examined by the Department.
The Accounting Officer informed me that while the regional monitoring committees were, de facto, advisory committees and were particularly useful in setting the scheme in motion they had proved not to be necessary in the ongoing operation of the scheme in a number of areas. The Department has very close links with communities and representative groups through its activities at regional and local level and is satisfied that these contacts enable it to keep in touch with the views and opinions of its customer base and to deal with practical local issues. The Department will keep this matter under review.
With regard to administrative controls the Accounting Officer offered the following observations
As the scheme involves assessing the needs of older people, handling of the scheme requires great sensitivity on the part of the voluntary organizations, particularly in determining whether the individual is in a position to pay for the equipment. The Department is, in general, satisfied that the voluntary organizations apply the criteria for the scheme in a consistent and fair manner having regard the individual circumstances.
In addition to accounting requirements the Department has in place a number of checks to ensure that the scheme is delivering effectively on its objectives. For example, spot checks are carried out in regions to ensure that individuals have received the equipment applied for on their behalf by community organizations. In some instances groups have experienced difficulties in acquiring equipment and having it installed but it was found these issues were being addressed.
Public procurement procedures do not apply to voluntary and community organizations funded under this scheme or other similar schemes. However, groups are advised to observe fair and best value procedures. In addition, groups are advised to contact reputable suppliers and to liaise with local Gardaí as necessary. Where substantial amounts of money are involved groups are advised to seek a number of quotations for the supply of the equipment.
In general grant applications are not processed for groups who have not properly accounted for previous year's grants and groups are so advised. From time to time the Department introduces such additional requirements as are deemed necessary to ensure the effective administration and monitoring of the scheme.
Expenditure under the scheme is monitored at regional level.
The voluntary organizations involved in the scheme are advised by the Department to have arrangements in place to ensure that equipment is reallocated in the event of the original beneficiary no longer requiring it. As such situations inevitably arise on the death or permanent hospitalisation of a beneficiary the situation must be handled sensitively so as not to distress or offend the individuals or families concerned. The Department considers that voluntary organizations, familiar with local situations and individuals are best placed to handle such reallocations and do so in so far as practical.
Applications totalling over £767,000 have been received in the current year from the group supplying SMAS nationally with about half in respect of the Dublin regions. No funding has been allocated to date in respect of these applications.
In the year 2000, applications totalling just under £450,000 were received in the Department's Dublin North region. These have not been processed because of lack of appropriate documentation. Some funding was issued to the group by other regions who were satisfied that the previous grants had been satisfactorily accounted for. However in view of the sizeable amount of money involved and to ensure greater consistency in the allocation of funding for such organizations the Department decided that for the future all moneys nationally must be accounted for before a grant is processed by any of its regional offices.
Audited accounts were requested from the group in question and have recently been received and together with other documentation are currently being examined by the Department. Funding for the current year will be processed when the appropriate documentation has been examined and found in order.
