The document summarizes a presentation about how Universal Credit affects Council Tax Reduction Schemes. The presentation discusses trends in Council Tax reduction since 2013, how Universal Credit impacts schemes and objectives. It also outlines Wolverhampton City Council's scheme and four approaches to modeling scheme changes. The presentation aims to help councils understand how to design schemes that align with Universal Credit while meeting objectives like cost reduction and work incentives.
3. We make the welfare system
simple to understand, so that
people can make the decisions
that are right for them
4. Speakers
Zoe Charlesworth
Head of Policy
Juan Alvarez Vilanova
Policy Analyst
Jenny Hoare
Lead Technical Specialist
Wolverhampton City Council
5. Agenda
• Background to Council tax reduction and trends since 2013
• Objectives of CTR schemes and the impact of Universal Credit
• Wolverhampton City Council’s scheme with Jenny Hoare
• 4 approaches to modelling CTR schemes
• Questions and answers
8. 888
Poll: What would your main objective be if
you were changing your CTR scheme?
9. Why change your scheme?
• Reduce cost of the scheme i.e. the cost of the benefit/discount
• Reduce administrative costs for the authority
• Reduce (or avoid increasing) council tax arrears and the cost of collection
• Align with Universal Credit
• Promote work incentives
• Define and protect vulnerable people
• Reduce poverty
• Simplify your scheme
From mid 2017 the impetus for scheme change has been the migration to Universal
Credit full service and administration savings
10. Why introduce a new scheme with
Universal Credit?
• Residents will need to re-assess income as they migrate to Universal Credit so
changes in Council Tax Support can be part of this
• Partial introduction as households migrate to Universal Credit
• A scheme to go alongside Universal Credit or to support those who are adversely
affected by Universal Credit
• The opportunity to use the Universal Credit assessment of income
• Realisation of the relative cost of administration against awards once Housing
Benefit is removed
• Re-assessments with monthly Universal Credit changes / RTI
11. Re-assessment doubles under UC
Data analysis of a full service site by Policy in Practice revealed the average number of
re-assessments in one year is 3
The average re-assessments for households in receipt of Universal Credit is 6
Source: a seaside council in the East of England
12. Cost effective administration
Increased re-assessment
Alongside…
• Reduction in cross subsidy from Housing Benefit administration
• Proportionally more when CTR is standalone
• Administration costs may be up to 25% of scheme costs once CTR assessment is
standalone
13. Reduce administration costs
1. Number of claims
• Some councils may see a drop off in numbers under the default scheme as households
move to Universal Credit. This can be modelled and planned for
• Drop-off due to households not claiming under Universal Credit
2. Number of re-assessments
• Re-assessments for households in receipt of Universal Credit may double. Scheme
design can minimise this
• Introduction of additional elements such as de minimus rules and using average
income
• Software from CT software suppliers may limit re-assessments but this must be built
into scheme design
3. Complexity of assessment
• Using Universal Credit assessment can minimise administration time
• Schemes can be simpler e.g. no tariff income, single non-dependant deduction etc
14. Default scheme: simple solution?
What is it?
• Similar to current scheme but UC Max replaces the “Applicable Amount”
• Income for UC purposes PLUS UC replaces income
• No earnings disregards
General outcomes
• Will usually cost slightly less than the legacy benefit scheme
• Households not in work are unlikely to see difference in support
• Households in work will receive lower CTR as they will be receiving higher UC. Good
news for LAs!
BUT……
Sticking a default based scheme will not be neutral – there will be winners and losers in
any case
15. Default scheme: simple solution?
This does not maintain the status quo – there will be winners and losers
In particular groups that receive lower UC than legacy benefits AND receive lower CTR.
This will happen if :
• the assessment of “needs” is lower under UC than under legacy benefits because
this also reduces the income side of the equation, e.g. ending disability premiums
• Income that is taken into account is higher under UC than legacy benefits, e.g. self
employed and the minimum income floor
17. Some people will lose a lot
• Employed households with a disability
• Self-employed households
• Lone parents working > 16 hours but < full-time on minimum wage
18. Others get reduced CT Support but higher
Universal Credit
• Most non-disabled employed households (but not lone parents)
• Households whose needs have increased in UC assessment
19. Some will see higher Universal Credit and higher
CT Support
Households with income from boarders
20. Default scheme: impact on costs
Cost savings are dependant on local demographics
Higher proportion of employed and self-employed = higher reduction in cost
• London borough with 45% of caseload employed and self-employed (17% self-
employed) saw a cost reduction of 12% when all households migrated to Universal
Credit
• A Borough Council with 13% of caseload employed and self-employed saw an
insignificant reduction when all households migrated to Universal Credit.
Analysis of your local data can provide an indication of cost savings
24. 4 approaches to modelling CTR schemes
1. Do nothing
2. Make small tweaks
3. Income-banded schemes
4. Discount schemes
25. Your Housing Benefit / Council
Tax data
Our Benefit and Budgeting
Calculator
Rich, detailed impact
assessment: who is impacted
and by how much
Our approach to data analysis
We use administrative data capturing
detailed information on low income
households
We combine these datasets together
over time, and model policies across
four government departments
combined, to examine the impacts
both now and in the future
CTR support now and in a future
scenario, both under the current
system or under UC
26. 1. Do nothing approach
• Shows council impact if nothing was changed, but the following occur:
• Council Tax Liabilities increase
• National Minimum Wage, Personal Tax Allowance increase
• XX% of households are migrated over to Universal Credit
• Rent prices, benefit rates increase
• “Not doing anything is the most radical thing you can do”
27. 2. Make small tweaks
Model the social and financial impact of small
tweaks, including:
• Introducing band cap, capital limit
• Changing max. support, taper rate
• Reducing/removing non-dependant
deductions
• Introducing Minimum Income Floor to all
self-employed
Amendment type
Numbers
affected
Capital limit reduction 35
Band cap 75
Changes to non-dep
deductions 834
Application of MIF 174
Total 1,118Example
• A NW council made 4 small tweaks to make savings; modelling showed this allows
reduced minimum payment from £3.50/week to £3.22/week
• Impact broken down by demographics; which household types lose out and which
gain. Useful for consultation
28. 3. Income-banded schemes
• Modelling the financial and social implications of sorting households into set income
bands, each with corresponding discounts
• Building in protection for larger households through different ways:
• Disregarded earnings or incomes (e.g. Child Benefit, childcare element, housing
element etc.)
• Equivalising income – dividing by number of household members
• Different bands for single people / couples with children
• Reverse engineer income bands, and levels of discount for each, to keep scheme cost-
neutral.
29. 4. Discount schemes
• Like income-banded schemes (not repeating assessment) but looking at
circumstances only
• Households sorted into small number of bands, for example:
• Band 1 – households on UC and not earning
• Band 2 – households on UC and earning below work allowance
• Band 3 – households on UC and earning above work allowance
• Above, use of work allowance (which varies by household type) means larger
households not penalised
• Reverse-engineering to find discounts that keep cost same
30. See social and political impacts
On different demographics
-8.0% -8.6%
-10.9%
-15.5%
-6.6%
-3.5%
-4.9% -4.4%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
Single Lone Parent Couple no
children
Couple with
children
% change in CTR compared to retention of current
scheme, by household composition
Household not on UC Households on UC
On different tenures
33. Conclusion
Universal Credit is coming and the status quo will not be neutral
The best scheme for an authority will depend on:
• Demographics
• Current scheme
• Political climate
• Overarching policies and local priorities
The effectiveness of your scheme can only be understood through detailed cost
and social impact analysis
35. Next steps
Download Modelling Services flyer
Download Universal Credit and Council Tax Reduction Schemes white paper
Short survey
• We value your feedback
• Ask questions
• Take another look at our CTRS work
Next events
• 9 March: Roundtable: Improving lives whilst reducing dependency
• 21 March: Helping disabled jobseekers on their journey into work
• 18 April: Proactively tackle homelessness
What would your main objective be if you were changing your CTR scheme?
Reduce cost of the scheme i.e. the cost of the benefit/discount
Reduce administrative costs for the authority
Reduce (or avoid increasing) council tax arrears and the cost of collection
Align with Universal Credit
Reduce poverty
Didn’t have expertise internally
UC rollout
Wanted objectivity for members – internal process – where did members come into it?
Governments may know how one policy affects many people. We can show how all policies combined affect one person.
We work with household level data from over 40 different local authorities to
Welfare reforms we model, and how accurate we are.
Are you planning to change your CTR scheme soon?
Yes, for implementation in 2019/20
Yes, for implementation in 2020/21
Yes, but not in the near future
No