How successful are the efforts to combat EFC in developed countries, and where to look for good examples and best-practice? We summarize here the findings study commissioned in 2006 by the National Audit Office of the United Kingdom to RAND Europe, “International Benchmark of Error and Fraud in Social Security Systems” (1.3mb pdf). The objectives of the study were to: examine error and fraud rates in international social security administrations; establish how the performance of the UK compared to other social security administrations; and find examples of good practice in how countries addressed the issue of error and fraud.
The study focused on the issue of error and fraud in social protection systems from Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and the US. These countries were selected because they were similar to the UK in wealth per capita, population structure, and amounts of public expenditure on social benefits. The general findings of the study are: Benchmarking is worthwhile despite limitations. The study identified only limited comparable data on error and fraud. Where data is available (for certain benefit types in the UK, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the USA), one can say that rates of error and fraud in social security systems range between 2 and 5%. Making comparisons between countries is challenging since the institutional architecture of countries varies and there are some cultural and administrative variations in what countries focus on in terms of conceptualizing fraudulent behavior. For instance, Anglo-Saxon countries focus more on customer fraudulent behavior and responsibility, while Sweden emphasizes shared responsibility between citizen and state. However, benchmarking is worthwhile for several reasons. Firstly, benchmarking a country’s performance against others can put a country’s performance in international perspective and gives an indicative range. Secondly, the exercise maps interesting practice and raises issues to consider when understanding error and fraud in social security systems.
Measuring error and fraud is not straightforward. Given the differences between social security systems, the countries studied also show differences in how they measure overall error and fraud. Only Ireland and the UK measure overall error and fraud on the basis of ‘rolling measurement’ and ‘snapshots’, while other countries undertake specific sampling or link their efforts to other criteria such as performance. There are a number of issues to consider when deciding how and whether to measure EFC occurring in the system, including: the political acceptability of error and fraud rates in some countries; the effectiveness of anti-EFC strategy; and resource implications for full measurement of EFC.
There are interesting commonalities in approaches to combat error and fraud. After identifying the main causes of EFC by countries, the report categorizes the common anti-EFC activities used by countries. These categories are: prevention (aimed at informing and reminding claimants of their obligations), detection (mainly through data-matching), and deterrence (increased sanctions and prosecutions).
Measuring the impact of initiatives is important. Countries show different ways of measuring impact. Some countries closely monitor the overall rate of error and fraud occurring and determine effectiveness of the strategy on the basis of changes in this overall rate, while other countries measure cost-effectiveness of initiatives by measuring the overpayments recovered due to interventions against the money invested in these initiatives. Both ways of measuring EFC are understood to be good practice.
 Reducing Error, Fraud & Corruption in OECD Countries
Controlling Error, Fraud & Corruption in Developing Countries
The United Kingdom’s Experience in Reducing Error & Fraud
Efforts to Combat Error, Fraud & Corruption in SP Systems: Country Examples
Measuring Error & Fraud
International Cooperation to Reduce Error, Fraud & Corruption
Control & Accountability Mechanisms in Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: Review of Programs in Latin America & the Caribbean |
RSS