This is the estimated budget net expenditure on housing welfare. It is taken from the Revenue Accounts Budget. The data are budget estimates of local authority revenue expenditure. These estimates are on a non International Accounting Standards 19 (IAS19) & Private Finance Initiative (PFI) on an "Off Balance Sheet" basis.
Source: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government
Collection (URL): https:­/­/www.gov.uk­/government­/collections­/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing
Polarity: Not applicable
Unit of measure: £000s
Metric type definition (URI): http://id.esd.org.uk/metricType/4020

This report provides an overview of the impacts of welfare reform in an area. It looks both at key indicators that help to determine the impacts of welfare reforms and those that then quantify these impacts. It has been designed for viewing at local authority geographies.

Number housing benefit claimants aged 60 to 64 not in employment (and not on Passported Benefit)
Source: Department for Work and Pensions
Collection (URL): https:­/­/stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk­/
Polarity: Low value is good
Unit of measure: Number of Claimants
Metric type definition (URI): http://id.esd.org.uk/metricType/4594

Number housing benefit claimants aged 70 plus in employment (and not on Passported Benefit)
Source: Department for Work and Pensions
Collection (URL): https:­/­/stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk­/
Polarity: Low value is good
Unit of measure: Number of Claimants
Metric type definition (URI): http://id.esd.org.uk/metricType/4601

The statistics are rates per 10,000 adult population of total individual insolvencies, bankruptcies, debt relief orders (DROs) and individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs). a) Classifying insolvent individuals into geographic areas is done using the postcode that the insolvent individual provides. The use of this in assigning an individual to a geographical area is only as good as the postcode information given. Inaccurate postcodes or incomplete/missing postcodes will lead to missing data. b) In particular, inaccurate or missing postcodes mean that regional counts will be subject to an element of missing data. Nationally, this proportion has been decreasing from about 12% in 2000 to less than 1% in 2012 in the case of bankruptcies and decreasing from around 15% in 2000 to less than 1% in 2012 in the case of Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs). The proportion for DROs is between 0.1% and 0.2% A postcode quality file is provided as a separate table. It should be noted that the extent of missing data may vary slightly at different levels of geography due to the exclusion of cases resident in Scotland and/or cases not able to be assigned within a standard boundary. c) Postcodes are assigned to areas using the centroid of the postcode area. As postcode boundaries are not contiguous with other geographic boundaries, these postcode boundaries could span several geographic boundaries. d) It is possible an individual changed place of residence in order to cut costs and attempt to get out of financial difficulty. Where this failed and the individual was declared insolvent, it will be the address at the time of the insolvency which is recorded and used to classify the insolvent's location, where this can be determined. Where more than one address has been provided and the address at the time of insolvency is not known, an address has been chosen at random. e) Case numbers for some areas for the years 2000 to 2011 may be higher than previously published. This is due to the use of an updated postcode directory which has enabled some insolvencies with a previously unknown geographical location to be assigned to the correct area. The England and Wales totals remain unchanged. f) Population estimates have been revised by the Office for National Statistics for the years 2002 to 2011, to reflect data from the 2011 Census. This has led to revisions to the insolvency rate per 10,000 adults for the years 2002 to 2011.
Source: The Insolvency Service
Collection (URL): https:­/­/www.gov.uk­/government­/collections­/insolvency-demographics
Polarity: Low value is good
Unit of measure: Rate per 10,000 Population
Metric type definition (URI): http://id.esd.org.uk/metricType/3493

Adverse (decision to apply a sanction): this a decision found against the claimant, i.e. a sanction or disallowance is applied. An adverse decision can be made at the original decision making point, at reconsideration, or on appeal. Statistical disclosure control has been applied with Stat-Xplore, which guards against the identification of an individual claimant. "Whilst claiming JSA, a customer can have a Labour Market doubt raised against their claim. LM doubts are normally identified by staff at the Jobcentre Plus office and are referred to the Sector Decision Makers SDMs). Once the SDM has made a decision on whether to sanction or disallow/allow a referral, they enter their decision on a system called DMAS (Decision Making and Appeals System). The decision is also sent back to the Jobcentre Plus office for entry to LMS (Labour Market System) and JSAPS (JSA Payment System) which then makes the appropriate changes to the actual payment to the customer. Table shows the number of sanction decisions made. Data for the most recent months will be subject to a high degree of revision. Numbers of sanction decisions and decision outcomes can change due to reconsidered decisions and appeals. Known Issues: An issue with the quality of the variable ""Duration on JSA"" was identified when preparing the data for Stat-Xplore. Consequently, information on this variable, which was previously available on the tabulation tool, is not available via Stat-Xplore. Following the publication of the JSA / ESA sanction decision official statistics on 19th February 2014, a data issue within the JSA sanction decision data, specifically to do with outcomes from appeals, was identified. Appeal outcome breakdowns were withdrawn from Stat-Xplore and the accompanying Excel summary tables. A review of the methodology for compiling the JSA / ESA official statistics was carried out. The result of the review was that a slightly wider set of circumstances in which the methodology was not processing data as expected was identified. The official statistics released on 14th May 2014 takes account of improvements to the methodology and contain revisions to historical data. The statistics contained in both the Excel tables and Stat-Xplore supersede all previously published official statistics on JSA / ESA sanction decisions. A summary of the revisions is contained below: 1. Official statistics on JSA / ESA sanction statistics are compiled from individual level data from a number of different administrative IT systems. Complex matching algorithms are used to identify the same cases across different IT systems and to identify any duplicate entries within the same IT system. The previous methodology did not identify duplicate records in all circumstances. Since April 2000, approximately 100,000 additional duplicate records have been identified and removed from the data from which the official statistics are compiled. This represents and 0.7 per cent of sanction decisions made, but has no significant effect on the proportion of sanction decisions in which the decision was to apply a sanction (adverse) or the decision was to not apply a sanction (non-adverse). 2. For a proportion of both JSA appeal and decision review (previously labelled as reconsideration decisions), the outcome was being mis-recorded. The effect of this mis-recording was that a higher number of both reviews and appeal outcomes were being recorded as 'decision not to apply sanction (non-adverse)' when they were, in fact 'decision to apply sanction (adverse)'. The effect of this mis-recording on appeal outcomes was more significant than for review outcomes. Between November 2012 and September 2013, the previously released official statistics indicated that 58 per cent of appeal decision outcomes were a decision not to apply a sanction (non-adverse). This figure has been revised to 18 per cent. For review decisions, the equivalent figures were 52 per cent having a decision not to apply a sanction previously, compared to a revised figure of 45 per cent.
Source: Department for Work and Pensions
Collection (URL): https:­/­/stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk­/
Polarity: Low value is good
Unit of measure: JSA Sanctions
Metric type definition (URI): http://id.esd.org.uk/metricType/3502

Adverse (decision to apply a sanction): this a decision found against the claimant, i.e. a sanction or disallowance is applied. An adverse decision can be made at the original decision making point, at reconsideration, or on appeal. Statistical disclosure control has been applied with Stat-Xplore, which guards against the identification of an individual claimant. "Whilst claiming JSA, a customer can have a Labour Market doubt raised against their claim. LM doubts are normally identified by staff at the Jobcentre Plus office and are referred to the Sector Decision Makers SDMs). Once the SDM has made a decision on whether to sanction or disallow/allow a referral, they enter their decision on a system called DMAS (Decision Making and Appeals System). The decision is also sent back to the Jobcentre Plus office for entry to LMS (Labour Market System) and JSAPS (JSA Payment System) which then makes the appropriate changes to the actual payment to the customer. Table shows the number of sanction decisions made. Data for the most recent months will be subject to a high degree of revision. Numbers of sanction decisions and decision outcomes can change due to reconsidered decisions and appeals. Known Issues: An issue with the quality of the variable ""Duration on JSA"" was identified when preparing the data for Stat-Xplore. Consequently, information on this variable, which was previously available on the tabulation tool, is not available via Stat-Xplore. Following the publication of the JSA / ESA sanction decision official statistics on 19th February 2014, a data issue within the JSA sanction decision data, specifically to do with outcomes from appeals, was identified. Appeal outcome breakdowns were withdrawn from Stat-Xplore and the accompanying Excel summary tables. A review of the methodology for compiling the JSA / ESA official statistics was carried out. The result of the review was that a slightly wider set of circumstances in which the methodology was not processing data as expected was identified. The official statistics released on 14th May 2014 takes account of improvements to the methodology and contain revisions to historical data. The statistics contained in both the Excel tables and Stat-Xplore supersede all previously published official statistics on JSA / ESA sanction decisions. A summary of the revisions is contained below: 1. Official statistics on JSA / ESA sanction statistics are compiled from individual level data from a number of different administrative IT systems. Complex matching algorithms are used to identify the same cases across different IT systems and to identify any duplicate entries within the same IT system. The previous methodology did not identify duplicate records in all circumstances. Since April 2000, approximately 100,000 additional duplicate records have been identified and removed from the data from which the official statistics are compiled. This represents and 0.7 per cent of sanction decisions made, but has no significant effect on the proportion of sanction decisions in which the decision was to apply a sanction (adverse) or the decision was to not apply a sanction (non-adverse). 2. For a proportion of both JSA appeal and decision review (previously labelled as reconsideration decisions), the outcome was being mis-recorded. The effect of this mis-recording was that a higher number of both reviews and appeal outcomes were being recorded as 'decision not to apply sanction (non-adverse)' when they were, in fact 'decision to apply sanction (adverse)'. The effect of this mis-recording on appeal outcomes was more significant than for review outcomes. Between November 2012 and September 2013, the previously released official statistics indicated that 58 per cent of appeal decision outcomes were a decision not to apply a sanction (non-adverse). This figure has been revised to 18 per cent. For review decisions, the equivalent figures were 52 per cent having a decision not to apply a sanction previously, compared to a revised figure of 45 per cent.
Source: Department for Work and Pensions
Collection (URL): https:­/­/stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk­/
Polarity: Low value is good
Unit of measure: Percentage of JSA Sanctions
Metric type definition (URI): http://id.esd.org.uk/metricType/3522