Fighting Fraud: An Evaluation of the Government’s Social Security Fraud Strategy

Grainne McKeever

doi:10.1080/09649069908415098

Fighting Fraud: An Evaluation of the Government’s Social Security Fraud Strategy

Grainne McKeever

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article examines the government S strategy for dealing withsocial security fraud. The Social Security (Administration) Fraud Act I997has been enacted to facilitate the detection, prosecution and punishmentof benefit fraud. In addition, the government has published a Green Paperon fruud and, more recently, a Command Paper on ‘Safeguarding SocialSecurity ’, both of which emphasize the importance of preventing fraud andre-educating the public about its nature and severio. Both papers, howevel;fail to deal adequately with the motivations to commit fraud and how this mayimpact on public attitudes to fraud. This article examines public reactionto benefit fraud, and points out that the public have differentiated fraud onthe basis of ‘greed’ or ‘need’. I suggest that, i f the government S anti-fraudstrategy is to be effective, the link between justijiable motivation and publicopinion needs to be taken into account.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	357-371
Journal	Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Volume	21
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069908415098
Publication status	Published (in print/issue) - 1999

Bibliographical note

Reference text: Barker, C., Watchman. P. and Rowan-Robertson, J. (1990) ‘Social security
abuse‘, Social Policy and Administration 24(2 j: 1 0 4 1 19.
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (1998) Securing rhe System, London: The
Stationery Office.
Cmnd 3805 ( 1998) New Ambitions for Our Count? - A New Contract for
Welfare, London: The Stationery Office.
Cmnd 301 2 1998) Beating Fraud is Everyone’s Business: Securing the
Future. London: The Stationery Office.
Cmnd 4276 ( 1999) Safeguarding Social Securiw, London: The Stationery
Office.
Cook, D. ( 1985 j Rich fun), Poor Law, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Cook. D. (1997) Poveq, Crime and Punishment, London: Child Poverty
Action Group.
Dean, H. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (1992) Dependency Culture: The Explosion of
a Myth, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Department of Social Security (1998) Code of Pracrice for Data Matching.
London: The Stationery Office.
Field, F. ( 1996) Srakeholder Welfare, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
Lacey, N. (1995) ‘Contingency and criminalisation’, in I. Loveland (ed.),
Fronriers of Criminality, pp. 1-27. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
McKeever, G. ( 1999) ‘Detecting. prosecuting and punislung benefit fraud:
The Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997’, Modern Law Review
62(2): 261-70.
Raz, J. (1979) The Author@ of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rowlingson. K.. Whyley, C., Newburn, T. and Berthoud, R. (eds) (1997)
Social Security Fraud: The Role of Penalties, DSS Research Report No. 64,
London: The Stationery Office.
Sainsbury, R. (1996) ‘Rooting out fraud - innocent until proven fraudulent’,
Poveny, Spring, pp. 17-20.
Shaw, A.. Walker, R., Ashworth, K., Jenkins, S. and Middleton, S. (eds) (1 996) Moving off Income Support: Barriers and Bridges, DSS Research
Report No. 53, London: HMSO.
Smith, R. (1985) ‘Who’s fiddling? Fraud and abuse’, in S. Ward (ed.), DHSS
in Crisis, pp. 112-27, London: Child Poverty Action Group.
Social Security Advisory Committee (1995) Tenth Reporf, London: HMSO.
Social Security Committee ( 1994-95) Third Report: Review of Expenditure
on Social Security, HC 132, London: HMSO.
Social Security Committee (1 998) Fourth Report: DisabiZiry Living
Allowance, HC 641, London: The Stationery Office.
Twining, W. and Miers, D. (1999) How to do Things with Rules, London:
Buttenvorth.
Uglow, S. (1984) ‘Defrauding the public purse: Prosecuting in social security,
revenue and excise cases’, Criminal Law Review 128-41.
Vincent, J., Leeming, A., Peaker, A. and Walker, R. (eds) (1995) Choosing
Advice on Benefits, DSS Research Report No. 35, London: HMSO.

Keywords

criminalization
motivations
prevention
public attitudes
reform
social security fraud

Access to Document

10.1080/09649069908415098

Cite this

@article{0b18b2bdb1d243079aa8fc7a11eb5bc4,

title = "Fighting Fraud: An Evaluation of the Government{\textquoteright}s Social Security Fraud Strategy",

abstract = "This article examines the government S strategy for dealing withsocial security fraud. The Social Security (Administration) Fraud Act I997has been enacted to facilitate the detection, prosecution and punishmentof benefit fraud. In addition, the government has published a Green Paperon fruud and, more recently, a Command Paper on {\textquoteleft}Safeguarding SocialSecurity {\textquoteright}, both of which emphasize the importance of preventing fraud andre-educating the public about its nature and severio. Both papers, howevel;fail to deal adequately with the motivations to commit fraud and how this mayimpact on public attitudes to fraud. This article examines public reactionto benefit fraud, and points out that the public have differentiated fraud onthe basis of {\textquoteleft}greed{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteleft}need{\textquoteright}. I suggest that, i f the government S anti-fraudstrategy is to be effective, the link between justijiable motivation and publicopinion needs to be taken into account.",

keywords = "criminalization, motivations, prevention, public attitudes, reform, social security fraud",

author = "Grainne McKeever",

note = "Reference text: Barker, C., Watchman. P. and Rowan-Robertson, J. (1990) {\textquoteleft}Social security abuse{\textquoteleft}, Social Policy and Administration 24(2 j: 1 0 4 1 19. Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (1998) Securing rhe System, London: The Stationery Office. Cmnd 3805 ( 1998) New Ambitions for Our Count? - A New Contract for Welfare, London: The Stationery Office. Cmnd 301 2 1998) Beating Fraud is Everyone{\textquoteright}s Business: Securing the Future. London: The Stationery Office. Cmnd 4276 ( 1999) Safeguarding Social Securiw, London: The Stationery Office. Cook, D. ( 1985 j Rich fun), Poor Law, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Cook. D. (1997) Poveq, Crime and Punishment, London: Child Poverty Action Group. Dean, H. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (1992) Dependency Culture: The Explosion of a Myth, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Department of Social Security (1998) Code of Pracrice for Data Matching. London: The Stationery Office. Field, F. ( 1996) Srakeholder Welfare, London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Lacey, N. (1995) {\textquoteleft}Contingency and criminalisation{\textquoteright}, in I. Loveland (ed.), Fronriers of Criminality, pp. 1-27. London: Sweet & Maxwell. McKeever, G. ( 1999) {\textquoteleft}Detecting. prosecuting and punislung benefit fraud: The Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997{\textquoteright}, Modern Law Review 62(2): 261-70. Raz, J. (1979) The Author@ of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rowlingson. K.. Whyley, C., Newburn, T. and Berthoud, R. (eds) (1997) Social Security Fraud: The Role of Penalties, DSS Research Report No. 64, London: The Stationery Office. Sainsbury, R. (1996) {\textquoteleft}Rooting out fraud - innocent until proven fraudulent{\textquoteright}, Poveny, Spring, pp. 17-20. Shaw, A.. Walker, R., Ashworth, K., Jenkins, S. and Middleton, S. (eds) (1 996) Moving off Income Support: Barriers and Bridges, DSS Research Report No. 53, London: HMSO. Smith, R. (1985) {\textquoteleft}Who{\textquoteright}s fiddling? Fraud and abuse{\textquoteright}, in S. Ward (ed.), DHSS in Crisis, pp. 112-27, London: Child Poverty Action Group. Social Security Advisory Committee (1995) Tenth Reporf, London: HMSO. Social Security Committee ( 1994-95) Third Report: Review of Expenditure on Social Security, HC 132, London: HMSO. Social Security Committee (1 998) Fourth Report: DisabiZiry Living Allowance, HC 641, London: The Stationery Office. Twining, W. and Miers, D. (1999) How to do Things with Rules, London: Buttenvorth. Uglow, S. (1984) {\textquoteleft}Defrauding the public purse: Prosecuting in social security, revenue and excise cases{\textquoteright}, Criminal Law Review 128-41. Vincent, J., Leeming, A., Peaker, A. and Walker, R. (eds) (1995) Choosing Advice on Benefits, DSS Research Report No. 35, London: HMSO.",

year = "1999",

doi = "10.1080/09649069908415098",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "357--371",

journal = "Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law",

issn = "1469-9621",

publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fighting Fraud: An Evaluation of the Government’s Social Security Fraud Strategy

AU - McKeever, Grainne

N1 - Reference text: Barker, C., Watchman. P. and Rowan-Robertson, J. (1990) ‘Social security abuse‘, Social Policy and Administration 24(2 j: 1 0 4 1 19. Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (1998) Securing rhe System, London: The Stationery Office. Cmnd 3805 ( 1998) New Ambitions for Our Count? - A New Contract for Welfare, London: The Stationery Office. Cmnd 301 2 1998) Beating Fraud is Everyone’s Business: Securing the Future. London: The Stationery Office. Cmnd 4276 ( 1999) Safeguarding Social Securiw, London: The Stationery Office. Cook, D. ( 1985 j Rich fun), Poor Law, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Cook. D. (1997) Poveq, Crime and Punishment, London: Child Poverty Action Group. Dean, H. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (1992) Dependency Culture: The Explosion of a Myth, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Department of Social Security (1998) Code of Pracrice for Data Matching. London: The Stationery Office. Field, F. ( 1996) Srakeholder Welfare, London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Lacey, N. (1995) ‘Contingency and criminalisation’, in I. Loveland (ed.), Fronriers of Criminality, pp. 1-27. London: Sweet & Maxwell. McKeever, G. ( 1999) ‘Detecting. prosecuting and punislung benefit fraud: The Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997’, Modern Law Review 62(2): 261-70. Raz, J. (1979) The Author@ of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rowlingson. K.. Whyley, C., Newburn, T. and Berthoud, R. (eds) (1997) Social Security Fraud: The Role of Penalties, DSS Research Report No. 64, London: The Stationery Office. Sainsbury, R. (1996) ‘Rooting out fraud - innocent until proven fraudulent’, Poveny, Spring, pp. 17-20. Shaw, A.. Walker, R., Ashworth, K., Jenkins, S. and Middleton, S. (eds) (1 996) Moving off Income Support: Barriers and Bridges, DSS Research Report No. 53, London: HMSO. Smith, R. (1985) ‘Who’s fiddling? Fraud and abuse’, in S. Ward (ed.), DHSS in Crisis, pp. 112-27, London: Child Poverty Action Group. Social Security Advisory Committee (1995) Tenth Reporf, London: HMSO. Social Security Committee ( 1994-95) Third Report: Review of Expenditure on Social Security, HC 132, London: HMSO. Social Security Committee (1 998) Fourth Report: DisabiZiry Living Allowance, HC 641, London: The Stationery Office. Twining, W. and Miers, D. (1999) How to do Things with Rules, London: Buttenvorth. Uglow, S. (1984) ‘Defrauding the public purse: Prosecuting in social security, revenue and excise cases’, Criminal Law Review 128-41. Vincent, J., Leeming, A., Peaker, A. and Walker, R. (eds) (1995) Choosing Advice on Benefits, DSS Research Report No. 35, London: HMSO.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - This article examines the government S strategy for dealing withsocial security fraud. The Social Security (Administration) Fraud Act I997has been enacted to facilitate the detection, prosecution and punishmentof benefit fraud. In addition, the government has published a Green Paperon fruud and, more recently, a Command Paper on ‘Safeguarding SocialSecurity ’, both of which emphasize the importance of preventing fraud andre-educating the public about its nature and severio. Both papers, howevel;fail to deal adequately with the motivations to commit fraud and how this mayimpact on public attitudes to fraud. This article examines public reactionto benefit fraud, and points out that the public have differentiated fraud onthe basis of ‘greed’ or ‘need’. I suggest that, i f the government S anti-fraudstrategy is to be effective, the link between justijiable motivation and publicopinion needs to be taken into account.

AB - This article examines the government S strategy for dealing withsocial security fraud. The Social Security (Administration) Fraud Act I997has been enacted to facilitate the detection, prosecution and punishmentof benefit fraud. In addition, the government has published a Green Paperon fruud and, more recently, a Command Paper on ‘Safeguarding SocialSecurity ’, both of which emphasize the importance of preventing fraud andre-educating the public about its nature and severio. Both papers, howevel;fail to deal adequately with the motivations to commit fraud and how this mayimpact on public attitudes to fraud. This article examines public reactionto benefit fraud, and points out that the public have differentiated fraud onthe basis of ‘greed’ or ‘need’. I suggest that, i f the government S anti-fraudstrategy is to be effective, the link between justijiable motivation and publicopinion needs to be taken into account.

KW - criminalization

KW - motivations

KW - prevention

KW - public attitudes

KW - reform

KW - social security fraud

U2 - 10.1080/09649069908415098

DO - 10.1080/09649069908415098

M3 - Article

SN - 1469-9621

VL - 21

SP - 357

EP - 371

JO - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

JF - Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

IS - 4

ER -

Fighting Fraud: An Evaluation of the Government’s Social Security Fraud Strategy

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this