Some time ago former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, John Hutton, hit upon an idea of lie detectors for claimants in a bid to crack down fraud. In April this year, it was announced that there was funding for a larger trial of Voice Risk Analysis (VRA). There had been a previous pilot with seven councils involved. Local authorities were asked to volunteer for this current trial and it seems they are clammering to take part.
Over a hundred LAs expressed an interested in the pilot and attended a series of roadshows run jointly by HBSD and Capita. Forty six LAs completed full business cases to apply to be part of our VRA trials.
And they include: Aberdeen, Barking and Dagenham, Basildon, Bexley, Bristol, Bromsgrove, Bury, Coventry, Doncaster, Eastbourne, Flintshire, Glasgow, Litchfield, Northamptonshire Shared Service (Northampton, Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough), Swindon, Vale of Glamorgan, Walsall and Windsor and Maidenhead.
Additionally the seven original pilot LAs; Birmingham, Derwentside shared service (Chester le street, Derwentside, Durham, Sedgefield), Edinburgh, Harrow, Lambeth, Warwick and Wealdon will continue their trials of VRA.
The pilots will run until the November 2009. And, it is claimed, we will then be able to fully evaluate the effectiveness of VRA technology in reducing fraud and error in HB.
Harrow Council earlier this year produced a report regarding trials of voice risk analysis and have stated that they have saved…£336,000. And Tory Harrow is chuffed at these savings though drop in the big financial ocean considering the millions spent on this piece of technology.
And here’s the science: “Changes are measured against the caller’s “normal” voice which is recorded at the start of a phone call when a series of basic questions are asked to ensure that nervousness and shyness do not trigger alterations in voice patterns”.
Operators, apparently, are trained in intelligent questioning and behavioural analysis. The technology monitors changes in voice patterns. Harrow claim that evidence shows that voice risk analysis is acting as a deterrent to “would-be fraudsters” and claimants have volunteered information that their circumstances have changed therefore didn’t need the benefits.
How did these operators actually know that even if circumstances had changed the claimant MAY still be entitled to benefits? Did these operators conduct a proper professional benefit assessment? Or are they so obsessed with rooting out fraudsters that they ignore these circumstances? Also, who is to say that the claimant coulda lied as they may believe they are already under suspicion by a faceless bureaucracy and have little confidence in being believed?
Where is the scientific data to back up this technology? There should be independent evaluations as well to scrutinise the data especially over potential discrimination and accountability. But this is Capita and I don’t trust ‘em as far I could throw them.
Somehow I can’t envision this technology being used to ask a former lying PM about weapons of mass destruction or maybe bankers and their tax avoidance and evasion.
Posted by harpymarx 
Posted by harpymarx 
