By Tim Ferguson, 3 September 2007 16:51
NEWS
A trial of lie-detecting voice recognition technology to combat benefit fraud has saved a council £110,000 - and could lead to a national rollout of the system.
Harrow Council in Greater London has been running the £63,000, year-long pilot of the voice recognition analysis (VRA) system since May to identify potentially fraudulent housing benefit or council tax discount claims.
The VRA system is already used in the insurance industry and works by detecting stress patterns - such as hesitation or changing of answers - in the voice of callers to indicate whether they might be lying.
silicon.com Public Sector
Get the latest public sector news straight to your inbox. Sign up for the PS newsletter today!
So far, the tech saved Harrow Council around £110,000 in benefits payments. It has helped to identify 126 incorrectly awarded single person council tax discounts - worth £40,000 - and prompted 304 claims to be reviewed.
Of these, 47 were found to be no longer valid, meaning the council saved another £70,000 in benefit entitlements.
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) - which funded the pilot - told silicon.com the department will evaluate the technology when the trial is completed next May.
He said the DWP will "look at the evaluation results and see if it's viable, see if it's something to work on and see if other councils are interested in doing it".
If the benefits are seen as sufficient, the system could potentially be rolled out across the country, although no firm plans are currently in place.
The DWP is arranging for other local authorities to trial the technology in the coming months.
The government estimates benefit fraud cost around £700m in the financial year 2006/07, while Harrow Council alone lost £250,000 through fraudulent claims over the same period.
A Harrow Council statement said local authorities have a duty to catch fraudsters due to the financial restraints they face and the lie detector technology is "another tool to help achieve this goal".
Comments
There are 11 comments. Join the discussion
1. John H Woods
Maybe they should use graphology and astrology as well? These 'technologies' are no less reliable, as far as their proven records go.
Like so many of these programmes, they are run by innumerate managers who mistake their gullibility about vendor claims to be an 'openness to new ideas'
The same amount of benefit fraud would probably have been picked up by investigating claims at random --- and could have saved more because they wouldn't have parted with a substantial payment for unproven technology.
If they had run a properly conducted control test simultaneously I wouldn't be so annoyed --- if it works, it works. But to claim that the facts described in this story support the efficacy of the technology in general, or the financial prudence of this scheme in particular, is wholly irrational.
2. Karen Challinor
so the pathalogical liar with the porsche parked outside will get their benifit money , because of a lack of perceived stress therefore they must be telling the truth
whereas the jobseeker, ashamed that they cannot find another job and reduced to begging for handouts who is desperate to put food on the table for their family won't get benifit because they appear extremely stressed and must be lying
hmm I wonder if this was a factor of the trial
I expect a massive cost saving in benifit payouts when the scheme goes live, I also expect the local crime rate to go up to match it
3. Radical Meldrew
If this anti-fraud technology works, I have a suggestion which could save even more money. How about employing it in the processing of MP’s expense claims?
4. Anonymous
Its about time thiefing scum payed back , its only fair why should we work if council house scum can tell us how to screw the system
5. anonymous
They should be using lie-detectors for evidence in courts of law. Maybe they could have used one on the 'Madeline' suspects? We know they work, but the clever legalpeople find reasons not to use them.(They would probably get lees fees!)
6. Karen Challinor
sorry I've just realised I can't spell "benefit"
all these systems ID card, benefit lie detectors, airport iris scanners, contactless payment systems, rfid, speed cameras and so on are slowly taking peope out of the loop because of the mistaken belief that technology is infallible in its application of the rules
technolology is sometimes many things, intractable, inexorable, intolerant and inflexible but never infallible
when has a machine ever shown mercy ? when has a machine ever been moved by a compelling argument ? ... "sorry I was speeding my pregnant wife has to go to hospital NOW please don't book me" works with a police officer but doesn't work on speed cameras, how do you explain to a lie detector that you are stressed because of an eviction notice that arrived because you lost your job and couldn't pay the rent, and now your benefit gets stopped because it thinks you are lying and an investigation gets started, meanwhile you wind up on the street
these systems are buffers designed to save those that make the rules from being troubled by the pleas of those that have to adhere to the rules, they are not there to save money
7. anonymous
John Wood's comments about graphology and astrology, and the polygraph would be better accepted if he knew what he was talking about. I know nothing about astrology, but I do know a little about the polygraph (having seen it used for over two decades during by service in the intelligence/investigative business and I have been using graphology to varying degrees of success, along with linguistic analysis, to solve anonymous threat letter situations for hundreds of clients, including 37 Fortune 500 companies and/or divisions thereof.
Both the polygraph and graphology are investigative tools that depend on the expertise and experience of the "operator" of the technique. A poor polygrapher or a poor graphologist won't get good results; whereas the competent and experienced polygrapher and graphologist will usually provide clues that may not be obtainable any other way or attainable quicker and less expensively than some other investigative tools.
Most of those who are so vocal in their challenge to either tool, has usually had an experience with a poor polygrapher or poor graphologist. Not always, but usually. The professionals in either field readily admit that validity and reliability studies must be ongoing and done under standard research protocols.
.
8. Karen Challinor
Anonymous from Beaverton or USA
you forget we are talking about jolly old england here
we do not have "experienced or well trained polygraph operators"
we have a microphone hooked to a voice stress analyser hooked to a red light, if the red light turns on during the course of talking to the benefits officer then further investigation ensues and benefit is stopped
there won't be any of the usual steps to determine a baseline stress level, no series of yes/no questions with a deliberate lie requested and no trained operator monitoring the machine and interpreting the results as you would get in the USA
there are devices you can purchase from gadget shops like this one http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/04/05/goddamn_liar.html from Gizmondo.com, this is basically what will be used
so if you are on benefit then determining whether you will have enough money to eat this week will be determined by a childs toy dressed up to look like an official tool used by people in authority
9. Chris Goodman
There are too many benefits, overly generous and too long lasting. There is plenty of work around and no reason for anyone physically fit to be out of work for more tha just a few weeks.
Once benefits are consolidated and capped to total below the lower workers wage levels then there will be an incentive to earn a living - or slowly starve!!
One parent families? Make the parents of children BOTH be responsible for funding, be it cash or care, the upbringing of children, not the taxpayer.
10. Jim Mooman
How very wise the words of Ms Challinor , could I have a cloud staring job please.
11. Karen Challinor
Mr Mooman, cloud staring is a very difficult job and I only took it because after over 400 interviews where apparently people loved me and I was well qualified for the position, I failed to get a job, so I started my own cloud staring business to prevent little things like starvation and eviction, maybe being in my late 40's had something to do with it .... no thats ridiculous the law prevents things like that doesn't it
but if you desperately want a cloud staring job enough then there's nothing to stop you forming your own company to do this