DATE OF ISSUE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A QUALITY REPORTING SYSTEM
PURPOSE
The purpose of this instruction is to implement a uniform quality reporting system, for Service Pension processing, throughout the Department. This report is to be compiled in conjunction with the quarterly report to the Secretary.
BACKGROUND
One of the key aspects of program management is the ability to report to senior management and relevant outside bodies about program performance.
The Department has received criticism from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) for not having a reporting system that reviews the quality of service pension processing. The Department advised the ANAO that we would develop and formalise such a reporting system.
The Department has also given a public commitment to a Senate Estimates Committee that it would move to implement a quality control reporting system for the Income Support sub-program.
Development of a reporting system forms part of the Sub-program plan and is required when the Department is requested to justify its use and level of resources eg. at a Senate Estimates Committee.
BENEFITS
The benefits to the Branch Offices that use the system, to monitor and improve the quality of their own work are:
-it makes available a regular/formalised form of
detecting/solving problems;
-it gives a focus for remedial action; and
-it is a structured and regularised approach which will assist
with efficient work practices within the Branch Office.
The benefits to Central Office are that it provides, on a regular basis, information on what is happening in the States regarding problems and problem solving. It also provides a focus for areas that may require policy change or training. The system also allows better reports to be produced on performance at the national level. The system ensures that information on the quality of work is readily available to answer questions on departmental performance.
REPORTING STYLE
The reporting style "formalises" current local quality reporting practices used in some States. It also allows for a common reporting format to be used across the Department. This makes it possible for all reports that are received centrally to be compiled and analysed on the same basis.
The style of reporting is based on a sample check that requires an identification of remedial action to be taken if errors in that sample exceed a set rate (see Report Ratings below)
The frequency of the reporting ie, quarterly to coincide with the report to the Secretary, provides a time frame that allows for any identified remedial action to be taken prior to the next report. The effectiveness of the remedial action can then be analysed in the subsequent report.
THE REPORT
The uniform reporting format is designed to provide a similar outcome even though States' have varying working practices and arrangements. The reporting format is suitable and beneficial for both the Branch Offices internal use as well as for regular reports to Central Office.
The report reflects results of checking of a random sample of completed cases supplemented by some overall comments on processing quality by the Manager/Assistant Manager, Income Support and the State Program Manager(Benefits).
A sample of the form is at Attachment A. A supply of the forms has been sent to the Manager, Income Support in each State.
In this approach lies an internal benefit for both the Branch Offices and Central Office to know exactly what is happening in the processing stages. The style of the report itself is one of self assessment. It is in the interest of all concerned for the report form to be completed in the spirit in which it was designed ie, accurate self assessment that leads to identifying and solving problems internally.
The checks to be undertaken are of finalised work rather than the more time consuming and costly approach of attempting to ensure quality assurance checks all along the "production line".
Checking of the random sample should be completed as near as possible to the end of the work process ie, after the delegate's determination but before pension payment.
SAMPLE SIZES
The following is a table of minimum sample sizes required to be checked for the quarterly reporting period.
number of cases completed |
50 |
75 |
100 |
200 |
500 |
600 |
700 |
800 |
900 |
1000 |
2000 |
3000 |
minimum Number of cases to be checked |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
19 |
21 |
23 |
24 |
30 |
36 |
The above is the minimum statistically valid sample size. Most States currently check more than these sample sizes. Quality Control Reporting is to be based on the ACTUAL number/sample of cases checked.
It is not considered that these sample checks will have any effect on resource requirements.
SAMPLE SELECTION
Cases to be checked within the guidelines of this Quality Reporting System are to be selected after they have been passed for payment from the delegate but prior to pension payment.
Initially the random sample is to be selected by the Branch Office. However, Central Office is currently developing a method of selecting the cases to be checked automatically with a case list being sent to the quality control officer on an ongoing basis.
A list of all cases checked is to be attached to the report form. A suggested format for the list is at Attachment C.
ERRORS
The following definition of an error will apply whether or not detected, corrected or made by the delegate.
Is the relevant legislation and policy being applied correctly in relation to:
eligibility for pension;
the Income and Assets test ; and
effective dates of grant or variation.
An error also includes incorrect coding that may affect an automatic run in the future ie, deeming interest rates, supperannuation etc.
Therefore, an error is a matter of objective assessment relating to the entitlement to and the rate of pension payable.
Subjective matters such as the reasonable, logical, consistent, fair and economical investigation of claims or conduct of reviews, eg. over investigation etc., should be addressed in the overall comments supplied by the Income Support Manager, or the State Program Manager.
ERROR RATES
An error rate in a sample, that is >5% (1 in 20) will require a report on processing problems and proposed remedial action (Ratings 2 & 3) below.
REPORT RATINGS
Rating 1 ( meets quality target)
-less than or equal to 5% errors (>= 95% accuracy)
Rating 2 (action proposed this report)
-greater than 5% error (<95% accuracy)
Action proposed will need to be stated. The plan should encompass the following:
-the action to be undertaken;
-the time frame to complete the action;
-who will complete the action; and
-how and when progress will be monitored.
The Income Support Manager and/or the State Program Manager will then comment on the appropriateness of the action.
Rating 3 (does not meet quality target - action deferred)
-greater than 5% error (<95% accuracy)
State reason for deferring action. These reasons could relate to local constraints or constraints placed by Central Office.
HOW TO COMPLETE THE FORM
After examining the sample cases and any other relevant investigations the Manager/Quality Control Officer is to select the rating that is applicable for each category of the service pension process (part A).
The following can be used as a guide for determining the staff who complete service pension reviews detailed in Part A:
LEVEL OF STAFFTYPE OF REVIEW
ASO 2 — ROUTINE
AS0 3 — INVOLVED
ASO 4 — COMPLEX
If rating 1 is selected no further action needs to be taken for that category of processing. However, if rating 2 or 3 is selected the appropriate table in part B is to be completed. If there is insufficient space available on the form a separate sheet may be attached.
Part C of the form is crucial for monitoring progress on Forward Action Plans detailed in previous reports (this will not need to be completed for the first report).
The Manager's comments should include an overview of the service pension process within the Branch for that quarter and identify any other external issues that are affecting the pension process.
Part D allows the State Program Manager (Benefits) to comment on any issues raised within the report or comment on the service pension process as a whole. While reporting on errors/remedial action is the focus of the first part of the report, Part D should also be used to comment on positive aspects of service pension processing in the Branch.
HOW A COMPLETED FORM MAY LOOK
At attachment B is how a typical completed quarterly quality control form may look.
IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS
The reporting system is to be implemented immediately with the first report to be completed in conjunction with the December Quarterly Report to the Secretary.
FURTHER ENQUIRIES
Future enquiries are to be directed to Jonathan Levy, Benefits Income Support,
(06) 289-6420.
PETER HAWKER
NATIONAL
PROGRAM DIRECTOR (BENEFITS)
SERVICE PENSION - QUALITY CONTROL REPORTING SYSTEM
LIST OF CASES CHECKED
NAME FILE NUMBERERROR FOUND