Disability benefits evaluation - case transfer: qualitative research - annex A

6. Staff experiences of the case transfer and review processes

Previous chapters have included staff views on how clients experienced a case transfer and review. This chapter focuses on staff experiences of the operational aspects of these processes and how they impact the intended client outcomes and the policy commitments.

Staff were asked about aspects of the transfer and review that were working well and less well and to suggest any improvements. Discussions naturally focused on areas that they felt could be improved. However, it was clear that staff generally enjoyed their roles and try to embody the values of dignity, fairness and respect throughout their work.

Key findings:

• Staff generally felt that the transfer and review policy commitments are being met, with the exception of clear communication with individuals.
• There was an overarching perception that new ADP and CDP applications had been prioritised which had contributed to initial issues around transfer and review processes. Staff experience challenges using SPM to process transfers and reviews. Issues are being identified and addressed.
• Staff felt improvements to resources in terms of staffing, guidance and support would help them to deliver case transfers and reviews efficiently and effectively, and lead to a better client experience.

Overarching views of the transfer and review process

In terms operational effectiveness, there was an overarching perception among staff that new ADP and CDP applications had been prioritised over transfers, which they felt had contributed to initial issues around the transfer and review processes.

“I think the point with the transfer process appears to be that – this is making huge assumptions – but the whole focus is on the new applications and that seems to [have been] prepared before it went live, whereas I think the transfer process doesn’t appear to have had that same preparation done for it.” (Staff)

There was a perception that learning from the existing processes had not informed new processes as effectively as it might have. Specifically, while staff acknowledged there had been some learning from CDP transfers (which came first) to improve processes for ADP transfers, there were also some missed opportunities, perhaps because different teams were involved. This was believed to have resulted in mistakes being repeated, such as issues with documents not uploading properly to Social Security Scotland systems, which in turn had impacted on the time taken to process cases.

“…one thing we’ve all found a bit surprising and a bit of a handicap actually is a lot of the good stuff that we learned from the CDP process, it was then done differently for ADP or it wasn’t carried forward into ADP, you know a learned way of ‘this is great if we communicate this through this channel’ or ‘we need to know x, y and x’…I think the reasoning behind it is it’s two different programme teams” (Staff)

Staff views of the transfer process

Most transfers are approved automatically within SPM, and do not require client contact. Where a transfer is not approved automatically, a Client Advisor addresses any issues preventing that from happening. These are known as “drop-out tasks”. Drop-out tasks include: verifying a date of birth; verifying an address, or correcting a mistake in address formatting; and verifying nationality. Staff reported that processing a drop-out task is generally straightforward. Payment issues are therefore rare, and the transfer process can be seen as “safe and secure”. When a Client Advisor processes a drop-out task, this is sent to a Team Support Officer or Team Manager for approval. If any feedback is required, this was usually felt to be clear so the Client Advisor knows what to do next time.

Drop-out tasks are processed using the Social Programme Management system (SPM). Staff reported some challenges using SPM, which they felt slowed their work down. These challenges included: documents from the DWP not uploading properly; difficulties updating family relationship records associated with children; wage slips being required in error for children; and client contact preferences not being captured. SPM was generally described as not user friendly, with staff at times not being able to access the system or being timed out of cases. There was a perception that SPM could have been more thoroughly tested before full launch. There was also concern among staff that SPM challenges will have a greater impact on the staff experience as the volume of transfers increase.

Client Advisors also have a role in responding to client queries and staff highlighted communication issues in this area. As highlighted in the case transfer chapter, clients experience long waiting times to get through to Social Security Scotland over the phone. Staff were also frustrated by waiting times for clients to get through to them. They suggested that client waiting time could be improved if there were separate phone numbers for specific departments rather than everyone having to use the general enquiries line, and if there was more support to help Client Advisors to answer queries, in the form of enhanced guidance and training (see below).

When they do get through, Client Advisors are not always able to answer their questions, particularly around: change of circumstances; how, or whether, payments will be backdated; and what a review involves. Despite clients describing staff as helpful (see case transfer chapter), there was a sense amongst staff that Client Advisors could be more confident in handling client queries on the transfer process, with multiple advisors asking the same questions (such as on change of circumstances and backdating, as discussed earlier). This meant that these questions were being directed to Case Managers, which takes their time away from processing reviews.

Client Advisors said they struggle to answer questions due to perceived inadequacies in training, and challenges with information sharing (both discussed in more detail later in this chapter). It was suggested that an FAQ sheet may be in development to help Client Advisors answer client queries. This would be welcomed and would also avoid other staff members having to spend time fielding questions.

Client Advisors felt that a lack of initial training also applied to the DWP staff and that the agencies were ‘not on the same page’ when it comes to the transfer process. Clients have been directed by the DWP to Social Security Scotland despite Social Security Scotland not being able to do anything with a case until it is transferred. Staff were concerned about clients having a poor first impression of Social Security Scotland when they are passed between agencies and told different things. However, clients interviewed tended to blame the DWP for issues rather than Social Security Scotland.

Staff views of the review process

The general process for an unscheduled review (usually where a transfer has been triggered by a change of circumstances) is that the Case Manager will review information provided by the client about their change in circumstances and any information provided by the DWP. Then, if necessary, the Case Manager will contact the client for clarifications and/or reach out to a professional for supporting information. Staff felt that the amount and quality of information that Social Security Scotland receives from the DWP varies and, depending on this, it can be difficult for a Case Manager to understand why a decision was made and if it had been reasonable.

The main difference in process for a scheduled review (usually where a transfer has been triggered because the award was due to be reviewed) is that the client is sent a declaration form and a change of circumstances form. If the client declares there has not been a change of circumstances, this can be dealt with very quickly, depending on the situation. However, in some instances clients have declared “no change” but gone on to report changes on the change of circumstances form, perhaps because they think they need to write something on both forms. These inconsistencies can be difficult for staff to interpret.

Staff indicated that making a decision on a review is not dissimilar to making a decision on a new application, the main difference being the amount of historic information to take account of, which is usually greater for a PIP case, and the time required to do so. Like a new application, the length of time needed to reach a decision depends partly on whether supporting information is needed or has already been provided. For instance, if a Case Manager needs to write to a GP to request information regarding a client, they could be waiting two months for a reply, and they cannot do anything else on that case in the meantime.

Decisions are then sent to a Decision Team Manager for approval. At the time of fieldwork, all decisions were being quality assured for consistency. This had reportedly become a quicker process for Decision Team Managers as Case Managers gain experience and fewer corrections are needed. Staff said they found mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism more challenging than physical conditions to deal with and so these are usually allocated to more experienced staff. Where there are difficult cases, Case Managers and Decision Team Managers will have conversations before they reach a decision and collaborative working is encouraged.

It was widely felt by staff that clients did not understand the review process, and this was not thought to be limited to a particular client group. As a result, staff felt they received a lot of ad hoc queries from clients but did not feel equipped to answer or resolve them, particularly in relation to the backdating of payments, due to a lack of guidance.

“I just don’t think [clients] are getting the right answers from us and it is causing some undue stress and anxiety. I don’t think anybody really had any training so that is the issue.” (Staff)

Where a client has been awarded further support as a result of a change of circumstances, payments may be backdated to when that change was reported, provided the change has occurred for at least 13 weeks. Staff indicated that this 13 weeks “backward test” is not mentioned in initial letters from Social Security Scotland and felt there would be pros and cons to doing so. Lack of staff understanding was linked to training and guidance, which is discussed in the next section.

At the point of data collection, there had not been enough experience of case transfer reviews to allow staff to comment on whether there are differences in client experiences in relation to the policy commitments. However, it was generally felt that the review process would be light touch and cause minimum stress for clients if they were not impacted by the backlog in cases caused by early process issues and delays associated with supporting information. This may help reduce client calls asking for updates on their review.

Staff working on reviews also faced challenges related to SPM, such as understanding how to navigate the system, having to manually generate and correct letters, and having to locate information provided by a client about their condition that has not been attached to their case. While SPM issues have been solved or are being addressed, staff again felt that systems were not tested properly initially.

“The fact that that [award letter] just didn’t work, it fed down duff information, fields weren’t being populated correctly, this kind of thing… you would expect when a process is going to go live that you would stress test it from front to back…” (Staff)

Overall, staff felt that senior management recognised the importance of improving the review process given this will continue to be a significant aspect of the ADP and CDP workload. For example, a Project Lead had recently been assigned to help fix some SPM issues which has taken some pressure off Case Managers and Decision Team Managers.

Resources and support to deliver case transfers and reviews

Staff raised a number of broader points about the resources and support in place to enable them to deliver case transfer and reviews efficiently and effectively. They thought improvements to these would lead to a better experience for clients – but had mixed views on how receptive managers were to feedback on these issues.

Staffing

Staff in certain roles highlighted their large caseloads and felt this was impacting their ability to deliver case transfers and reviews in a timely manner without there being undue pressure on them.

“... [the] review process is very light touch and it should be minimum stress for them [clients]. I think just with the backlog and time delays on supporting information and just different things like that, that is what is making the stress, our actual review process if it all worked would be great for them” (Staff)

A related issue mentioned by staff is that Client Advisors are fielding client calls about other Social Security Scotland benefits because they are the only team with capacity to deal with these. They are not trained to answer queries on other issues and this was impacting staff morale. There was some concern that could affect client satisfaction in the long run.

Training

The need for improved training on transfers and reviews was a strong theme in discussions across staff groups.

Staff valued the focus on dignity, fairness and respect in initial training. They were taught to put themselves in a client’s shoes and think about how they might be feeling when interacting with Social Security Scotland. However, for staff working on transfers, the general view was that initial training was too generic and did not cover specifics of their role in relation to transfers. Some Client Advisors did not realise that they were expected to work on transfers until they received a “brief overview” of the process in the last week of their six-week initial training. They felt that more comprehensive training on the transfer process would help them to better answer client queries and concerns.

“[Client Advisors] almost invariably come out of training all gung ho and ready to tackle their first case and they go into consolidation with one of our more experienced advisors and they realise they don’t know anything. It knocks them for six. They’re buzzing, spent all this time in training and they’re ready to go, and then they don’t know anything” (Staff)

Staff working on reviews said there was no initial training on case transfer reviews specifically. They felt that they had to develop processes themselves and then train newer team members. This was described as “overwhelming” and “scary” at times. Whilst staff are happy to train new colleagues, there was a view that it should not be their responsibility to do so. A reliance on more experienced staff (known as “consolidators”) was mentioned by transfer staff too. There was concern that an overreliance on consolidators leads to inconsistencies in ways of working and so there was a preference for training to be delivered by Learning and Development.

Staff recognised that some improvements have been made to training following feedback. However, there were still aspects of training that they felt could be improved. These included: a greater understanding across roles of what a transfer is and how cases move to Social Security Scotland; clarifying the role of a Client Advisor; addressing a culture where Client Advisors feel pressured to answer client queries immediately even if they are not sure of the correct response; more telephony training for Client Advisors; more training on using SPM for all roles; and more resources to cater for different learning styles which could include making content more visual instead of “walls of text”, producing easy read documents, and having physical resources.

Written guidance

Staff appreciated the challenges of migrating benefits to a new agency and recognised that there will inevitably be changes to processes that mean it is difficult for guidance to be kept absolutely up to date. The team responsible for guidance were seen as approachable and receptive to feedback on points that need clarification. However, at the same time, there was an evident appetite among staff working on case transfers and reviews for more consistent and timely guidance.

It was perceived by staff that an initial lack of centralised guidance on how to process cases had led to some teams developing their own internal processes and guidance, which may lead to inconsistencies and impact on clients where processes are followed differently. Staff therefore did reflect on the importance of formal guidance:

“…we have to have that golden source in terms of the guidelines, so that everyone knows exactly what they are doing, and we all know that we are doing the same thing, because these slight things can make big differences in terms of how decisions get made and the impact that has on things like getting payments on what date…people use different dates, like transfer date, ADP start date, entitlement date, these kind of things may seem very straightforward but there is no definition…” (Staff)

However, staff did report that this formal guidance was difficult to locate, navigate through, interpret and they did not trust that it was always up to date – so they generally rely on colleagues for support. It was felt that updates to policies and procedures are not communicated clearly, with staff relying on information sharing within informal networks, such as online chat groups, to find out the latest advice. There was particular concern amongst Client Advisors that they were not being informed of policy and procedure updates, which impacts their ability to answer client queries.

Staff views on policy commitments

During interviews for this research, staff were presented with a logic model outlining policy commitments in relation to the case transfer and review processes. Staff had mixed levels of awareness of these policy commitments and there were differing views on whether certain commitments are being achieved. However, there was an overall sense from staff that, while they feel that they are meeting policy commitments, clients may not share this view. Staff views on each of the case transfer and review policy commitments are set out below. Commitments where there was less discussion are presented in a summary table.

Correct payment made at the correct time

Staff agreed that this was happening in the vast majority of cases. They noted that, if there are technical issues that could affect a payment, these are usually dealt with before the client is affected. However, one staff member was aware of an SPM issue with “payability codes” which they understood meant that some CDP clients had been overpaid.

However, staff hypothesised that clients would not agree that this commitment is being met. They said that clients were frustrated at the length of time it takes for them to receive increased entitlement following a change of circumstances.

“…it probably is being done [from a staff perspective], because as we’re processing the case and as we are getting it through then we have managed to iron out a lot of niggles that we had before…but of course from a clients perspective that is a very different, they might have put in their change of circumstances back in October and they are expecting something, not instantaneously, but they are not seeing it for six, eight months afterwards.” (Staff)

No face-to-face DWP reassessments

Staff agreed that this policy commitment is being met. However, one staff member indicated that some face-to-face consultations may be helpful during the review process in order to determine a client’s support needs. That being said, there was awareness amongst staff about the negative impact of the DWP reassessments on clients and the reasons these are not used by Social Security Scotland.

“…within our team we have discussed the fact that although there is this move away from the DWP approaches to review the case applications sort of thing, the face-to-face assessments, I think probably do serve quite important purpose in making things flow a bit quicker.” (Staff)

Complete as soon as possible while maintaining “safe and secure”

Staff felt that this policy commitment is being met, in the sense that they are processing transfers and reviews as quickly as possible given current resources. However, for the reasons outlined earlier, clients would not always agree with this.

Clear communications with individuals

There was general agreement that this policy commitment is not being met. While letters from Social Security Scotland were felt to be comprehensive, not all clients understand aspects of the transfer process, particularly the process for handling a change of circumstances, and what to expect during the review. Staff also highlighted that some clients are passed between the DWP and Social Security Scotland because there is a lack of staff understanding about the transfer process.

“…it seems to be quite often that when they [clients] call [the] DWP and they hear Scotland, they [DWP] instantly just say, ‘no, Social Security Scotland, you have to contact’, and it’s just like, ‘no, it’s not the case’, and they are not really getting helped by [the] DWP, they seem to have kind of washed their hands of them to be honest.” (Staff)

“Reviews are probably one of the most common biggest anxiety factors for a lot of clients because historically the DWP have been renowned for being very almost interrogatory…because we can’t necessarily provide the reassurance that we’re not [like the DWP] because we don’t fully know the review process, that makes it awkward for us” (Staff)

Disability Assistance should not stop whilst an award review is being undertaken

Staff indicated that that there is a risk that this policy commitment is not always being met. Staff are expediting reviews for some clients who were in receipt of Motability support. These clients need to show that they have at least a year left on their award in order to renew a mobility vehicle lease, but this may be impacted by the length of time it takes for their award to be reviewed.

“If they are within a year of document review, they are not getting their disability vehicle renewed or anything like that, they are getting threatened it’s getting taken off them…obviously these clients need their vehicles, and work is ongoing on that at higher levels to sort this out, but that is obviously a big issue at the moment because we are having to try and fire through those applications first…” (Staff)

Reviews will be light-touch and, as far as possible, minimise stress

One staff member described ‘light-touch reviews’ as a “grey area”. In their view, the only circumstances in which a review could be considered “light-touch” would be where a client has declared that their condition had not changed during a scheduled review.

Moving into work will not be regarded as a change of circumstances

Staff indicated that this policy commitment is being met because moving into work is not in and of itself being regarded as a change of circumstances. However, they did give a hypothetical example where it might prompt them to seek further information. For instance, if a client tells Social Security Scotland that they cannot walk but then they go on to take a job as a waitress.

In cases where there is no likelihood of improvement there will be at least five years between Light-Touch reviews

Staff were not aware of this policy commitment or guidance in relation to it. However, it was suggested that staff confidence in their own decision-making would be a factor in achieving this commitment and that staff confidence will increase over time. It was also noted that there have been discussions with medical practitioners employed by Social Security Scotland to understand which conditions are unlikely to change.

Awards will have a maximum period of 10 years between Light-Touch reviews

Staff were not aware of this policy commitment or guidance in relation to it. However, it was suggested that staff confidence in their own decision-making would be a factor in achieving this commitment and that staff confidence will increase over time.

Policy commitment: No re-applications

Summary of staff experiences: No issues were reported in relation to this policy commitment

Policy commitment: Reviews, where required, are right first time

Summary of staff experiences: Staff were not aware of there being many re-determinations.

Policy commitment: All awards should be made on a rolling basis, with no set date for an award ending

Summary of staff experiences: Staff indicated that this commitment is being achieved.

Policy commitment: There will be no auto-entitlement and all decisions will be person-centred

Summary of staff experiences: Staff indicated that this commitment is being achieved.

Policy commitment: Review dates will be set at a date that takes account of the likelihood of that person’s needs changing

Summary of staff experiences: Staff indicated that this policy commitment is being achieved.

Policy commitment: Social Security Scotland will give a reason to individuals where their award is reviewed earlier than the date set

Summary of staff experiences: Staff did not have experience of this situation but suggested that it would happen.

Policy commitment: Social Security Scotland will publish the numbers of cases where awards are reviewed earlier than the date set at initial decision

Summary of staff experiences: Staff were not aware of this commitment and whether it was being achieved.