Confusing Correspondence
There were a number of reasons students became confused by correspondence:
- lack of covering letters eg with new contracts (this led some students to believe they had received their copy of the contract already signed rather than a replacement one to be signed)
- separate mailings arriving at once, often with conflicting messages
- messages in letters unclear in terms of what the student was required to do, for example, number of weeks in the course is not enough to qualify
- rigid requirements leading to rejections, eg manual corrections to contracts being unacceptable, requiring a new contract to be issued
Other factors: receiving lots of correspondence made students more intolerant so that they did not always read what they received. In addition, students tend to be transient, which makes a system reliant on mail outs more risky.
Some changes were made during 2000, for example, clearly flagging places in applications where students are required to sign (loan contracts were to be signed in two places, which many students did not realise). DWI is reviewing correspondence with students in terms of clarity, timing, and frequency. It is important that students and institutions are involved in this review. Simplification of the system would also simplify the correspondence, as would other measures described in this report.
Recommendation 25
DWI ensure students and institutions are fully consulted in the review of correspondence currently being undertaken. |
Complex Cases
Some groups of students have more complex circumstances than others, which are not easily handled through the standard call centre approach. These include:
- summer school students or other flexible programmes
- distance education students with flexible end dates
- postgraduate students
- extensions
- students on benefits such as DPB and TIA
This is also an operational policy issue (see Contributory Issues below). These anomalies are likely to increase as tertiary education becomes more flexible. Such students need appropriate and accurate advice in advance of enrolment, and DWI needs to ensure that they are accurately processed. A more personalised service for students with complex circumstances would avoid some of the downstream problems. This has already been discussed above under Design of the Student Loans Delivery System - Structure.
Loan Status
Recommendation 26
DWI develop means of giving students (and institutions where appropriate) more timely and precise information of the status of their loan application, for example, by ensuring that staff have competence in responding to detailed queries regarding loan status, and by corresponding promptly with students where there are VOS matching issues. |
Contingencies - Grants etc
The most optimistic estimate of time it was expected to take to process a loan for 2000 was 21 days from receipt of an application to payment. It is difficult to compare processing for 2000 with processing under the previous system, as comprehensive, national statistics are not available. However, statistics show that DWI was significantly behind the number of loan accounts established under SLAM for 1995-1998 (see Appendix 2) and only overtook past years' numbers in mid March/April. The total number of loans for 2000 has exceeded previous years.
Delays in student loan processing left significant numbers of students with insufficient funds to pay rent, buy course materials, pay fees, or buy food and other essential items. A small number accessed grants such as the Special Needs Grant (SNG): a total of 3,589 SNGs were issued by Student Services between November 1999 and March 2000. Additional SNGs or Recoverable Assistance Programme (RAP) grants were also given to a number of students via DWI local offices, for which it is difficult to ascertain numbers. Many students were either not aware of their entitlement, or were unwilling to access such grants (for example, because they needed to tell their landlord of their situation). Others accessed hardship funds via their institution or students' association, borrowed off friends and relatives, used credit cards and overdrafts, and sought to delay payments.
Institutions seeking to assist students' access to grants did not know the DWI criteria for assistance, nor did the institution help desk have this information.
DWI did not appear to expect or plan for this situation. As the numbers of students awaiting loan payments grew, restrictions on rules for hardship assistance were lifted to enable more students to access grants more easily. The additional measure taken was to eliminate the 7 day rule for uplifting the living cost portion of the loan (although it remained in place for payment of the fees portion).
Recommendations 27, 28 and 29
DWI develop means of better informing students of entitlement criteria for Special Needs Grants and other grants.
DWI review the guidelines for hardship grants given to frontline staff in terms of the particular circumstances of students.
Retain the seven day waiver for 2001. |
Lastly, the complaints process was not entirely clear. An escalated process for issue resolution would assist.
Recommendation 30
DWI develop and communicate a clear, stepped complaints process for students. |
