CONTRIBUTORY ISSUES

These contributory issues meant that there was less time to review the design of the system. The short interval between implementation of allowances and implementation of loans meant there was no time to pilot the loans system. Technical aspects of the system were tested, but if a pilot had occurred, other problems may have been picked up before it went live, such as the confusing correspondence or the VOS "catch 22" (discussed above). On the other hand, the advantage of the short interval between allowances and loans was that the development team had continuity.

The Addition of Student Loans and Allowances Processing to DWI

The Department of Work and Income came into being in October 1998, as a merger between Income Support (previously part of the Department of Social Welfare); and the New Zealand Employment Service (NZES), the Community Employment Group (CEG), and Local Employment Co-ordination (LEC) (all previously part of the Department of Labour). The new department is not only the largest department in the New Zealand public sector, but also sought to implement the cutting edge employment policies of the Government of the day. The Hunn Report discusses the surrounding issues in detail, including:

• the concentrated timeframe for the restructuring (pp.7, 20)

• the lack of experience in mergers in the public sector (p.11)

• the merger of two quite distinct cultures (p.14)

• the resulting dominance of the "corporate culture" (p.9)

• the addition of other operations, such as student loans and allowances, to the core business of benefit processing, with a risk of overload (p.10)

• the complex policy and reporting relationships (p.9)

Cultural issues are discussed below under Style.

The fact that student loans and allowances was a relative "sideline" for DWI, combined with the "corporate" style, may also have contributed to the distinction of students as clientele group not being fully appreciated, despite the fact that Student Services is a separate division within DWI.

In addition, the Hunn Report notes the "shoot the messenger" syndrome relating to work first and benefit reductions not being universally popular (p.4). Similarly, since the student loan scheme has been the subject of much controversy, this view could have prejudiced opinion and reduced tolerance of errors in processing student loans for 2000.

Issues from Student Allowances

A number of problems occurred with the processing of student allowances for the 1999 academic year. This meant that DWI spent time after the peak enrolment period attending to those issues in preparation for the 2000 academic year. Although this meant that student allowance processing went more smoothly in 2000, less time was available to review the design of the loans system. Because of the timeframe for implementation required by the previous Government, there was insufficient time to pilot the loans system, although some testing was carried out.

Nevertheless, some of the issues relating to student allowances also were of relevance to student loans, and therefore the resolution of them benefited both systems. For example, the SAL/SWIFTT interface had some problems in 1998/99, which have since been largely solved, including the student allowances team now being insufficiently trained in using SWIFTT.

Another key issue during allowances processing was the relatively homogeneous nature of the main centre at Palmerston North. The call centre and central processing were combined. There was no separate mail centre. Staff taking calls had no time to process applications, which required a different skill set in any case.

In March 1999, Palmerston North was split between a call centre (including initial data entry) and main processing, with a separate call centre for allowances at Lower Hutt. A screening/receipting process was also put in the main processing centre at the front end of the process so that documents could be sent straight back to students. During the peak enrolment period of 2000, the processing of student loans was further split into about ten different segments which enabled temporary staff to be trained in one, more simple operation.

One effect of the emphasis on the call centre approach for allowances was that 70% of applications were incomplete in 1999. For 2000, more than 90% were complete, largely as a result of revamping the application form and putting screening/receipting people on campus (although the effect of each is difficult to assess). A lesson that does not appear to be learnt from this is that a more effective on campus presence for loans may have also been desirable. Instead, DWI appears to have stayed with the call centre approach for loans because it was seen as a less complex process than that of allowances.

However, experience with student allowances also resulted in avoidance of some issues for student loans. One significant issue for allowances which did not recur with loans was verification of approved courses, since Prospectus, the Ministry of Education database used, went live about the same time as the allowances system. The electronic transfer of information on approved courses went relatively smoothly for both loans and allowances in 2000. A further advantage was that a student database was partly established.

At the end of 1999, Student Services sent the new combination application form (allowances/loans/CWS) out to those students (about 30,000 in total) they thought intended to study in 2000, using the allowances database. According to DWI, approximately 20,000 responded.

For 2000, there were:

• 16,804 allowance only applications

• 61,529 loan only applications, and

• 58,728 loan and allowance applications.

Certainly for 2001, there should now be a largely established database, meaning returning students will not need to resubmit evidence of identity, IRD number, and bank account. This should reduce processing time for 2001.