Executive Summary

Focus groups were held with 351 staff of the Department of Work and Income (DWI), from different positions and locations around the country. This paper summarises the views of staff and presents conclusions based on those views.

Staff were mainly positive about the Department and its progress in integration. Points raised in focus groups around the country were consistent, however there was some variation in how people positioned the points they raised. Most staff were positive and presented the issues they raised as fine tuning, however some staff felt more strongly about the issues.

Common themes for Service Delivery staff were support for integrated case management, workload issues, concern about performance measures, need for local flexibility, information technology issues, ideas on training requirements, impact of media coverage and political criticism, and a variety of views on culture and style.

Debt, Benefit Control and Call Centre staff appeared to have less feedback. The common themes in these areas were desire for some certainty about future direction and concern about media coverage and political criticism.

Overall staff were positive about DWI as an integrated organisation and many gave a strong message about not wanting to 'go back'. People did however, see room for improvement to be made in moving forward.

Context

Cabinet approved a ministerial review into the Department of Work and Income (DWI) on 14 February 2000 [CAB (00) M 4/11 refers].

The review was tasked with answering nine questions outlined in the terms of reference for the review. The Terms of Reference also stated that the review should "draw on the views not only of Ministers and the management and staff of WINZ, but also of a range of clients and stakeholders around the country both within the Government and Social Sector."

To identify the views of management and staff the review team visited DWI locations around the country between 13 March and 30 March 2000. The review team held hour-long discussion groups of approximately 5-15 staff from a range of levels and units within the department. Staff were asked to concentrate on 'DWI in the future'.

Purpose

Detailed notes were taken for each focus group. This paper summarises their responses and provides information on the participants and major feedback areas. The paper focuses only on the feedback from staff and reaches conclusions on that basis. Final conclusions based on information from a variety of sources will be included in the final report.

The paper does not include details from meetings with members of the DWI Leadership Team and does not summarise the policy issues raised by staff but rather focuses on organisational aspects. Written submissions received from staff are analysed in a separate paper.

Categories of Participants

In total 351 Department staff participated in focus groups with the review team. They involved staff from a range of the Department's units and included representatives from:

• 9 of the 13 Service Delivery regions
• 3 of the 4 Call Centres
• 2 of the 4 Debt Units
• 3 of the 12 Benefit Crime Units

Business Unit	Region (and sites staff represented)
Service Delivery	Auckland regions (3 regions mix of sites) East Coast (Napier, Flaxmere and Hastings) Nelson (Nelson, Richmond, and Greymouth/Westport) Canterbury (mix of Canterbury sites) Central (mix of Central sites) Northland (mix of Northland sites) Waikato (mix of Waikato sites)	78 29 49 33 28 47 39
Call Centres	Auckland, Christchurch and Hamilton	28
Benefit Crime & Debt	Auckland, Napier and Christchurch, Hamilton	20
TOTAL		351

Participants also included staff from different levels in the organisation. Within the Service Delivery focus groups were Regional Commissioners, Regional Operations Managers, Service Centre Managers, other regional management team members, Community Employment Advisors, Work Brokers, Case Managers and support staff. The focus groups with the Call Centre, Debt and Benefit Crime units also included a mix of managers and staff.

Categories of Feedback

Almost all staff, particularly those from the Service Delivery part of the department, were positive about the integrated service, 'one-stop-shop' model and a number made positive comments about the Chief Executive. At the same time they identified a number of issues which they felt needed to be resolved. The basic stance most people took was 'we like the new organisation but looking at these areas could improve it'.

Some staff felt more strongly about the issues they raised. In the main however, these people still thought the 'one-stop-shop' and integrated case management were better for clients.

Summary of Feedback

A number of consistent themes emerged from the Service Delivery focus groups:

• Support for integrated case management
• Workload issues
• Concern about performance measures
• Need for local flexibility
• Information technology issues
• Training requirements
• Impact of media coverage
• Culture and style

Benefit Control and Debt Unit staff were generally satisfied with their areas although several common themes emerged:

• Uncertainty about future direction
• The need for a prevention focus
• Impact of media focus and political criticism
• Impact of merger on Case Managers

Call Centres key areas of feedback were:

• Future direction and role of Call Centres
• Technology
• Relationship with front-line

Service Delivery Feedback

There was significant variation across the Service Delivery regions in how strongly people felt about the messages they were conveying. In the main, the smaller sites in smaller locations felt more strongly about continuing in the direction of integrated case management and saw the issues they raised more as opportunities to improve the service they were providing. People in the larger metropolitan areas (Christchurch and Auckland) with large Service Centres tended to feel more strongly about issues like specialisation and workload.

Support for integrated case management

Almost all the Service Delivery managers and staff involved in the focus groups were supportive of the combination of an income and work into integrated case management. Comments referred to:

• the job satisfaction case managers got from placing people in work
• the ability to view their clients holistically
• increased client satisfaction
• clients not 'falling between the cracks' the way they used to with Income Support and Employment Service
• improved job satisfaction for case managers and potential for even greater job satisfaction
• the strength of integrated case management for working on particular projects like seasonal work

Many staff felt extremely strongly about this and presented a very clear message to the review team that they did not want to 'go back'. Managers and staff both raised the issue of who would take on the 'income case manager' role if work and income functions were separated - both managers and staff felt this would be a serious issue.

A limited number of staff however, did see that separation of the work and income functions in the case manager role as a good idea. These people saw this as the solution to the issue of the breadth of the role.

Most staff raised concerns about the breadth of the Case Manager role. The major concern was the amount of knowledge they needed. Others also talked about the very different focuses of the mix of clients they worked with.

The majority of staff felt that the breadth of the role could be more effectively managed through introduction of some type of specialisation³. Most thought that a split between work-tested and non-work tested clients would reduce the amount of knowledge case managers required and allow them to focus more on the issues relating to the group they were working with. Some however, did raise concern about the logistical impacts of greater specialisation and the need for specialisation to be managed on a local basis.

Workload issues

Workloads were an issue for all Service Delivery staff we spoke to, although the strength of feeling varied. Some staff said they were working long hours and were under pressure while others emphasised that they could achieve more for their clients if they had more time.

Most Case Managers raised concerns about their caseload levels. Some Case Managers had caseloads that exceeded the recommended level of 195 clients, while others had caseloads closer to 195 but still felt that this was too many to manage effectively. Case Managers had different views of 'ideal caseload' but a general consensus emerged that about 120-150 clients would be manageable. Some staff pointed to the Compass programme as a very successful approach. They suggested that the reduced caseload and specialisation involved in Compass could be a model for wider delivery.

An issue for Case Managers was not counting partners in Case Managers' caseloads. Case Managers said that work-tested partners are individually as much work as other clients so should be counted separately as part of the caseload. Many Case Managers discussed the need for a dedicated receptionist. They felt that rostering reception (or having an increased caseload to compensate for having a dedicated receptionist) had a significant effect on their workload.

The Work Broker role was also perceived as very large. Work Brokers talked about the balance between vacancy management and 'being on the road' talking to employers. Work Brokers felt they could achieve more if they had more time. Some suggested more Work Brokers, others suggested having another position to support or manage vacancies.

Service Centre Managers acknowledged that their staff workloads were high and also felt that their own workloads impacted on their ability to successfully lead their service centres. Service Centre Managers raised administration and reporting requirements, the number of direct reports they had and the frequency of staff performance appraisals as the biggest workload issues. Service Centre Managers suggested another layer (team leaders or a second-in-charge) or an Executive Assistant, to reduce their workloads.

Staff and managers raised the concern that the overall impact of workloads was a very lean organisation with no contingency to cope with situations such as staff sick leave. They suggested having permanent relief staff who could be called on to fill in.

A common theme for Service Delivery staff was concern about the amount of administration they did, and the impact that work has on the more meaningful work they would prefer to do. Staff acknowledged that efforts were being made to reduce administration and work load through introduction of centralised processing, national claims processing, the employer line and application line. Many were very positive about these changes. Staff involved in the application line pilot said it was made a real difference, and Work Brokers commented on the effectiveness of the employer line in removing data entry work. Staff wanted to see these initiatives expanded quickly and also came up with suggestions for further centralisation, for example Child Care Subsidy administration.