1 / 22

Review Briefing

Review Briefing. 14 March 2013 . The Challenge. IRS is highly regarded Good practice suggests an independent administrative solution Stakeholders value independence Legal issues and the ECHR Funding gap Short lead time for set up Small awards and tight timescales

floria
Download Presentation

Review Briefing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review Briefing 14 March 2013

  2. The Challenge IRS is highly regarded Good practice suggests an independent administrative solution Stakeholders value independence Legal issues and the ECHR Funding gap Short lead time for set up Small awards and tight timescales Need for proportional approach

  3. Review should be: transparent, fair and accessible timely, recognising circumstances of the applicant of high quality, impartial, free to use and independent of the original decision maker quick, making sound and accurate decisions effectively communicated proportionate and cost effective.

  4. Process Overview

  5. Stages Initial decision – full consideration of case. First tier review – full consideration of case. Different decision maker. Second tier review – impartial (independent) test for error and fairness.

  6. Grounds for Review - 1st and 2nd Tier Disagree with decision on eligibilityeg Whether on qualifying benefit Whether repeat application appropriate Disagree with priority level Disagree with support provided eg Award too low Item/ supervised spend instead of cash Not enough information gathered Disagree about evidence used

  7. Applications For Review Time limit to apply – 20 working days from original decision Should apply in writing explain reason give date of decision include an explanation if there has been a change of circumstances since the application signed by applicant (or consent for other to act)

  8. Processing Times First Tier Review As for initial application: Crisis Grants – As soon as possible – Max 2 days Community Care Grants – 15 Working Days from request Second Tier Review Longer lead times: Crisis Grants – As soon as possible – Max 5 days Community Care Grants – 30 working days from request

  9. Objectives of Second Tier Review ensure correct decisions are being made identify whether guidance is being consistently applied and feed back identify where guidance is having unintended consequences give confidence to the applicant that the Scottish Welfare Fund is subject to impartial scrutiny and add credibility to the Fund as a whole.

  10. Process for Second Tier Review Administrative review based on paperwork CG – 1 member, CCG – 2 or more For fairness, neither applicant nor DM team takes part (except in secretariat function) Panel chooses chair - responsible for meeting process and record, signs letter, has casting vote. Panel can contact DM or applicant for more information.

  11. Role of the Panel Member Attend in person or by electronic means Undertake the review according to guidance and LA policies Test that a fair and transparent decision has been made. Is it reasonable? Is it right on the merits of the case? Feed back to decision makers on quality of decisions made Feed in to local and national policy review and quality improvement activity.

  12. Questions for Panel Members: Has the decision maker applied the guidance and any local policies appropriately? Did the decision maker follow the processes set out for considering an application? Did the decision maker take all relevant information in to account? Did the decision maker take anything in to account that he/she should not have done i.e. was there any bias in the decision? Has the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to put their case, for example to provide written evidence or explain the background of their case to a decision maker? Did the decision maker exercise his or her discretion and make an informed judgement about the case on its own merits? Is there is sufficient evidence to support the decision? Is the decision reasonable? By this we mean that it should be within the range of outcomes that a reasonable decision maker would arrive at based on the same evidence. This may not necessarily be the same decision that the panel would have made as long as they consider it to have been reasonable in their judgement.* Was the applicant informed of the reasons why his or her application and the first tier review were unsuccessful?

  13. Role of the Scottish Government Working with LAs to improve consistency in decision making using: Reports on review – nos and reasons. Discussions with decision makers and review officers. Sampling of paperwork for reviews. Development of the Decision Makers Guide and relevant case studies.

  14. Questions?

  15. Minimising the number of Reviews What can be done? What can be done?

  16. Why do applicants ask for Reviews? Before we can identify ways of minimising the number of Reviews received we need to understand what might generate/drive Review requests. • Inexperienced Decision Makers or Review Officers – making inconsistent, or wrong decisions • Poor or minimal explanations of decision made by letter or by telephone • Perception of poor customer service by applicant - lack of confidence in DMs due to feeling disrespected or not listened to during conversations • Applicants objecting to the method of award • Applicants or their representatives who don’t understand the SWF & confuse it with the old DWP Social Fund • Applicants who understand the SWF but wish to ‘push the envelope’ to test the new scheme

  17. Review ‘Drivers’ The ‘drivers’ that generate Reviews generally fall within one or either of two categories. Those that the Decision Makers, Telephony Operators or LAs have: Directly Influenced Through their words or actions Indirectly Influenced Through the level of information provided to/for the applicant or their representative(s), who are subsequently applying their own interpretation

  18. What can be done? The means by which LAs can help minimise the number of Reviews received also falls within these same two categories: Direct Influence Through the training and development of DMs & ROs Indirect Influence Through improving the knowledge and expectation levels of applicants and their representatives For both categories there are steps that can be taken to help minimise the number of Reviews received

  19. Direct Influence Decision Making Standard training package & supplementary products to support DMs & Ros Use Inquisitorial Role Don’t make assumptions Contradictory Evidence Within decision letter, give as full an explanation of the decision as is practicable Comments raised within Review or Complaint letters Errors identified at Review stage Call Handling Telephony skills training Prepare the customer Give customers clear explanations of the decisions on their claim Use reflective listening skills

  20. Indirect Influence Publicity/availability of information Managing Expectations ‘Word on the street’

  21. Anything Else? LAsmay wish to consider introducing: Decision Quality Monitoring Call Quality Monitoring Scottish Government Through recommendations for a quality improvement function and monitoring processes, will continue to consider what else might be necessary/useful to ensure that there is a stable footing on which to base the Permanent scheme from 2015

More Related