Modern Ways to Work With Customers
Gary Glickman, Accenture
Dawn Myers, Oregon Dept of Human Services
Leslie Henderson, Utah Dept of Workplace Services
Howard Hendrick, Accenture
Six Sigma - 7 types of waste in organizations
Is face-to-face interviews requirement in SNAP necessary? National policy question currently. FNS recently allowed opportunity to Oregon and Utah to evaluate the impact and value of face-to-face interview. Results of pilots are now being analyzed.
Leslie - PowerPoint: Utah's Modern Process
Workers are housed in call centers, offices and telecommute. QC is paperless.
Call centers have VRU with 24 hr service. Can also utilize callback feature.
Utah asked for flexibility to make decision when interview is required. Pilot in involved 20% of caseload. TANF required client compliance with specific interviews.
SNAP expedite rose by 2.7% denials and closures did not increase. Challenges for workers were incomplete applications and being unable to clarify circumstances.
No major findings in study. Plans to apply for permanent waiver.
Dawn - PowerPoint: No Interview Waiver
Sept '12 through Nov '13
20% of caseload in 5 counties with 250 QC reviews pre and post implementation.
65% same day processing currently.
Challenges included change management, data collection, EBT cards, communication with clients, incomplete applications, specific populations - students and mandatory adults.
Utah has very old eligibility system and was limiting in extraction of data necessary to track results. EBT cards were not mailed prior to pilot. Now has mail issuance process.
Successes: customers were pleased with process, eliminated time associated with no shows, no increase in denials, processing centers, improved efficiencies, recertifications, staff, accuracy improved through process. Staff knew areas of concern and could contact when there were discrepancies.
Howard - How is evidence used in policy decisions? There is reluctance to make major process decisions. In general, States need more flexibility in making interview processing decisions.
Systems were required to remain static during test period (no policy or system changes were allowed) Participating States had to maintain lots of extra data.
Q: Where error prone areas identified? A: Not identified just issues with TANF program individuals. Due to randomization requirement for participating applications, they could not "profile" cases selected.
Q: What about rights and responsibilities? A: Provided in writing. (Discussion about effectiveness of explanations in writing and need to have discussions with clients about responsibilities and program rules.)
Q: Changes in accuracy rate? A: Dawn: 250 cases or close to 300, reduction in errors - EWs were focused and knew when to ask clients for clarifications. Leslie - in Utah, saw improvement in timeliness. EWs would ask 3rd parties directly.
Q: with technology advances, is this a first step in modernizing SNAP application process? A: Dawn - can process cases more efficiently. 40% of clients apply on-line with no interface functions (has to be keyed into system) Leslie - In Utah, applications do interface and some interfaces are auto populated into system. WorkNumber is not presently.
Q: Is there consideration for elimination of QC face-to-face interviews? A: FNS - allow telephone interviews and video interviews.
No comments:
Post a Comment