High Needs Case Management Pilot
Dear Department of Veterans' Affairs,
The Dunt Report highlighted that High Needs Case Management Pilot established initially to process MRCA claims in Sydney by Veterans Affairs, where case officers had delegate powers (unlike the current CCS model currently used by Veterans Affairs), proved successful in reducing incidents of distress and self harm among clients, but was discontinued by Veterans Affairs.
As a majority of veterans complain about Veterans Affairs siloed and disjointed One DVA model, where cases criss-cross the country in their progression of their claims by supposedly specialised areas, instead of a more personal one on one case manager approach as was used in the pilot program it would be useful for our submission to the Royal Commission to look at why Veterans Affairs discontinued such a successful program.
I'd therefore like to get copy of the documents that decide to discontinue that High Needs Case Management Pilot that state the reasons why it was shuttered, in lieu of less effective and more unpopular arrangements, as it doesn't make sense why a more inefficient and ineffective arrangement was preferred by Veterans' Affairs instead.
For background the Dunt report described the program as follows:
The High Needs Case Management Pilot (HNCMP) program operated in 2007 as an initiative of the DVA Sydney Office. It involved only that group of the DVA administering the MRCA scheme (that is to say it operating one of the three Acts). Unlike the CLU, staff members did have delegation powers. Three case managers each took on a caseload of 40 clients with multiple needs, as their single point of contact with DVA. These case managers were very suitable, as they had both DVA assessor background and health care provider experience.
An internal evaluation of the HNCMP was conducted based on Before (32 clients) and After (37 clients) surveys of the client group. It indicated that:
• A good or excellent rating of satisfaction with the level of service of the MRC group increased from 31% to 51%;
• An excellent rating of experience with staff increased by 30%;
• A satisfactory or easy rating for accessing information increased from 59.5% to
92%;
• Overall clients’ awareness of services had increased;
• Nearly half of the clients indicated that their level of service had increased;
• Many clients still felt that their claims were not dealt with in a timely way;
• 72% of respondents had only one case manager;
• The level of complaints against MRCA group in the NSW branch of DVA
reduced from 27 to 13 per month.
While the Dunt report mentions that this successful program was shuttered by Veterans Affairs in 2008 on the sole ground that there were 'concerns about the impact on staff of working' in a direct case manager role approach, this seems strangely illogical given the success of the program and its impact on the Department's clients, that in turn reduced the load on the agency as a whole.
This is especially since the alternate proposal adopted that 'it was proposed that all staff manage all clients according to their needs' has been shown to be wholly ineffective, given those empowered to make decisions are kept quarantined from client engagement.
So there must be something more than just this empty claim as to why a successful program was binned.
Ciao,
Julie
Dear Julie
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (the department) has received your request for access to information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). I note you have requested access to the following:
Your request was received by the department on 18 March 2022 and the 30 day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. The period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties or for other reasons permitted under the FOI Act. We will advise you if this happens.
The Dunt Report highlighted that High Needs Case Management Pilot established initially to process MRCA claims in Sydney by Veterans Affairs, where case officers had delegate powers (unlike the current CCS model currently used by Veterans Affairs), proved successful in reducing incidents of distress and self harm among clients, but was discontinued by Veterans Affairs.
As a majority of veterans complain about Veterans Affairs siloed and disjointed One DVA model, where cases criss-cross the country in their progression of their claims by supposedly specialised areas, instead of a more personal one on one case manager approach as was used in the pilot program it would be useful for our submission to the Royal Commission to look at why Veterans Affairs discontinued such a successful program.
I'd therefore like to get copy of the documents that decide to discontinue that High Needs Case Management Pilot that state the reasons why it was shuttered, in lieu of less effective and more unpopular arrangements, as it doesn't make sense why a more inefficient and ineffective arrangement was preferred by Veterans' Affairs instead.
Your address
The FOI Act requires that you provide us with an address that we can send notices to. You have advised your electronic address is [FOI #8623 email] . Unless you tell us otherwise, we will send all notices and correspondence to this address.
Disclosure log
Information released under the FOI Act may be published on a disclosure log on our website, subject to certain exceptions. These exceptions include where publication of personal, business, professional or commercial information would be unreasonable.
Exclusion of employee details
To the extent the department has documents in its possession that fall within the scope of your request, we intend to treat the surnames, signatures, position titles and direct contact details of Commonwealth employees and contractors, including clinical staff working for Open Arms – Veterans & Families Counselling as irrelevant in accordance with section 22 of the FOI Act. If you agree to the department treating these details as irrelevant, please advise by 30 March 2022.
Further assistance
If you have any questions about your request, please email [DVA request email]
Yours sincerely
Natalie (Position number 62214719)
Team Leader – Registrations
Information Access Unit
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
t 1800 838 372 | e [DVA request email] | www.dva.gov.au
p GPO Box 9998, Canberra ACT 2601
Please consider the environment before printing this email
IMPORTANT: This document contains legal advice and may be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless it is waived or lost, legal professional privilege is a rule of law that, in part, provides that the client need not disclose confidential communications between a legal practitioner and client. To keep this privilege, the purpose and content of this advice must only be disclosed to persons who have a need to know and on the basis that those persons also keep it confidential.
You should consider this advice and take it into account when forming a decision on how best to proceed. If you decide to adopt a position that does not align with this advice, you should not state that DVA Legal Services & Audit Branch has cleared or endorsed a particular position.
Dear INFORMATION.ACCESS,
I do not agree to the exclusion of the names or position titles of Commonwealth employees and contractors as irrelevant to the scope of this FOI.
Yours sincerely,
Julie
Dear Julie,
Freedom of Information Request: LEX 48671
I refer to your request, received by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
(the department) on 18 March 2022, for access under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to the following:
The Dunt Report highlighted that High Needs Case Management Pilot
established initially to process MRCA claims in Sydney by Veterans
Affairs, where case officers had delegate powers (unlike the current CCS
model currently used by Veterans Affairs), proved successful in reducing
incidents of distress and self harm among clients, but was discontinued by
Veterans Affairs.
As a majority of veterans complain about Veterans Affairs siloed and
disjointed One DVA model, where cases criss-cross the country in their
progression of their claims by supposedly specialised areas, instead of a
more personal one on one case manager approach as was used in the pilot
program it would be useful for our submission to the Royal Commission to
look at why Veterans Affairs discontinued such a successful program.
I'd therefore like to get copy of the documents that decide to discontinue
that High Needs Case Management Pilot that state the reasons why it was
shuttered, in lieu of less effective and more unpopular arrangements, as
it doesn't make sense why a more inefficient and ineffective arrangement
was preferred by Veterans' Affairs instead.
For background the Dunt report described the program as follows:
The High Needs Case Management Pilot (HNCMP) program operated in 2007 as
an initiative of the DVA Sydney Office. It involved only that group of the
DVA administering the MRCA scheme (that is to say it operating one of the
three Acts). Unlike the CLU, staff members did have delegation powers.
Three case managers each took on a caseload of 40 clients with multiple
needs, as their single point of contact with DVA. These case managers were
very suitable, as they had both DVA assessor background and health care
provider experience.
An internal evaluation of the HNCMP was conducted based on Before (32
clients) and After (37 clients) surveys of the client group. It indicated
that:
• A good or excellent rating of satisfaction with the level of service of
the MRC group increased from 31% to 51%;
• An excellent rating of experience with staff increased by 30%;
• A satisfactory or easy rating for accessing information increased from
59.5% to
92%;
• Overall clients’ awareness of services had increased;
• Nearly half of the clients indicated that their level of service had
increased;
• Many clients still felt that their claims were not dealt with in a
timely way;
• 72% of respondents had only one case manager;
• The level of complaints against MRCA group in the NSW branch of DVA
reduced from 27 to 13 per month.
While the Dunt report mentions that this successful program was shuttered
by Veterans Affairs in 2008 on the sole ground that there were 'concerns
about the impact on staff of working' in a direct case manager role
approach, this seems strangely illogical given the success of the program
and its impact on the Department's clients, that in turn reduced the load
on the agency as a whole.
This is especially since the alternate proposal adopted that 'it was
proposed that all staff manage all clients according to their needs' has
been shown to be wholly ineffective, given those empowered to make
decisions are kept quarantined from client engagement.
So there must be something more than just this empty claim as to why a
successful program was binned.
In accordance with section 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act, the due date for a
decision on your request is 18 April 2022.
Extension of Time under section 15AA FOI Act
The department considers that requires an additional 14 days to undertake
further searches to identify relevant documents falling within the scope
of your request. We are seeking your agreement to grant the department an
additional 14 days to issue you with a decision on this FOI matter. If
agreed, the extended decision date would be 2 May 2022 in accordance with
section 15AA of the FOI Act.
Please let us know by 5pm Wednesday, 13 April 2022 whether you agree to
this extension of time of request.
If we do not receive a response from you, we may apply to the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) for an extension of time
under section 15AB of the FOI Act, on the basis that the request is
complex and voluminous.
Kind regards,
Sara (Position Number 62214764)
Information Access Officer
Information Access Unit
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
e [1][email address]
[2]cid:image001.png@01D0027A.1DAB84F0
DVA is committed to suporting veterans and their families.
We all deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect.
We ask that you treat us the same way.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Good afternoon Julie,
Please find attached our decision regarding LEX 48671.
Kind regards,
Sara (Position Number 62214764)
Information Access Officer
Information Access Unit
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
e [1][email address]
[2]cid:image001.png@01D0027A.1DAB84F0
DVA is committed to suporting veterans and their families.
We all deserve to be treated with courtesy and respect.
We ask that you treat us the same way.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
Dear Applicant and FOI Contact Officer,
Please see attached decision regarding the Department of Veterans’ Affairs
application for an extension of time to process FOI request LEX 48671.
Kind regards,
[1][IMG] Eoin McMahon | Review Adviser
Investigations and Compliance
Freedom of Information
Regulatory Group
Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001 |
[2]oaic.gov.au
+61 2 9284 9716 |
[3][email address]
[7]Subscribe [8]Subscribe to
[4]Facebook | [5]LinkedIn | [6]Twitter | icon Information
Matters
References
Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. https://www.oaic.gov.au/updates/sign-up/
Dear Eoin McMahon,
Can you provide Veterans Affairs s 15AB application, as I may want to seek correction given I am tired of Veterans making false claims without the OAIC ever challenging them. Seems it is up to me to do so.
Ciao
Julie
Dear Eoin McMahon,
Following up on my earlier request, which has received no response from you.
Ciao,
Julie
Dear Julie,
Thank you for your emails of Tuesday 3 May 2022 and Monday 9 May 2022.
I apologise for the delay in responding to you. I have been away from work due to illness.
I will provide you with a copy of the extension of time application form in respect of this matter on 12 May 2022.
Kind regards,
Eoin McMahon | Review Adviser
Investigations and Compliance
Freedom of Information Regulatory Group
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001 | oaic.gov.au
+61 2 9284 9716 | [email address]
|
|
|
Subscribe to Information Matters
Dear Julie,
Please find attached a copy of the Department of Veterans' Affairs application form as requested.
Kind regards,
Eoin McMahon | Review Adviser
Investigations and Compliance
Freedom of Information Regulatory Group
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001 | oaic.gov.au
+61 2 9284 9716 | [email address]
|
|
|
Subscribe to Information Matters
Dear Eoin McMahon,
On 14 April 2022, the Department of Veterans' Affairs (the Department) applied for further time to make a decision on my FOI request of 18 March 2022 to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner under s 15AB of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (the FOI Act).
That application was registered by the OAIC as RQ22/01382 and was decided by you.
Despite the OAIC and yourself being aware that Veterans Affairs has a history of not abiding by the terms of such extensions and/or basing such applications on grounds that later prove untrue, you decided 'I am satisfied that the Department’s application for an extension of time is justified', approving extension to today (6 June).
Yet Veterans Affairs issued a decision on 26 April (before you gave your extension decision), refusing access, showing that not only was that the intent of Veterans at the time of applying to the OAIC, but that Veterans did not reasonably require an extension of time for any of the grounds it claimed in its application.
Ciao
Julie