The primary method DWS used to cut costs has been staffing reductions achieved through attrition. The state legislature mandated staffing reductions in 2010 amid public discussions of privatizing the department’s functions. DWS sought to preempt such a move achieving staffing reductions beyond the level required by the legislature. According to DWS management, the department reduced its staff by 10 percent from November 2010 to October 2011.
DWS reduced the number of eligibility staff by 20 percent from July 2009 to December 2011, even as caseloads in the state increased about 30 percent (Figure V.21). Department managers reported that increased efficiency gained from administrative restructuring and increased automation made the staffing reduction possible. One manager noted that eligibility staff were able to maintain service levels for clients even as staffing levels declined in part due to increased efficiency provided by the Full Kit work prioritization system.
Figure V.21. Eligibility Staffing Levels and Cases per Eligibility Worker, 2009–2011, Utah
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Utah DWS.
Note: Cases per full-time equivalent (FTE) account only for SNAP cases and do not reflect the other programs processed by eligibility workers in Utah.
b. Staff Satisfaction
DWS staff reported a wide range of reactions to Utah’s modernization initiatives. Staff reactions were mixed about some of the new technologies and the call center model. In general, most staff agreed that the changes were necessary to handle caseload increases.
Many eligibility workers reported that eRep and eFind have made them more efficient and accurate. Staff members reported that the upgraded eligibility system, eRep, was a substantial improvement over its predecessor, PACMIS. They said it improved accuracy because it does not allow eligibility workers to take shortcuts; every piece of evidence must be entered. One supervisor remarked that eRep helped her staff think about cases more comprehensively than the previous
0 40 80 120 160 200
500 600 700 800 900 1,000
Cases per Worker
Number of Eligibility Workers
Month
Eligibility workers (FTEs) Cases per Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
system did. Eligibility workers also reported that, especially with the Full Kit work prioritization feature added in 2011, the system enables workers to be more efficient. Staff reported that eRep’s Windows-based interface was more intuitive than the legacy code-based PACMIS system. Similarly, eligibility staff reported that the eFind data verification system shortened eligibility interviews substantially. It reduced the number of questions and enabled workers to identify possible fraud more easily.
Some eligibility workers reported that switching to eRep complicated their jobs. Some staff who had used the old system for many years were very comfortable with it and did not enjoy having to learn a new system. This feeling might have been more common in offices with lower staff turnover rates. Some workers also noted that eRep occasionally provided incorrect determinations. They said that the system requires many informal work-around adjustments to function properly. They expressed some frustration that the system did not always function as intended.
Employment center staff we spoke with approved of the online resources available to clients.
Staff members who show clients how to use the online application and myCase interface reported that the systems were intuitive and helpful to clients. Employment counselors appreciated the independence web resources give clients. One remarked that she enjoys seeing clients come to the office just to check the case status on the computer without requiring any staff assistance.
Staff reported mixed opinions on the new administrative structure and call center model.
Switching to the call center model caused a significant change in the job descriptions for eligibility workers. One call center manager remarked that not all good eligibility workers are good call center operators. Many eligibility workers indicated that they preferred making eligibility determinations to taking client calls. Some staff found client calls stressful, particularly when clients are upset from being on hold for a long time. On the other hand, eligibility workers in the former Central and North regions appreciated the new statewide structure because it evened out caseloads across the state and reduced the increasingly unmanageable workload they experienced before the transition.
Whether staff members liked or disliked the new model, many acknowledged that it was necessary to cope with increased caseloads in the state. As one employment center supervisor put it,
“If we had to do business the old way, we would have bankrupted the state.”
A common reaction among staff to how the major changes were implemented in Utah was that the changes happened too quickly and too frequently. In particular, eligibility staff complained that transitioning to ESD almost immediately after rolling out the eRep eligibility system was overwhelming to eligibility staff. Senior managers acknowledged this point of view and reported that they had since deliberately slowed the pace of change to reduce staff stress.
C. Lessons Learned
• Technology can improve worker efficiency. Increasing use of technology is central to Utah’s modernization process. In particular, the increasing level of automation in the eRep eligibility system appears to enable eligibility workers to process applications faster.
The eRep system auto-populates select fields from the online application. It also pulls data from some of the 21 federal and state databases linked through the eFind data verification system. These types of technological innovations have allowed a smaller eligibility staff to process increasing numbers of applications with no sustained increase in average processing time.
• Implementing multiple substantial changes simultaneously can result in high staff stress levels and can affect performance. Staff from the front lines to executive levels reported that reorganizing the entire department’s administrative structure while transitioning to a new automated eligibility system simultaneously caused unnecessarily high levels of stress for staff. The major spike in application processing time in 2010 might have been driven by eligibility staff members trying to adjust to these two changes.
Giving staff members time to adjust to one major change before introducing another can reduce staff burden and could be less likely to harm performance.
• The sequence of changes matters. DWS leadership attributed much of the success of the changes in Utah to the fact that they were part of a strategically planned sequence. In particular, leadership reported that implementing document imaging and electronic case records was a necessary precursor for transitioning to a call center model and for centralizing eligibility operations.
• Consistent goals and political support can reinforce long-term strategic planning.
The consistent direction from the Utah state legislature to improve efficiency enabled DWS to make long-range plans. Consistent political support for flexibility in how to reform SNAP administration helped DWS plan its modernization process strategically, putting in place the technologic foundation necessary to implement its long-term vision of a statewide virtual call center.
• Work-sharing and individual accountability can coexist. Utah’s staffing model enables increased efficiency through work-sharing while preserving individual accountability for accuracy and timeliness. Like many other states, in Utah time-sensitive tasks (such as incoming client calls) are handled by the first available eligibility worker.
However, Utah preserved individual caseloads, so that all follow-up and non-time-sensitive work on a case is handled by the eligibility worker who owns the case.
Moreover, work-sharing is restricted to staff within teams of 16 or 17 workers, often collocated. This reduces confusion and miscommunication: since team members work together every day, if they have questions on an action taken, they can easily discuss it with the worker who made the change.