maelorin | Supporting the System that Supports You

Centrelink's lack of data integrity
Iain Ferguson, ZDNet Australia
February 20, 2006

commentary
Centrelink mandarins and their government masters may be feeling a tad red-faced.
The government's mail and television campaign warning welfare recipients to report changes of circumstance has been neatly skewered by revelations an audit report found the social security agency's core customer database was riddled with errors.
An investigation by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) between April and October 2005 listed a litany of problems with the so-called Income Security Integrated System (ISIS), including:
Up to three percent of Centrelink customers "appear to have been registered more than once [on the database]";
Centrelink's failure to properly use or update ISIS' data integrity error detection and reporting system;
Keeping records of around 1.5 million deceased people on the production environment of the database, "risking the integrity of Centrelink payments";
Up to 7,000 customer records -- 3,500 pairs of records -- showed the same Tax File Number (which is meant to be exclusive to an individual) and;
Up to 30 percent of recorded details on being "insufficient or unreliable" in identifying customers.
The ANAO softened the blow slightly by giving Centrelink a pass mark overall.
"ANAO concluded that Centrelink's electronic customer records are, generally, sufficiently accurate and complete to support the effective administration of the range of social security programs for which Centrelink is responsible".
Despite the less-than-ringing overall endorsement, the report has identified glaring omissions in management of records determining how AU$60-odd billion in welfare payments are made each year.
The campaign catchphrase "Supporting the System that Supports You" rings a tad hollow when that system is clearly flawed and needs extensive work.
To Centrelink's credit, it has moved to address some of the ANAO's findings -- for example, it has established a team to develop a longer-term data quality strategy and improvement program -- but questions need to be answered about how the problems arose in the first place.
The report is a timely reminder to organisations about the need to commit to applying strict rules governing the collection, input and maintenance of data. The alternative is wastage, embarrassment and firefighting. No manager wants to be in that position.

the anao report in question being:

Integrity of Electronic Customer Records, Centrelink [Adobe PDF]
Performance Audit No. 29
Tabled: 15/02/2006

Background

... Centrelink relies on large and complex information technology (IT) systems to support its extensive business operations. The heart of Centrelink’s IT systems is ISIS — the Income Security Integrated System — Centrelink’s main customer database.

In 2004–05, Centrelink’s IT systems performed more than 5.2 billion electronic computations and processed some $63 billion of social security payments to over six million customers. Centrelink grants approximately 2.8 million new claims each year. At September 2005, the ISIS database held information on over 23 million customers — recording details of customers’ identity, circumstances and eligibility for benefits under various social security programmes. Approximately 6.2 million of the 23 million records relate to customers with a current benefit determination.

In order to distinguish between customer records, a unique identifier is assigned to each record — the Centrelink Reference Number, or CRN. The information in ISIS is organised around the CRN, which links customer information in various parts of the database. For example, the CRN links information on a customer’s circumstances and benefit determinations with that in the payments file.

Customer information is spread across eleven networked computing environments, with each environment, essentially, servicing a region, state or territory within Australia. Centrelink’s data holdings are growing at a rate of approximately 30 per cent each year, and at September 2005, the ISIS database held information in over 440 billion fields, with an average of 21 000 fields of information per customer.

the anao were not the only ones to criticise the centrelink system, nor the first.

in february 2000, the department of employment and workplace relations evaluation & program performance branch published a report on the (then) recently implemented job network; Job Network evaluation - Stage one implementation and market development

In qualitative research, the computer systems (Integrated Employment System [IES] in particular, but also the Income Security Integrated System) were criticised by Job Network members and Centrelink staff. In relation to IES, there were criticisms of data quality and system functionality. While changes have been made, users felt the system could be further improved if it was made more user-friendly and allowed for easier input and extraction of information. Work on refining the IES functionality is continuing through the Job Network Information Technology Working Group and the Systems Integration Strategic Committee.

i try to look sufficiently shocked and awed when i read reports like these. but i'm not. not really.

none of the issues i've read about over the past few years surprise me - since i've seen them and had to help people - who get paid - to use the system - so that i can get 'paid'. i've outlined (in some detail) problems i had identified with the centrelink system on at least two occasions. problems that it seems had to wait for the accountants in the anao to stumble over before anything got done.

but then, i'm only a 'client'.

just one of the 23 million getting a 'share' of the au$63 billion dollars allocated to the social security system. a large chunk of which must be going to salaries, wages, and running costs ... such as developing and maintaining the centrelink computer system ...