These guidelines together provide a service quality model that applies to all branches of social security. From a service quality perspective there are no material differences between the branches. The service quality model and the associated maturity model have universal application irrespective of programme type. The maturity model is designed to ensure the guidelines offer value to all organizations, irrespective of the stage they are at in developing service quality.

Seven guidelines make up the service quality model:

Service quality in social security refers to the qualitative aspects of the benefits and services a social security institution provides to its members, beneficiaries and allied organizations (e.g. citizens, members, employers, service providers, social partners). It demonstrates how responsive a social security institution is to the multi-dimensional service requirements of its members and beneficiaries, given the institution’s human, financial and ICT resources, and available support from its partners (i.e. allied organizations).

The ISSA Guidelines on Service Quality aims to assist social security institutions to improve service performance. In this context, service performance is the creation of value for members, beneficiaries and allied organizations (e.g. citizens, members, employers, service providers, social partners) from a social security institution’s day-to-day actions and business processes.

These guidelines are designed to:

This set of guidelines has been developed to assist social security institutions further develop and improve service performance.

The ISSA Guidelines for Social Security Administration were prepared by the ISSA General Secretariat with the ISSA technical commissions.

The return-to-work programme is independently audited using an accredited audit tool that provides ratings and recommendations for improvement. Independent auditing is financially supported as it brings value to the return-to-work programme.

The return-to-work programme takes an individual approach that focuses on the needs of the person concerned and monitors the effectiveness of its outcomes on them.

Assessing programme effectiveness requires assessment of individual outcomes, success rates and impact on the person concerned. This in turn requires an initial individual needs assessment, a person-centred action plan with performance indicators and a final assessment of the outcome(s) for the person concerned.

There is evidence that the return-to-work programme has the right structure, processes, information and technology, and involves the appropriate professionals and partners, to enable it to respond to changing individual and environmental factors.

Monitoring and evaluation enables the institution to capitalize on opportunities to intervene, reduce risks, increase efficiencies and ensure the person’s return to work.

A strategy for assessing the impact and effectiveness of the return-to-work programme’s structure, policy, processes, and individual and programme outcomes is established in collaboration with partners and stakeholders, including the person concerned.

Monitoring refers to the process of observing results; evaluation refers to the assessment of progress towards reaching specific objectives. To ensure success, it is necessary to establish a system for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the return-to-work programme which addresses its structure, processes and outcomes. This includes both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the programme and its processes, and of individual and programme outcomes both inside and outside the social security institution.