The CAPAM 2006 Biennial Conference

Rising to the Challenge: Enhancing Public Sector Capability

Sydney, Australia October 21 to 25, 2006

Delivering Better Service to Citizens Addressing Citizens Complaints Effectively: What? How? Why?

Brian Brewer PhD

Department of Public and Social Administration City University of Hong Kong Tat Chee Avenue Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR Tel: (852) 2788-8919 E-mail: sabrian@cityu.edu.hk

Introduction This paper discusses what different citizens complaints systems exist, how they can be designed and enabled to operate most effectively, and why they are important in ensuring accountability and fulfilling the good governance agenda of delivering better public services. Citizens complaints is a term often used to refer to objections raised about poor treatment, mistakes, faults or injustices in dealings with public officials, whereas the term citizen redress denotes the administrative mechanisms through which individuals may seek remedies. In practice, the distinctions are not self-evident. An individual seeking redress through an administrative body such as the ombudsman is making a complaint. 1 Therefore, in this discussion complaint-handling and redress are seen to be closely linked concepts that focus on, what citizens can do to put right those things that have gone wrong with public services 2 The following discussion assumes that systemic pattern theory with its emphasis on organizational polices, processes and outcomes has greater validity than organizational aberration theory, which holds complaints to be a product of specific problems to be addressed without systemic modifications. In addition, the
1 2

I. Scott (2005); NAO (National Audit Office) (UK) (2005). NAO (UK) (2005). 1

discussion assumes it is useful, and indeed important, to draw lessons from across different political jurisdictions, while avoiding the danger of learning from experiences which are not easily transferable 3 Each countrys unique historical, cultural, social, economic and political environment should be considered carefully before drawing any conclusions about the best way forward. Complaints Handling Mechanisms What mechanisms have been developed in the public sector for responding to grievances and providing redress? The offices of the most senior executives / officials within the political system, such as the Prime Minister, President or chief ministers normally receive complaints and petitions, which they may address directly or pass to public servants to investigate and follow-up. Similarly at the local / municipal / district level elected representatives may handle complaints, grievances and suggestions through a roster system or as a part of their representative duties. Government departments frequently have established complaint handling individuals or units, supplemented by internal appeal processes staffed by more senior officials. Statutory bodies, such as equal opportunity agencies, which have been established to promote fairness, fight discrimination, or provide enhanced

P.K. Falconer and K. Ross (1999). 2

opportunities also manage complaints relating to such matters. Probably the best known independent citizen complaint-handling authority is the Ombudsman, whose office has the power to investigate grievances and often to initiate direct investigations into administrative actions without any complaint being received. New Zealand first established the office in 1962 and it became a precedent for many other Commonwealth countries, though in some jurisdictions the Ombudsmans functions are carried out under a different name. For example, in South Africa the Public Protector receives and investigates complaints against government agencies or officials, has the power to recommend corrective action and to issue reports. Appeals boards and tribunals may be established under various

administrative directives or pieces of legislation to hear complaints not resolved satisfactorily by public organizations. They often hear appeals against decisions on potentially contentious issues such as income security or immigration. Judicial channels provide for applications by aggrieved parties to a court of law for adjudication on disputes or for judicial review of an administrative decision. A judicial review, unlike an ordinary appeal, is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the merits of a particular administrative decision. The courts in
3

their discretion will not normally make judicial review available where there is an alternative remedy by way of appeal. Effective Redress Systems How can complaints and appeals systems be designed and enabled to operate most effectively? Proactive Rather Than Reactive Since the early 1990s increased stress has been put on the need for public organizations to be more pro-active in resolving complaints and appeals at an early stage. The 1991 Citizens Charter in the UK promised better redress for the citizen when things go wrong. 4 In India ministries/departments are directed to respond in a timely manner to any grievance directed against them in the newspapers and to reply after investigation. 5 Ombudsmen are often given the power to conduct investigations into matters of public concern about which maladministration has been alleged even if a specific complaint has not been raised. Hong Kongs Ombudsman conducted, over a nine year period beginning in 1994, 41 direct investigations covering such matters as relief in public housing, the dispensary service in the Department of

4 5

National Audit Office (UK) (2005). Government of India, http://darpg.nic.in (2006). 4

Health, and the regulation and inspection of kindergartens. 6 Transparent but Confidential Confidence in the fair operation of a complaints-handling system is vital for its long-term viability. In the words of the UKs National Audit Office report on citizen redress: Of course, redress mechanism may not find in favour of the citizens making complaints or bringing appeals. Indeed, in a well-run administrative system the large majority of cases investigated should provide people with assurance that they have been fairly and properly treated or that a disputed decision has been correctly made under the relevant rules. 7 Just as reporting arrangements should enhance confidence about systemic fairness, legitimate due process requires a balanced consideration of all points-of-view. Any authority, organizational unit or individual complained against must be given an opportunity to comment on the allegations contained in the complaint. When, after considering a complaint or an appeal, it is determined an investigation will not be undertaken then a statement of reasons for that decision should be sent to all stakeholders. Similarly clear reasons should be given for all conclusions, and citizens should be able to obtain some indication of progress as their case proceeds.
6 7

I. Scott (2005) p.355 NAO (UK) (2005) Executive Summary p. 7. 5

In the matter of complaints-handling and appeals it is important to remember the average citizen is usually disadvantaged. The public servant against whom a complaint has been lodged is likely to enjoy the advantages of superior status, access to information and a far more detailed understanding of policy and procedures. Therefore, positive discrimination initiatives that favour citizens tend to contribute to a more fairly balanced system. Citizens must be able to make complaints confidentially with their privacy protected. They must be confident they will not suffer retaliation, particularly when complaints are related to corrupt practices 8 Just how challenging it can be to maintain confidentiality was highlighted recently in Hong Kong when, in early March 2006, a web surfer found that the personal particulars (including names, addresses, identity card numbers and even the criminal records) of 20,000 people who had filed complaints against the police between 1996 and 2004 had been mysteriously posted to the internet. 9 The names of the police officers against whom complaints had been made were also available. Preliminary investigations found that the data base had been under the management of a subcontractor of

Government of India, http://www.darpg.nic.in (2006); One World Trust

http://www.oneworldtrust.org (2006); Office of the Ombudsman (Hong Kong) (1998).

9

South China Morning Post (various editions in March / April 2006). 6

an information technology contractor employed to maintain it. Amid widespread public concern investigations into the matter are continuing. Consolidate and Integrate Complaints-handling and redress agencies, units, mechanisms and procedures may have developed in an ad hoc manner in response to political agendas or as an outgrowth of service-enhancement administrative reforms. Consolidation can be useful as in 2002 when the Scottish Executive established a one-stop shop service, headed by the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman to deal with complaints formerly dealt with by the Scottish Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Scottish Health Service Ombudsman, the Scottish Local Government Ombudsman and the Housing Association Ombudsman for Scotland.
10

As well, standardized complaint-handling practices facilitate

inter-agency co-operation and simplify the system for citizens. Comprehensive Rather Than Piecemeal A strategy to identify systematically areas and issues that regularly contribute to high numbers of complaints can help public agencies to focus on the modification of those policies and procedures likely to result in the greatest

10

Scottish Executive, http://scotland.gov.uk (2006). 7

service delivery improvements. Data about the subjects of the complaints can then be used to handle them more expeditiously within an improved general framework rather than on an often repetitive case by case basis. 11 Accessible to All As explained in the National Audit Offices (UK) report, The main problems identified by respondents are finding whom to talk to in the first place, getting through by phone, the difficulties of writing in and the impersonality and large size of government organizations. 12 For a complaints-handling system to be effective, it must be conspicuous to members of the public, easily accessible and simple to invoke and operate. 13 It should also take account of the needs of different social groups and, even in a world in which computer literacy is increasing rapidly, it should definitely not assume that citizens have access to the internet. The public sector must not introduce indirect discrimination by an over-reliance on information and communications technology as a means of delivering services 14 A 2003-04 study of views on the public services throughout Northern

11 12 13 14

B. Tonn (1996); E. S. Al-Rubaian (2000); Government of India. NAO (UK) (2005). Office of the Ombudsman (Hong Kong) (1998). NAO (UK) (2005); Northern Ireland Executive, http://www.rpani.gov.uk (2005) 8

Ireland 15 found the general public and public sector staff both perceived that face-to-face communication with customers was best, particularly in situations of dispute / complaint. Speaking with someone in the service area concerned was regarded as far superior to trying to talk to someone in a call centre (perceived to have little or no knowledge of the service area), leaving messages on answering machines / voice mail or choosing between a variety of touch tone options. Workload Management Administrative strategies can be used to highlight the significance of complaints handling processes. In India the central governments Secretariat Offices are to observe Wednesday as a meeting-less day when all officers above a specified level should be available at their desks from 10:00 am to 13:00 pm to receive and hear public grievances. Field level offices that have direct contact with the public are to declare one day in the week as a meeting-less day. 16 Accessibility, offering speedy action on cases and a commitment to resolve cases within a predetermined time limit, characterize a well-managed complaints handling system

15

Northern Ireland Executive (2005). Government of India, http://darpg.nic.in (2006). 9

16

Delivering Better Services to Citizens Why are effective grievance-handling and redress systems vital to fulfilling the good governance agenda of delivering better services to citizens? A basic reason for ensuring the effective administration of complaints is to save money and use public resources cost effectively. Data published in 2005 by the UKs NAO (National Audit Office) revealed complaints to cost an average of 155 per new case and appeals cases to cost an average of 455 per new case. When independent complaints handlers or ombudsmen were involved then costs were around 1,500 to 2,000. The NAOs report concluded that: Cutting down the initial number of complaints or appeals, resolving more complaints and appeals, resolving more complaints and appeals more speedily and pro-actively, and improving the cost efficiency of current redress arrangements, could all make appreciable savings in public money, savings which could then cumulate with every passing year. 17 As important as efficiency considerations are, the need for

accountability is probably the most critically significant reason why well-designed and well-managed complaints and redress systems

contribute to better public services. 18 Public accountability means the account giving is open or at least accessible to citizens. It is characterized

17 18

NAO (UK) (2005) p. 11. One World Trust. http://www.oneworldtrust.org (2006). 10

as having become an icon of good governance. 19 Making public servants accountable is a way of maintaining confidence and trust in institutional integrity.
20

If some act of maladministration occurs,

those responsible will be held accountable for their actions by means of a fair determination of whether there has been a mistake, and when it has that a suitable remedy will be prescribed. Trust is built on the confidence citizens have about the fair operation of the public services, in addition to their perceived satisfaction with the quality of the services and the behaviour and attitude of public servants. This results in a virtuous circle. When citizens perceive positively the public service this helps to maintain a crucial sense of pride amongst public employees which, in turn, influences their motivation and commitment. Thus, it has been argued 21 that in the public service, pride and performance are mutually interdependent. Extra-parliamentary accountability institutions such as administrative appeals tribunals and Ombudsmen enhance the accountability of government and bolster the legitimacy of the political system. 22 When there is an institutionalized
19 20 21 22

M. Bovins (2005) p. 184. G. Smith (2005). M. S. Haque (2001) M. Aldons (2001). 11

recognition of citizens rights through well-managed redress systems it may even provide some compensation for the absence of democratic legitimation. 23 The market-oriented consumerist ideology underpinning the new paradigm of public administration has not necessarily strengthened accountability to service users. Public sector accountability structures and processes can require even higher standards than those of the private sector. While some private institutions have established effective complaints procedures for individual cases, many industries still lag in this respect and few, if any, are prepared to tolerate the degree of general scrutiny expected of governments and public agencies. The private sector has no equivalent of parliament as an institution of public accountability nor are private sector companies subject to continuous public scrutiny from a political opposition competing for public support as an alternative management team. 24 As more public services are delivered by quasi-public and private organizations and there is greater use of contracting and sub-contracting arrangements complaints-handling and appeals are removed from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman or administrative tribunals. Citizen redress is weakened as external review agencies lose their ability to promote accountability in the service delivery system. The intense and continuous political process of parliamentary

23 24

I. Scott (2005) R. Mulgan (2000) pp.94-95.

12

questioning, elections and external review is replaced by a weaker process of shareholder and media questioning of company executives. Inevitably a comprehensive public sector complaints / redress system will result in some waste. Complaints may be unsubstantiated. There will be individuals or groups who lodge complaints of a frivolous or non-substantial nature or produce an excessive volume of complaints. Nevertheless, the resources used in processing unsubstantiated complaints are an investment in the systems integrity. They provide reassurance about the systems fair operation and are important for building confidence in the system as a whole. The Way Forward: Trends The use of alternative complaints resolution is one trend gathering momentum. In New Zealand, Ombudsmen increasingly seek to resolve complaints informally without resorting to full investigations.
25

Legislation

empowers the new Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to seek the informal resolution of a complaint in addition to, or instead of, conducting a formal investigation into the complaint. Being less costly and time-consuming this approach was identified by the Consultation Paper on Ombudsman Services in

25

Government of New Zealand (2005). 13

England (2005) as likely to be appropriate for disputes about social benefits or planning matters where the complainants main grievance is a lack of information or understanding of the reasons for the public authoritys actions or decisions. There are also strategies developing to better integrate complaints-handling into the normal responsibilities of public organizations and to enhance accessibility. Indias Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances advises all ministries/departments to observe every Wednesday as a meeting-less day in the Central Secretariat Offices when all officers above a specified level are to be available at their desks from 10:00 to 13:00 hours to receive and hear public grievances. Field level offices having contact with the public are advised to declare one day in the week as a meeting-less day. The Way Forward: A Critical Challenge Redress and grievance-handling systems are developing in line with the key themes of the transnational public administration reform agenda, which has particularly influenced countries with an Anglo-American political orientation. It is a business like approach to governance 26 which asserts that one of the great advantages of markets over hierarchies is the supremacy of the customer.

26

M.S. Haque (2000) p. 609. 14

Public service relationships are more and more viewed in terms of consumption rather than citizenship and the greatest challenges have to do with this new context. With the increasing use of private companies and autonomous entities such as executive agencies and special operating agencies to provide public services and greater use of purchase of service contracting 27 a key question concerns how to ensure the public accountability of private managers. Accountability mechanisms, including complaints-handling and grievance procedures, designed for public management situations may prove to be inappropriate for holding accountable actions outside of the public sphere. Systems of redress within the public sector include important norms and values such as equity, social justice, due process, transparency legality and fairness. The strengthening of these normative dimensions has been enhanced as governments have developed and modified their complaints-handling and appeal mechanisms. Conclusion There is strong evidence that governments have been, and continue to be, working successfully to extend and strengthen both internal and external

27

M. Bovins (2005); M. S. Haque (2000). 15

accountability mechanisms with respect to complaints-handling and appeals in the public services. Yet, as citizenship is replaced by the concept of consumerism under the paradigm of new public management, and more services move into the private sector, these developments may have less and less impact. A key challenge for public administrators is how to ensure that the principles of good governance incorporated in citizen redress systems can be maintained and strengthened in light of the continuously evolving nature of the public services. References
Adler, M. A socio-legal approach to administrative justice Law & Policy 25 (4) 2003, pp. 323-352. Aldons, M. Responsible, representative and accountable government Australian Journal of Public Administration 60 (1) 2001, pp. 34-42. Al-Rubaian, E. S. A study of citizens complaints submitted to the National Assembly of Kuwait International Review of Administrative Sciences (66) 2000, pp. 513-526. Bovins, M. Public Accountability in Ferlie, E., Lynn, Jr. L. and Pollitt, C. (eds) The Handbook of Public Management (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 2005, pp. 182-208. Day, P. and Klein, R. Accountabilities: Five Public Services (London: Tavistock) 1987. Falconer, P. K. and Ross, K. Citizens Charters and public service provision: lessons from the UK experience, International Review of Administrative Sciences (65) 1999, pp. 339-351. Government of Australia, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Information and Research Services Commonwealth Government Service Charters, Research Note, Number 32, 2000-01. http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2000-01/01RN32.htm (viewed 25 July 2006). Government of Hong Kong, Office of the Ombudsman Effective Complaints Handling: A Tool for Better Serving the Community (Hong Kong: Printing Department) 1998. Government of India, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievance, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Grievance Redress Mechanisms in Government http://darpg.nic.in/arpg-website/ReportsAndPublication/PublicGrievanceRedress.asp (viewed 20 July 2006). Government of India, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievance, Ministry of 16

Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions Guidelines on Public Grievance Redress at a Glance http://darpg.nic.in/arpg-website/reforminitiatives/CitizenCentricinitiative/GuidelinesOnPublicGrieva nceRedressAtAGLance.asp (viewed 20 July 2006). Government of New Zealand, Rt Hon Helen Clark, Prime Minister Address to 22nd Australasian and Pacific Region Ombudsmens Conference (10 February 2005) http://www.ombudsmen.govt.nz/APOR%20docs/Helen%20Clark.pdf (viewed 03 April 2006). Government of the United Kingdom, Cabinet Office, Reform of Public Sector Ombudsmen Services in England: A Consultation Paper (August 2005).

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/propriety_and_ethics/parliamentary_ombudsman/ombusdsmenref orm.asp (viewed 29 May 2006). Government of the United Kingdom, Department for Constitutional Affairs, Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals (July 2004). Government of the United Kingdom, National Audit Office Citizen Redress: What citizens can do if things go wrong with public services (London: The Stationery Office) March 2005. Haque, M. S. Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance International Review of Administrative Sciences (66) 2000, pp.599-617. Haque, M. S. Pride and performance in the public service: three Asian cases International Review of Administrative Sciences (67) 2001, pp. 99-115. Hyman, D. Shingler, J. and Miller, M. Consumer complaints and public policy: validating the Tip-of-the-Iceberg theory Sociological Practice: Special Issue on Conflict Processing (10) 1992, pp. 97-122. Kelly, J. M. The dilemma of the unsatisfied customer in a market model of public administration Public Administration Review 65 (1) Jan/Feb 2005, pp. 76-84. Law, K. S. and Yue, S. Y. The channels for redressing grievances in Hong Kong and in overseas countries Research and Library Services Division, Legislative Council Secretariat. (19 October 1998). Lerner, J. S. and Tetlock, P. E. Accounting for the Effects of Accountability Psychological Bulletin (125) 1999, pp. 255-275. McCandless, H. E. A Citizens Guide to Public Accountability: Changing the Relationship Between Citizens and Authorities (Victoria, BC: Trafford) 2001. Mulgan, R. Accountability: an ever-expanding concept? Public Administration 78 (3) 2000, pp. 555-573. Mulgan, R. Comparing accountability in the public and private sectors Australian Journal of Public Administration 59 (1) March 2000, pp. 87-97. Narasimhan, C. V. Redress of public grievances The Hindu: Online edition of Indias National Newspaper (Tuesday, May 08, 2001) 17

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/05/08stories/13080611.htm (viewed 03 April 2006). Northern Ireland Executive. Views on Public Services http://www.rpani.gov.uk/publicsectorstaff/results.htm (viewed 04 September 2005). One World Trust. The GAP Framework Complaint and Redress Dimension (viewed 24 July 2006). Peterson, C. J.; Fong, J. and Rush. G. Investigation and conciliation of Discrimination Complaints in Hong Kong: Statistical analysis of 451 complaint files and commentary (Centre for Comparative and Public Law, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong) July 2003. Pollitt, C. Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s? (2nd edition) (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell) 1993. Pollitt, C. The Essential Public Manager (London: Open University Press/McGraw Hill) 2003. Quirk, B. Accountable to everyone: Postmodern pressures on public managers Public Administration (75) Autumn 1997, pp. 569-586. Romzek, B. S. and Dubnick, M. J. Accountability in J. M. Shafritz (ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 1: A-C (Boulder, CO: Westview Press) 1998. Scott, I. Public Administration in Hong Kong: Regime Change and Its impact on the Public Sector (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International) 2005. Scottish Executive, A modern complaints system: The new Scottish public Service Ombudsman 2006). Seneviratne, M. Joint regulation of consumer complaints in legal services: a comparative study International Journal of the Sociology of Law (29) 2001, pp.311-330. Smith, G. A most enduring problems: police complaints reform in England and Wales Journal of Social Policy 35 (1) 2005, pp. 121-141. South China Morning Post (various editions in March / April 2006). Tonn, B. A design for future-oriented government Futures 28 (5) 1996, pp.413-431. Vincent-Jones, P. Citizen redress in public contracting for human services Modern Law Review 68 (6) November 2005, pp. 887-924. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/government/amcs-01.asp (viewed 03 April

18