Appendices

1. Appendix 1-Statistics
2. Appendix 2-Report omissions and reason for non-compliance
3. Appendix 3-A proposed 10-Point Plan to improve ACT Government service delivery

Appendix 1-Statistics

Table A1: Approaches and complaints received and finalised about ACT Government agencies and ACT Policing, 2010-11, Ombudsman Act 1989 (ACT) (including freedom of information).

Explanations of terms used in Table A1

Approaches/complaints finalised-approaches/complaints finalised in 2010-11, including some complaints carried over from previous years

Approaches/complaints received-approaches/complaints received in 2010-11

Category 1 approaches-resolved without investigation, outcomes include decisions not to investigate and referrals to appropriate agency or authority

Category 2 approaches-approaches that cannot be resolved at category 1 and require further internal enquiries/research or more information from the complainant, resolved without contacting the agency

Category 3 approaches-investigation conducted and agency contacted

Category 4 approaches-further investigation conducted, as the complaint/approach was not able to be resolved in category 3

Category 5 approaches-further investigation conducted, as the complaint/approach was not able to be resolved in category 4; involves formal reporting processes

Remedies-complaints can contain a number of issues, each requiring separate investigation and possibly resulting in a number of different remedies

Table A1: Approaches and complaints received and finalised about ACT Government agencies and ACT Policing, 2010-11, Ombudsman Act 1989 (ACT) (including freedom of information)

Agency	Received	Finalised						Remedies
ACT Government	Total Received Approaches	No Investigation		Investigated			Total Finalised Approaches	Action expedited	Apology	Decision changed or reconsidered	Disciplinary action	Explanation	Financial remedy	Law, policy or practice changed	Other non-financial remedy	Remedy provided by agency without Ombudsman intervention	Total Remedies Finalised
		Category 1	Category 2	Category 3	Category 4	Category 5
ACT Arts Bureau	1	1					1
ACT Corrective Services	169	81	49	30	12		172	5		3		10	2	1		2	23
ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety	5	2	3				5
ACT Dept of Business, Arts, Sport & Tourism	1	1					1
ACT Emergency Services Agency	4	2	2		1		5			1							1
ACT Gambling and Racing Commission	2		1	1			2					1					1
ACT Health	18	12	4				16
ACT Land Development Agency	1		1				1
ACT Legislative Assembly	1		1				1
ACT Magistrates Court and Tribunals	5	4	1				5
ACT Office of Regulatory Services	19	8	7	4			19		1	3		2	1	1	1		9
ACT Planning and Land Authority	35	13	18	4	1		36			1	1	1		1		2	6
ACT Policing	142	93	39	12	3	1	148	4	1			74			1	1	81
ActewAGL	12	6	6	2			14			1		1					2
ACTION	8	4	1	2			7		1			1					2
Canberra Institute of Technology	9	1	6	4	1		12						1				1
Chief Minister's Department	3		1	1			2					1					1
Civil and Administrative Tribunal	8	4		1	2		7
Department of Disability Housing and Community Services	14	7	2	3			12			2		1					3
Department of Education and Training	12	4	8	2	1		15		1			1					2
Department of Land and Property Services	1	1					1
Department of the Territory and Municipal Services	36	16	13	13	4		46	2	2	3	1	3	3	1	3		18
Department of Treasury	15	7	6	2	1		16			3		2					5
Director of Public Prosecutions	1	1					1
Environment ACT	4	3	1				4
Housing ACT	146	66	45	33	11	1	156	7	8	8		23	2	1	3	4	56
Human Rights Commission	4	3	1				4
Legal Aid Commission of the ACT	7	3		4			7					1					1
Office for Children, Youth and Family Support	16	9	7				16
Office of the Public Advocate of the ACT	2	1	1	1			3
Public Trustee for the ACT	11	5	1	4			10					2					2
Roads ACT	22	10	9	2			21		1	1		1		1	1		5
Supreme Court of the ACT	2		2	1			3
University of Canberra	6	1	3	1			5			1							1
ACT Government Total	742	369	239	127	37	2	774	18	15	27	2	125	9	6	9	9	220

Appendix 2-Report omissions and reason for non-compliance

The ACT Ombudsman is neither a public authority nor an administrative unit within the meaning of the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004 (ACT). Consequently, the ACT Ombudsman is unable to report against some aspects of the ACT Chief Minister's Annual Report Directions 2010-2011. Reporting on these issues and whole-of-government issues is provided for the office as a whole through the Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2010-11, which is available at www.ombudsman.gov.au

Table A2: Report omissions and reasons for non-compliance

Section	Part	Reason
Section A: Performance and financial management reporting	A.5 Management discussion and analysis A.6 Financial report A.7 Statement of performance A.8 Strategic indicators	ACT Ombudsman functions are intrinsically linked with broader Commonwealth Ombudsman organisational operations
Section B: Consultation and scrutiny reporting	B.2 Internal and external scrutiny	ACT Ombudsman functions are intrinsically linked with broader Commonwealth Ombudsman organisational operations
Section C: Legislative and policy based reporting	C.1 Risk management and internal audit C.2 Fraud prevention C.5 Internal accountability (most aspects) C.6 HR performance C.7 Staffing profile C.8 Learning and development C.9 Workplace health and safety C.10 Workplace relations C.12 Strategic asset management C.13 Capital works C.14 Government contracting	ACT Ombudsman functions are intrinsically linked with broader Commonwealth Ombudsman organisational operations
	C.11 Strategic Bushfire Management Plan	No requirement to report
	C.23 Model Litigant Guidelines	ACT Ombudsman practices are consistent with Commonwealth requirements

Appendix 3-A proposed 10-point plan to improve ACT Government service delivery

Complaints to the ACT Ombudsman's office about ACT Government agencies in 2010-11 were up 19% on the previous financial year, from more than 500 to 600.

Since then we have been receiving complaints about the recent rearrangement of agencies into nine new directorates, specifically:

• that some agencies dealing with related issues are spread across apparently unrelated directorates
• it is not consistently clear how a resident can even find which directorate they should approach.

This has prompted me to produce the following 10-Point Plan outlining how the ACT Government can improve its service delivery. It is an example of how complaints can be invaluable in helping define precisely what agencies can do to improve their service delivery.

Summary

1. Clarify the new government structure and its areas of responsibility by:
1. clearly and accessibly informing the public of specific areas responsible for particular services
2. listing contact/access points for services, complaints and submissions.
2. Introduce a consistent complaint-handling structure across the whole of government. Specifically:
1. provide clear information about making and progressing complaints
2. adopt an agreed definition of what constitutes a complaint
3. introduce consistent ACT Government complaint service standards
4. ensure better processes and IT systems.
3. Move away from a culture of denial and defensiveness to one that welcomes complaints and Ombudsman reports as a means of improving service delivery.
4. Commit to ongoing training and career development for ACT Government employees, and greater involvement with agency strategic planning.
5. Introduce consistent case management systems servicing ACT Government agencies.
6. Use plain language information in communication.
7. Improve the approach to decision making by:
1. providing clear reasons for decisions in a language the client can understand
2. ensuring rights of review are clearly stated and explained.
8. Improve contract management by giving powers to the Ombudsman's office to oversee third-party service providers. (Most other state and territory ombudsmen have these powers).
9. Ensure that officers/agencies responsible for maintaining carriage of service requests and applications are clearly identified.
10. Introduce a program of regular inspections covering the broad range of conditions and services available at and via ACT Corrective Services.

1. Clarify the new government structure and its areas of responsibility by:
1. clearly and accessibly informing the public of specific areas responsible for particular services
2. listing contact/access points for services, complaints and submissions.

Ideally, any person seeking to receive a benefit or a service from the ACT Government should be able to identify, at a glance, the contact point(s) for applying for the benefit or service, and the administrative pathway for seeking review or escalation of the matter.

However, it is not always easy to identify the areas of responsibility for the delivery of ACT government services or benefits. Some of the directorates (formerly 'departments') include some agencies that don't appear to fall logically alongside the other portfolios within the directorate. This does not mean that the directorate structure is necessarily wrong or illogical. Rather, it shows that the community expectation of which services might be co-located differs from the administrative rationale that has informed the decisions to plan the final directorate structure.

These difficulties can become exacerbated when the inquiry is about seeking a review or escalation of the matter at hand. While some review rights may be administered within the same agency, other paths of escalation may fall outside the agency, outside the directorate, or even outside the ACT government structure altogether - e.g. courts or tribunals.

We are not aware of any single source of information, either a document, a diagram or a web site that provides a clear guide to users of ACT Government services of how the various service providers are organised within the new directorate structure. The Canberra Connect service provides a single portal of access for most inquiries or feedback from the community to ACT Government agencies, but it does not provide a 'who's who' information service and cannot explain the ACT Government's structure.

2. Introduce a consistent complaint-handling structure across the whole of government. Specifically:
1. provide clear information about making and progressing complaints
2. adopt an agreed definition of what constitutes a complaint
3. introduce consistent ACT Government complaint service standards
4. ensure better processes and IT systems.

There is no common complaints-handling policy effective across different agencies within ACT public administration. Our experience has shown that while some agencies are responsive to complaints received, many are not. The Canberra Connect service provides a single portal that allows most (but not all) complaints about ACT government services to be received, but how the matter progresses thereafter is governed by the policies and procedures in place within the relevant agency.

Some agencies will only accept written complaints whereas others will accept telephone or face-to-face complaints as well. There is no common definition of what constitutes a 'complaint' either. This means that people who contact an agency expressing dissatisfaction, but don't formally advise that they wish to make a complaint, can become frustrated by an apparent lack of acknowledgement or action.

Specific recommendations include:

1. provide clear information about making and progressing complaints
2. adopt an agreed definition of what constitutes a complaint
3. introduce consistent ACT Government complaint service standards for:
1. acknowledging complaints
2. responding to complaints
3. escalation points
4. resolution of complaints
5. implementation strategy for any recommendations arising from complaints.
4. ensure better processes and IT systems in relation to:
1. Canberra Connect
2. lodging complaints
3. referring the complaint to the relevant directorate
4. case-tracking system.

ACT public administration could benefit from the development of whole of government complaint service standards for:

1. Acknowledging complaints - standardised time frames and a unique receipt/reference identifier for the complaint that is provided to the complainant. The identifier has a format that is commonly recognised across the whole of ACT government.
2. Responding to complaints - within agreed timeframes, advising the complainant who has carriage of the matter, what further action will be undertaken, reasons provided if no further action is to be taken, and options for review/escalation if the agency has decided not to investigate the complaint.
3. Escalation points - complainants to be provided with a clear map of their options for escalating a complaint, including points of contact and expected pre-requisites for starting an escalation at each contact point.
4. Resolution of complaints - a whole of ACT government standard for advising complainants of the outcome following a complaint including: (a) if the complaint was not investigated, the reasons for this decision, (b) what the investigation of the complaint revealed, (c) what if any further action the agency will take to provide a remedy to the complainant and/or redress poor service delivery issues revealed through the complaint investigation.
5. Implementation strategy for any recommendations arising from complaints - ACT government agencies could adopt a common reporting standard for advising actions taken or required to address service delivery issues revealed through the complaint investigations. These reports could be mandatorily included in agency annual reports.

ACT public administration could also benefit from a whole of government contact tracking system that provides a common platform for registering all incoming communications and tracks the actions taken following each contact. The Canberra Connect service goes partway towards providing this, but cannot provide a case tracking function. Once a matter has been referred from Canberra Connect to an agency/directorate, the carriage of the matter no longer remains with Canberra Connect. Canberra Connect may issue a complaint number to the caller, but the agency/directorate will use its own internal reference to register and track the matter. This disconnect between the Canberra Connect registration number and the agency's reference number can lead to confusion and the impression (or fact) that the complaint has been 'lost'.

A common ACT government registration and tracking system for all incoming communications would allow any agency officer, including those at Canberra Connect, to locate the current carriage of the matter and advise the caller who now is dealing with their matter.

3. Move away from a culture of denial and defensiveness to one that welcomes complaints and Ombudsman reports as a means of improving service delivery.
1. building trust with Directorates
2. includes responding in timely manner
3. complete information without redactions
4. understanding that our criticisms are made confidentially and privately
5. our aim is to bring to the directorates attention deficiencies in administrative responsibility
6. embarrassment only comes where directorates are resistant to our recommendations and we go public.

Those agencies that lack good complaint-handling processes also tend to have a less than productive approach to complaints in the first place. When we investigate a complaint, these agencies tend to be defensive, and forget the simple principle that complaints are rivers of gold: a reliable source of invaluable advice that comes completely free of charge. Complaints provide an opportunity for an agency to review its policies and procedures, and to consider whether a better service delivery model could or should be implemented. They should be seen as part of an agency's core business.

Some agencies take the view that a negative report from the Ombudsman's office must be avoided at all costs. This is unproductive. The reality is that no agency is perfect, including us. We do not believe that every complaint can or should be remedied. The majority of our complaint investigations find that the agency has acted fairly, reasonably and lawfully, and that no further action by the agency is warranted. In the minority of cases where we do find that the agency could have provided a better level of service to the complainant we try to recommend practical measures the agency can use to improve its service delivery. We rarely seek to blame anyone for poor outcomes and prefer not to embarrass agencies with negative reports, especially where the agency is trying to be responsive to matters arising from complaints.

This culture is evidenced by:

• The agency focuses on its own procedure to demonstrate that it has 'done nothing wrong', but shows little empathy for the circumstances experienced by the complainant
• The agency appears to refuse to accept any criticism for fear that this will oblige the agency to compensate the complainant or that it may embarrass the Minister
• The agency is reluctant to provide all relevant information to the Ombudsman's office and demands justification before fulfilling our requests to provide all the records
• The agency seeks to argue the case for not being criticised rather than accepting our views or focussing on practical options for improving its service delivery.

Our effectiveness as an oversight agency depends on having a cooperative relationship with the agencies within our jurisdiction. Through complaint investigations, we aim to identify instances of poor public administration, report these to the agency responsible, and where possible recommend practical actions the agency could take to improve its service delivery to its clients. We do not act as advocates for complainants and we do not share confidential information with complainants.

Delays or omissions in the responses to our inquiries can significantly impede our investigations. We are not in the business of conducting 'fishing expeditions' - if we ask for complete and un-redacted records it is because we need to consider the whole context of the circumstances that prompted the complaint. Once we have formally commenced an investigation (by issuing a notice under s9 of the Ombudsman Act 1989 ) effectively, we can stand in the shoes of the chief executive of the agency and review such records as would be available to the chief executive. Accordingly, we are also bound to protect and secure the confidentiality of those records to the extent that would be expected of the chief executive.

We ask that agencies trust us to hold their records securely and confidentially, that we will be conscientious in our investigations, and that we will be fair and reasonable in our feedback to the agency. In return, we trust that agencies will be open and cooperative in their dealings with us, and will receive our feedback in the constructive spirit we intend.

4. Commit to ongoing training and career development for ACT Government employees, and greater involvement with agency strategic planning.

'Siloing' is a common cause of administrative failure in public and corporate administration. Officers can become acclimatised to a narrow and specific view of their roles and responsibilities. This in turn leads to inflexible decision making, and poor judgement in the face of unfamiliar circumstances. If the agency does not adopt policies to encourage officers to expand their knowledge and experience across the agency's responsibilities, it will risk entrenching poor practices, attitudes and out-dated service delivery models and expectations. A lack of developmental opportunities will also contribute to lowering staff morale. So a commitment to individuals' careers development across the public service would be of benefit.

Officers will benefit from having input into the agency's strategic planning. Being familiar with the agency's strategic goals helps each individual officer to appreciate the value of the tasks they undertake as well as prioritising the work on hand.

It is difficult for any agency to improve its service delivery without a culture of commitment to achieving best practice.

5. Introduce consistent case management systems servicing ACT Government agencies.
1. single system across the agencies
2. all contacts/approaches to government agencies are logged and identified with a unique contact code. The status of the approach can then be tracked using the contact code ID.

In our experience, ACT government agencies lack effective case management. Record systems currently in use, or the officers' training in these systems, lack the ability to build a comprehensive history of a client's engagement with the agency. This deficiency is greatly exacerbated when a client's concern is a matter that crosses multiple agency jurisdictions. A common source of complaint and frustration stems from apparent 'buck passing'. Complainants will report that their matter has been passed from officer to officer with no continuity of the information already provided. Having to re-explain the matter to a new officer from the beginning because that officer has no previous knowledge of the case is frustrating and inefficient.

Even more concerning are instances where the complainant has not received a timely response because the matter has been referred to another officer who is unaware of the past history, or unaware of the client's expectation that something will be done.

A common ACT government case management system would allow any agency officer, including Canberra Connect, to locate the current carriage of a matter and advise the officer who is now dealing with the matter what action needs to occur.

6. Use plain language information in all communication.
1. plain language should be used in agency printed matter, agency websites and all other communication channels
2. contracts/ tenders - it is important that the broad public are able to comprehend the nature and scope of the services being contracted, not just addressed to business professionals.

The ACT Government and its agencies provide a lot of information to the public via numerous web sites and publications. However, it is not always clear to whom this information is addressed. In searching this information one will find highly technical documents as well as information intended for the general public.

We occasionally receive complaints about a lack of community consultation, or that decisions have been made that are contrary to the expressed views of the community. The Ombudsman's office generally has no authority to comment on matters of public policy and such complaints are normally closed without investigation. Nevertheless, the ACT Government may benefit from a review of its public consultation methodology and providing notification of decisions affecting community groups. One area such a review could focus on is how requests for tenders are advertised, and whether the lay community is provided with sufficient plain English information to comprehend the nature and scope of the services being outsourced to contract.

This is particularly important where the information could be of use to people who are disadvantaged.

7. Improve the approach to decision making by:
1. providing clear reasons for decisions in a language the client can understand
2. ensuring rights of review are clearly stated and explained.

It is also important that agencies provide clear reasons for decisions and clearly state and explain rights of review, and improve community engagement particularly for people who are disadvantaged. Clarity of reasons includes:

• review of template letters
• language appropriate format (could a primary school student understand the explanation)
• ensure that an explanation of the reasons for decisions are given (not just providing a statement of the relevant legislation, procedure or policy)
• explanation of how the decision was arrived at.

Applicants for government services or benefits are entitled to know why their application has been declined, or why the outcome is less than they had expected or hoped for. Reasons for decisions must be communicated in a language that the applicant can understand. It is not sufficient to quote a regulation or section of an Act as the reason for the decision. The applicant should be advised of the relevant factors that were taken into consideration in their case, and why these factors lead to the outcome in accordance with the legislation.

8. Improve contract management by giving powers to the Ombudsman's office to oversee third-party service providers. (Most other state and territory ombudsmen have these powers)

A number of ACT government services are provided via contracts with third parties. These include:

• finance of public housing properties
• community housing services
• management of public infrastructure (swimming pools, sports grounds etc.)
• ActewAGL.

Under Commonwealth legislation, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate third party service providers of government services. However, unlike in many other states and territories, the ACT legislation does not provide the same authority to the ACT Ombudsman. This precludes us from investigating complaints about these service providers directly. We can investigate the government agency's management of the contract but not the service delivered to the complainant.

We want to focus on directorates that have given funding to particular external contractors to provide services to the public on behalf of the ACT Government to ensure that in expending government funds:

1. the contractor is meeting the terms of the contract and if not what is the Directorate doing to remediate the deficiencies?
2. alternatively, recommend that directorates include a default clause in third-party service provider contracts that allows Ombudsman oversight directly.

9. Ensure that officers/agencies responsible for maintaining carriage of service requests and applications are clearly identified:
1. carriage of responsibility for every contact - there must be an identifiable agency/ body/person responsible for progressing any kind of application for a benefit or service
2. ensuring no one falls through the cracks.

Not all rights available under ACT legislative instruments are supported by clear administrative arrangements. That is, there are instances of rights that a person may make an application for, but which are not administered by a clearly identified responsible agency. For example, any person may make an application for compensation as a victim of crime under the Victims of Crime Financial Assistance Act . The current administrative arrangements are for these applications to be referred to the ACT Government Solicitors Office, although ultimately the decision to compensate is made by the Magistrates Court.

Effective public administration requires that any legislated service or benefit must be supported by a defined administrative procedure. Preferably, this should also include service delivery standards - time frames, notification rights, review rights. It is difficult to see how reasonable service delivery can be assured without identifying the person or agency responsible for implementing the procedure.

The ACT Government may need to review its current portfolio of legislated services and benefits and ensure that all are supported by clearly defined administrative procedures with clearly defined officer responsibilities.

10. Introduce a program of regular inspections covering the broad range of conditions and services available at and via ACT Corrective Services

Section 56 of the Corrections Management Act (2007) gives the Ombudsman the authority to conduct inspections at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. Our complaint investigations have revealed poor standards of record keeping at the Centre in regard to (1) detainee property, (2) incident reports and CCTV coverage, (3) segregation reviews and notifications, (4) behaviour management routines, and (5) disciplinary investigations and outcomes. We have noted instances of incomplete and inconsistent records that suggest officers are unable to meet an acceptable standard of record keeping commensurate with the responsibilities and consequences of the decisions they are making. There may be a number of factors contributing to this:

• officers may require further training
• forms may require simplifying or redesigning
• officers may be overstretched and lack the time to complete records accurately
• operational procedures and associated record keeping policies may not be well integrated
• record-keeping systems may be difficult to use.

An inspection program focussing on accuracy and completeness of Centre records would enable this office to identify a number of problem areas and recommend improvements to relevant policies and procedures. We would also be able to identify risks, both physical and legal, and advise ACT Corrective Services of relative priorities for process improvement.