Scotland’s Complaints Standards Authority: A New Role for Ombuds? Dr Chris gill University of Glasgow

Introduction Background on the SPSO’s “Complaint Standards Authority” (CSA) role Outline of the research Overview of some key findings Conclusions Reflections on extending the model

Background on the CSA

Key aspects and novelty of the CSA role Power/ duty Novel? Publication of a statement of complaint handling principles (approved by Scottish Parliament) Similar principles already exist, but the involvement of the legislature in approving them is novel Monitoring practice and identifying any trends in the way authorities handle complaints Ombuds monitor their own caseloads for trends, but monitoring internal complaints is novel Promoting best practice in relation to such complaint handling Ombuds generally do this, but without a statutory basis for doing so Encouraging co-operation and sharing of best practice among authorities The role around coordination is novel Publishing model complaint handling procedures and making declarations of non-compliance. The imposing and monitoring of complaint procedures is novel Statement of CH. LGO axioms of good administration 1993. PHSO principles in 2007. Monitoring practice and trends. Novelty is that this monitoring for trends relates to internal CH, not just those complaints the O sees. Move from looking at the tip of the iceberg, to being concerned with the iceberg itself. Monitoring requires new range of tools and practices for an ombuds. Promotion of best practice there for some time, but novel for it to be formalised in this way and put on statutory footing. Encouraging cooperation and sharing of best practice – this is new and means that not only must guidance be issued in a “top down” way by the ombuds, they must also have a role in coordinating the “bottom up” development of ideas around good practice. Finally, the heart of the reforms are the design of procedures, monitoring their operation and deciding on whether they comply. So, in summary, the CSA role is in many ways an evolution of existing practice, but with some significant extensions that involve the ombuds moving into new territory.

Implementation of the CSA role Model CHPs Monitoring practice and identifying trends Standardised two stage process: Stage1: informal resolution (5 days) Stage 2: investigation (20 days) Stage 3: SPSO 8 performance indicators, including: Number of complaints Outcomes of complaints Timeliness Customer satisfaction Learning So, what does this look like in practice? Promotion of best practice Cooperation and sharing best practice Training E-learning modules “Valuing complaints” website Research Guidance Hosting sectoral complaint networks Annual complaint handler conferences Learning and improvement unit

Research insights

The research project Aims Method 1: Compare how the Model CHPs are operating across Scottish local authorities; 2: Evaluate the usefulness of newly reported data for administrative justice researchers; 3: Highlight areas for further investigation in future research; and 4: Draw lessons for wider administrative justice policy and practice from the Model CHPs. Note: this was a small-scale exploratory project, not a full or systematic evaluation. 19 qualitative interviews: Three SPSO staff; Two Local Authority Chief Executives and another a senior official; 10 members of the Local Government Complaints Network; Two staff of Audit Scotland; and An advocacy service representative. Documentary analysis: Complaint network annual report; and 6 local authority annual complaint handling reports. Focus today: Our research had a number of broader aims as can be seen here, but today I’m just going to focus on a few key findings that help give a sense of how the CSA role is working in practice. You’ll see that we only focused on the local authority sector and that the public of our fieldwork involved local authority staff. So we spoke to about 19 people, as you see here and also analysed some of the complaints data now available as a result of the CSA.

Perceptions of model CHPs Universal view that model CHPs were positive development Benefits included: Speed Simplicity for citizens and staff Consistency Quality of responses Enhancing status of complaint handling Learning easier to track and monitor Start of culture change around complaints

Perceptions of performance measures Most respondents were positive about the SPSO’s performance indicators Areas for improvement included: The relevance of complaints per 1000 of population The lack of data on complaints a service/ departmental level The lack of data on the subjects of complaints There were also concerns about the consistency and accuracy of data collection Uncertainty about reporting against more qualitative indicators (customer satisfaction and learning)

Perceptions of benchmarking Benchmarking viewed positively: prompt for discussion rather than league tables The Local Government Complaint Handler Network was seen as key to the process, and learning resulted from discussion not data themselves There were challenges around benchmarking Accuracy and consistency of collection Timeliness Comparability across authorities

Perceptions of learning Systematic collection and reporting of data had put learning from complaints on local authority agendas Interviewees were able to mention various instances of learning having occurred There were challenges around learning from complaints: Making sense of aggregate data Low volumes of complaints Resource implications of making some changes Capturing learning

Perceptions of new SPSO role SPSO defined role as: a monitor (“someone who sees what is happening and alerts people to things”) not a regulator (“someone who applies a set of rules with penalties”) Emphasis very much around encouraging best practice, facilitating change, and allowing “local” ownership (non-coercive) Local authority staff emphasised SPSO’s cooperative approach as key in making the new CSA approach work and gaining acceptance Some local authority staff wanted a more directive approach Some lack of clarity over degree to which SPSO’s work aligns with existing bodies (Improvement Service, Audit Scotland) AS – early stages IS – role highlighted but degree of engagement unclear

Conclusions Simplification and standardisation of complaint processes has been achieved Early emphasis has been on processes, rather than outcomes: Are citizens seeing a difference? Are public services improving? More thought needed on (a) what to measure and (b) how to measure it, particularly around citizens’ views and learning Cooperation, local ownership, and emphasis on facilitating good practice seem to have been features of the process valued by stakeholders Tentative conclusion that the CSA approach has merit and should be considered elsewhere, but some further discussion needed on this

Is this a model for England/ UK?

Reflections on extending the model (I) Draft Public Services Ombudsman Bill Duty to provide information, advice and training regarding complaint handling Advice “may in particular be framed with reference to” complaints made to ombudsman Duty on bodies under jurisdiction to “have regard to” information, advice and training when handling complaints Power to provide information to bodies + others regarding complaint to ombudsman

Reflections on extending model (I) Practice Northern Ireland Publication of a statement of complaint handling principles (approved by Scottish Parliament) Monitoring practice and identifying any trends in the way authorities handle complaints Promoting best practice in relation to such complaint handling Encouraging co-operation and sharing of best practice among authorities Publishing model complaint handling procedures and making declarations of non-compliance. England – draft bill Wales – Bill as introduced to Assembly October 2017 (Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill) Northern Ireland – as per NIPSO Act 2016 – Public Services Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Act 2016

Reflections on extending the model (III) Could it work in a larger jurisdiction? Are there risks in ombuds using more “cooperative” approaches? Is there sufficient evidence of positive outcomes? What are the costs associated with the CSA model? Is user-focus enhanced e.g. what about complaint/ appeal distinction? Is the model CHP flexible enough/ too managerial? What about comparators e.g. FCA regulation of complaint handling? E.G. does it allow for creativity in dispute resolution, does it offer sufficient participation, can it be adapted?