Key issue II
Continuous improvement

Reactions:
Although some respondents pointed to a lack of relevant research to support an accurate assessment, there was a general feeling that charters had made a difference. For example:

'The charters have made a difference as patients are aware of the standards that are expected and feel that they can comment without detriment if those standards are not reached. ' (Royal College of Surgeons of England, Faculty of Dental Surgery)

'... Citizen's Charters have provided an important first step in enabling public bodies to think about how their services can become more open and accountable to users... ' (Wales Council for Voluntary Action)

'Charters have made a difference. They led to: improved services - what gets measured, tends to get done; improved provision of information; easier access to information; potential and actual service users having a greater awareness of what services are available to them; what they are entitled to and what they can expect from a service provider; improved knowledge of who to contact; service providers becoming more customer friendly and, therefore, more approachable for users. ' (London Pension Fund Authority)

Suggestions for improvement included: changing the name; more emphasis on users' responsibilities; and better monitoring of performance against standards.

On standards, two contrasting views were expressed: standards should be realistic and deliverable by staff and should not raise unachievable expectations in users (mostly from service providers); and standards should be challenging and stretch the organisation concerned (mostly from users and their representatives). But there was general agreement that there should be more emphasis on the quality of service provided rather than on bureaucratic processes.

'... and some encouragement needs to be given to doing the right things (providing an effective response) rather than doing things right (efficiently answering the phone). ' (Scottish Enterprise)

Many respondents felt that more consistency between charters would be helpful, but it was also suggested that care should be taken to avoid prescriptive guidance that prevented local ownership and stifled creativity.

Our response:
We agree that charters have made a difference. We accept that there are weaknesses that need to be tackled, particularly in the setting of standards, which currently do not always address the quality of service provided. We have therefore produced new guides to help those who draw up the charters: 'How to draw up a national charter' and 'How to draw up a local charter'.

We also want to see more effective consultation with users to establish what they want, and with front-line staff on how this might best be delivered. We are preparing detailed guidance to help providers improve the quality of their consultation.

We asked:
Should all key national charters be revised? Are there gaps to be filled? Should all charters have a common format and framework?

Reactions:
In general respondents thought that charters should be revised on a regular basis.

'Charter revision should be seen as a process of continual development/ evolution in order that they remain relevant to current circumstances. ' (Central Scotland Healthcare)

Our response:
The new guides, which give comprehensive advice on such issues as standard setting, consultation, publicity and distribution, will help to ensure greater consistency between charters. The guides lay down that all charters should be reviewed at least once every two years.

We will start with some of the most important charters, for example the Patient's Charter, which will be replaced with a new NHS Charter. We are also producing new charters on long-term care, the work of the Home Office's Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and prisons in England and Wales.

We are working with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF), the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR), the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee (CRUCC) and train operators to produce a new template passenger's charter.

We asked:
How best should standards be monitored and enforced?

Reactions:
Many respondents advocated independent monitoring or audit of standards either by users or by an external organisation; some favoured internal monitoring. Most said that services should publish their standards, together with information on performance against them. Some, particularly health providers, were dissatisfied with the current system of providing performance information, which they felt risked invalid comparisons between organisations.

A wide variety of suggestions was made for monitoring, including: self-assessment with central scrutiny; annual visits and mystery shopping; auditing complaints; investigations by an inspectorate; a government watchdog with teeth; and a central unit which could highlight best practice.

Concerns were raised that monitoring of standards should be seen in a positive light. For example:

'... keep the system simple and sensible; gain staff ownership through involving them in standard setting and in using information from monitoring to improve service; communicate regularly to embed understanding and create a positive culture of celebrating success rather than punishing failure. '

(National Museum of Science and Industry)

There was little response on the question of enforcement. Some suggested local enforcement by the organisations concerned. Others suggested independent enforcement, for instance by the courts. Many said that, at present, the public can feel frustrated when they discover that little can be done to enforce charter targets.

Our response
We considered the argument for independent validation of standards, but concluded that to set up a comprehensive system of central monitoring would be disproportionately expensive. Rather, we believe that monitoring should be the responsibility of individual organisations and that they should put in place those monitoring arrangements best suited to their circumstances including, where appropriate, independent review. The key is for standards, and performance against them, to be regularly published, so that they are available to all. This has been shown to be a powerful tool for raising standards in some areas. We therefore plan to place a statutory requirement on all public services to set standards of service and to publish information on their performance against them.

We asked:
Do you have any experience of local charters (i. e. produced by individual organisations like schools or doctors' surgeries)? Have they made a difference to

the service you received? Should they be encouraged? Should they be standardised?

Reactions:
Most people thought that local charters should be encouraged. But they were split on the issue of standardisation. Some wanted a national framework, others argued that this would stifle creativity. For example:

There are over 10,000 charters already. It would help the public understand and participate in the system if all these contained common elements... ' (Institute of Citizenship Studies)

'[ we] do not consider that there needs to be a standardised approach, because we feel it is essential that each organisation should be capable of expressing, in their own way, what their level of service provision will be. ' (The Chief Assistant & Chief Fire Officers' Association)

Our response:
We agree that there needs to be consistency about the issues addressed in different charters, but that this should not mean standardisation. We have therefore prepared guidance on local charters along these lines, to help providers in local services to review and develop their charters, and to encourage and assist those who do not currently have charters to produce their own. The guidance is not prescriptive. It provides enough flexibility to allow for differences between services, while setting out the basic elements that all charters should contain.

We asked:
If you have recently dealt with central departments and agencies, were you aware of the six service standards for central government? Were they met? How could they be better publicised?

Could they be improved? Can you suggest more useful standards?

Reactions:
Many had not heard of the six Whitehall standards. Of those who had, many said that this was because of their work - as policy advisers or within public services - and that the general public was probably unaware of them.

There was general agreement that the standards should be better publicised. Suggestions included: media advertising; mailshots; leaflets and posters at enquiry points; publishing on the Internet; a 'code of practice' for every department; and including information on the standards in initial correspondence from the department.

Several improvements were suggested, including: new standards on integrity and impartiality; encouraging partnership with other organisations; equality of access; and telephone answering.

A few respondents suggested more 'outcome-oriented' standards. For example:

'... people should not be fobbed off with reference to the time taken to acknowledge a consumer query, but the time taken to deal with its substance. ' (London School of Economics, Public Policy Group)

Our response:
It is taking time for these central standards to become established and recognised. We therefore believe that they should remain in place in their current form for a further 12 months. We will consider then whether further changes should be made. We are shortly to publish information on the performance of key departments against the standards over the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998. Copies will be available from the publications line on 0845 722 32 42.

We agree that quality is important. For instance, in relation to correspondence handling departments are expected to reply to letters and to address the points at issue. If a letter cannot be answered within the target time, a holding reply should be sent explaining the reason, saying when a full reply can be expected, and giving the name and telephone number of the official handling the matter.