Previous chapter | Next chapter | Contents page
	Key issue V Encouraging and promoting excellence
	We asked: How could the Charter Mark award scheme be improved? Reactions: Most respondents were positive about the current scheme. For example: 'We have recently had experience of the Charter Mark application process. This has been demanding and challenging but has also been very positive and beneficial. The application process, itself, has brought about improvements in service and better liaison and responsiveness to the needs of our service users. ' (Homefirst Community Trust) There were also ideas on how to improve it. The main ones were: more publicity for the scheme to increase awareness among providers and users; linking Charter Mark more closely with Best Value and other quality schemes such as the Business Excellence Model; regular monitoring of award holders and removing their Charter Mark if standards fall; more user and staff involvement in the assessment and monitoring process; using assessors who have experience in the sector they are assessing and who are currently working in public services; more openness and consistency on the Charter Mark criteria and marking system; extending it to the voluntary sector; greater consistency on the size of organisation that can apply; and better spreading of best practice from Charter Mark winners. Our response: We welcome the broad support for Charter Mark, and have considered carefully the ways in which it could be developed. We are always looking for increased publicity opportunities, and public awareness now stands at 29% - up three points since early 1997. Links with other quality schemes, inspectorates and regulators are also very important, and we are working with representatives from the other quality schemes to develop these, together with improved monitoring arrangements. In order to spread good practice more widely, we intend to introduce a self-assessment package to help organisations improve the services they provide. Most of our Charter Mark assessors already work, or have worked, in public services, although our recruitment procedures have been enhanced to give an even wider spread of expertise and background. We agree that best practice from Charter Mark winning organisations could be spread more effectively. We are therefore planning to set up on the Internet a new site to spread best practice more widely across the public service. We asked: Should we aim to expand the scheme with increasing numbers of holders, or should it be limited to a fixed annual number (e. g. 500) of the very best? If it is to be expanded, how might this be achieved? For instance, should the Government set targets for each part of the public sector for the number of organisations which should achieve Charter Mark by a given date? Reactions: Most respondents thought the scheme should be expanded as long as standards were not diluted. The view was that the Charter Mark should be a quality standard, and that any organisation that met the standard should receive an award. 'We do not believe it is desirable to fix an artificial ceiling on the number of Charter Mark winners: services should be competing for quality not against each other. ' (National Consumer Council) Respondents were generally against the idea that the Government should set a target for the number of organisations that should achieve Charter Mark by a given date. They felt that such targets could result in organisations 'going through the motions' as the target date approached rather than making genuine attempts to improve service quality, and that standards might be lowered to meet targets. Other ideas for expansion included: offering incentives such as a small prize, and offering graduated awards such as gold, silver and bronze. Our response: The artificial cap on Charter Mark numbers was lifted in 1995. There is clearly little support for re-introducing it, and we do not propose to do so. We agree with the points made about setting targets for parts of the public sector to achieve Charter Mark. We do not want organisations to apply just for the sake of it - we want them to be motivated to succeed. So we do not intend to publish explicit sectoral targets, although we may well have our own internal sectoral application targets to measure the success of our promotional activities. The suggestion of a tiered award scheme is an interesting one which would reward continuous improvement. But it would also complicate the scheme, could lead to confusion about the various levels, and could possibly devalue the main award. We already, in practice, have two tiers - with the highly commended category. We are, however, looking at ways of enhancing the recognition for re-winners, particularly as 1998 will be the first year in which organisations will have won three times. We asked: Should the nominations campaign be continued? If so, how could it be improved? Reactions: Many respondents thought the nominations campaign should be continued. Ideas for improvement centred around increased publicity and a clarification of whether nominations encourage applications and their impact on the outcome of an application. Our response: The nominations campaign has been a useful way of encouraging applications and raising awareness. In 1997, 218 applications (23%) came as a direct result of nomination. But we have always made clear that the number of nominations (if any) an organisation receives does not have any direct bearing on the result of a Charter Mark application. We agree that it is important to publicise Charter Mark, and to encourage users of services to think about the good level of service they are receiving. But we are examining whether the nominations campaign as currently structured is the best and most cost-effective way of doing this, and whether there might be other approaches. We asked: Are the current Charter Mark criteria (performance standards, information and openness, choice and consultation, courtesy and helpfulness, putting things right, value for money, user satisfaction, recent improvements in service quality, planned improvements and innovations) the right ones? If not, what additions or alterations do you think should be made? Reactions: Many respondents thought the criteria were broadly right, although most thought that if the Charter principles were changed, the Charter Mark criteria should be altered to keep in line with them. Suggestions for additions and alterations included specific criteria relating to: equity, access, community, environment-friendly policies, serving internal customers 19_ and partnership working; combining criteria 8 & 9 (" improvements in service quality" and "planned improvements and innovations"); clarification of the value for money criterion; and greater user involvement. Our response: The Charter Mark criteria will be updated to bring them in line with the revised principles. There will be one additional criterion: user satisfaction, which we believe continues to be an important criterion for achieving a Charter Mark. We asked: Should all or some organisations be asked to contribute towards the cost of their Charter Mark application? If so, which sectors should be asked to pay? What would be an acceptable charge? Reactions: Most respondents were against asking organisations to contribute towards the cost of their application. They were concerned that charging would deter some applicants, particularly smaller organisations, and could result in the perception that Charter Marks could be 'bought'. If charges were to be introduced, many thought that only profit-making organisations should be obliged to pay. Others suggested a sliding scale of fees based on the size and operating budget of the organisation concerned. Our response: Our aim is to encourage the maximum number of eligible organisations to meet the Charter Mark standard. We are therefore considering whether an element of charging has a role to play in helping fund this expansion. But we recognise the views expressed, and are concerned not to put off organisations, particularly smaller ones, from applying. We asked: Is the current single application deadline for Charter Mark appropriate or should we move to a rolling programme? Reactions: Most respondents would like to see a rolling programme for applications, although many also wanted to retain a national awards ceremony. Those who preferred a single application date pointed out that a deadline focused the mind. Some suggested a combination of the two, including: different deadlines for different sectors; and a rolling programme with an annual awards ceremony. Our response: A majority of applicants would prefer a rolling programme and, as numbers of applications increase, a single deadline makes the assessment process progressively more difficult to organise. But a wholly rolling programme also introduces logistical uncertainties, removes a focal point for applications and would need to fit with an annual awards ceremony. We are currently examining the options, but are attracted by the idea of a number of application dates in each year. We would like to retain, for as long as possible, a national awards ceremony as it is valued by winners and provides a focus for public recognition. Any changes will only be made after close consultation with winners and potential applicants and will take into account the circumstances of individual sectors. We asked: Should we change or develop the single category awards that have been given within the Charter Mark scheme (for example, instituting a new award on best provision for elderly users)? Reactions: Many respondents thought that single category awards should be developed. Suggestions for award categories included: safety; welfare; leisure; information and learning; promoting equal opportunities; services to specific communities (including ethnic minorities and people with disabilities); most improved services; youth or elderly care services; and co-operation between organisations. Our response: We agree that there are several advantages to developing single category awards, provided that they contribute to improving public services. It is also important to maintain one of the great strengths of Charter Mark - that it compares the performance of services across the public sector. We intend to end the awards for best user and staff suggestion, but will consider the possibility of introducing new team awards for particular achievements to reinforce Charter Mark and encourage the spread of best practice. We asked: Are quality networks effective at achieving improvements in public services at local level and how might they be improved? Reactions: Many respondents thought the quality networks were a good idea, although they often pointed out that their effectiveness would depend largely on the people involved. Suggestions for improvement included: greater publicity; inviting participation by members of the public or consumer representatives; and greater central support. Our response: We plan to expand and develop the role of the Quality Networks. They are, for example, well suited to looking at cross-sectoral issues, a key theme of Better Government, and helped organise the recent series of Better Government workshops with the Parliamentary Secretary in the Office of Public Service, Peter Kilfoyle. There are 22 regional networks across the UK and three networks for Charter Mark winners. Networks give us a ready means of communication and consultation with local services; help spread best practice between different sectors; and help to develop the programme. We intend to offer more support and training to network leaders. We are therefore reviewing the training we currently provide for network leaders and also the arrangements for the annual conference to ensure that these best meet their needs. Funds will be available to stimulate new projects and activities. We have now set up a Best Practice Quality Forum to bring together network leaders and Cabinet Office staff, to promote better communication and collaborative working between one another and between the networks and the Cabinet Office. We are also developing the Quality Network Intranet to provide an efficient and cost-effective way for networks to share information, ideas and views. We publicise the networks each quarter in 'Service First News' which goes to all main public services in the UK. It is up to individual networks how much they involve the public or consumer representatives directly in their activities, but the services that make up networks have regular consultation with the public and contact with consumer representatives. In addition, we are planning to set up a best practice site on the Internet. This will be available to all service providers with Internet access, to read all about the latest developments in best practice guidance, and potentially to share ideas and views on how to make improvements in a wide range of areas related to service delivery.   Conclusion This consultation exercise has played an important part in shaping the new programme. It has helped us evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the old programme, and to identify those issues that matter most to people. We are grateful to everyone who took the time and trouble to contribute. We are committed to ensuring that consultation continues to play a role in the development of Service First - the new charter programme, so that the new programme can continue to develop in a way that meets users' needs.
	Previous chapter | Next chapter | Contents page