Introduction
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux welcomes the Government’s consultation paper Towards a national strategy for local e-government.
We believe that we have an important part to play in the development of this strategy and, indeed, any services developed at a local and national level.
With over six million enquiries a year, we have a unique profile of citizens and the problems they face in interacting with government.
We also have the ability to act as “trusted intermediaries” on behalf of our clients. We therefore wish to help shape the services being developed.
The CAB Service
The CAB Service was established in 1939. It is a trusted and reliable provider of free, confidential and impartial advice to all sectors of the public. Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) are rated highly by their users on the Peoples Panel, three quarters of users are satisfied and over a third are very satisfied (MORI August 1999). It deals with over 6 million problems a year, giving information, advice and assistance to people, comprehensively covering every area of government law and public policy. It also uses the information about these problems to exercise a responsible influence on the development of social policies and services.
Each CAB is an independent, registered charity. They are each a member of the NACAB, a registered charity and company limited by guarantee, which receives grant-in-aid from the DTI under the terms of a Financial Memorandum and Management Statement. NACAB sets standards and provides a range of services, including information and IT support, to member bureaux. Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) in Scotland are members of Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) and receive a similar level of support from them.
There are over 2000 CAB outlets throughout England and Wales whose core running costs are largely funded by local authorities. There has been an expansion of CAB provision to improve accessibility, with more outlets in more places including courts, prisons, community centres and health care facilities. All CABx are audited to Legal Services Commission Quality Mark standards at general help level, and many have the Specialist Quality Mark.
There are 14,000 trained CAB advisers in England and Wales, all of whom have completed a programme of training lasting approximately six months, covering interview and advice skills, challenging prejudice and discrimination, identifying social policy issues, case recording and subject information. Eighty five per cent of those who work in CABx are volunteers, supervised by experienced and specialist support staff.
CABx have a longstanding relationship with local authorities and other agencies.
It is therefore vitally important to involve the advice sector. We provide local information relevant to policy development. We act as a “local social barometer” and provide outlets for reaching “hard to reach” groups.
Citizens Advice Bureaux have taken a lead role in their community in setting the direction of access to the internet in their communities. The CAB Service has a record of achievement in electronic issues, in partnership with central and local government, the private sector and other voluntary organisations, for example a pro-bono relationship with Oracle. An electronic information service has been produced for use by CAB advisers and 600 other agencies. This replaces the old set of manuals which was costly and time consuming to update. There is also a public information site which is currently being upgraded and translated into six languages. There are further plans to extend the one to many nature of the site to one to one, thereby making it easier for citizens to navigate to relevant information. NACAB also has an established intranet joining up the 2000 outlets and serving many needs of the bureaux.
The Citizens Connect Programme
This programme is currently underway within the CAB Service. It will provide the basis for access to electronically delivered services from every CAB in England and Wales. It includes the implementation of IT equipment and a Service-wide network, together with a training programme for all CAB advisers, to ensure high quality, responsive and secure access to electronic services. This is fundamental to the Modernising Government objective to increase the range of government services available electronically and to facilitate their take-up by the public via expert and trusted intermediaries
The programme intends to extend public access to electronically delivered services and information and to enable CABx to act as expert intermediaries for those at risk of exclusion.
The programme also includes the implementation of a case management system, which is designed to provide the facility to provide feedback on levels of use, and satisfaction with, electronic services and to use client experiences to support evidence based policy development.
The CAB Service can help facilitate the delivery of cross-departmental government services so that they are presented coherently, from the citizen’s perspective.
Value the CAB Service can add to the Consultation Process
Citizens Advice Bureaux deal with six million citizens’ problems each year. This gives us a great insight into the problems citizens face, particularly with their interactions with government.
The CAB Service currently uses information about clients’ problems to exercise a responsible influence on the development of social policies and services. We believe that we can also add value to the development of e-government services, both local and national.
We have an interest in a number of project areas outlined within the consultation document. Some of these are not sufficiently defined to enable us to provide a firm acknowledgement of our involvement. We have therefore noted all areas where we see ourselves as providing useful input, subject to further definition of the project areas.
The consultation paper makes several references to the Pensions Service and the development of local partnerships. It is perhaps important to make clear that no agreement has been made with the CAB Service despite the external impression that is given. Indeed our experience on this matter highlights many of the issues and challenges around partnership building.
Contact Details
Brian Handley
Programme Manager
Citizens Connect Programme
Consultation Response
General Comment
An overriding concern is the underdeveloped references to voluntary sector’s contribution to e-services. There is a reference for example in paragraph 3.6 but this is not sustained and developed within the consultation paper.
Often the voluntary sector have been pioneers in the development and use of the internet, providing vision and leadership. The consultation document does not demonstrate that there has been any serious consideration of how a real partnership with the voluntary sector would work and how the expertise and experience of the voluntary sector would be harnessed.
E-government is not merely replacing services but an additional service providing added value. It will need considerable investment if it is to be effective and a high quality public service. Its development should not be at the expense of face to face or telephone, especially for elderly people and people whose first language is not English.
The consultation paper does not identify the specific needs of black and minority ethnic communities. Local Authorities have a new legal duty to promote racial equality.
A vision for local e-government
Q1. Do the seven critical tests of future local services reflect an accurate and adequate vision of organisational and public aspirations for local egovernment?
It is important that the ‘vision’ includes a clear requirement for e-government initiatives not to exacerbate social exclusion – for example, by ensuring that e-government services and the proposed platforms of delivery are appropriate and are not going to exacerbate the ‘digital divide’, or severely limit (or decrease) access to services. This is crucial for ensuring that e-government is neither viewed, nor adopted, as a panacea for resolving inherent problems with services.
Linked with the above point, services need to be accessible at times, in places and in ways most convenient to consumers; people must not be ‘excluded’ as a result of the push towards e-government.
As regards Critical Test No. 2 (accessibility) – we fully endorse this principle; however we believe it should be extended to include ‘accessible at times and in places and in ways most convenient to the customer’. This is needed to emphasise the importance of improving access to information and services by telephone, as well as over the internet/e-mail.
As regards Critical Test No.7 – it should not be simply everyone who ‘wants’ access to the Internet who is given access & support; the emphasis should be on encouraging everyone to use the service, and ensuring that local initiatives are providing adequate resources for everyone to be able to do so. Also, the current emphasis implies that the onus is upon the public to demand access in order to receive it.
See also the point made in answer to Q5 on trust and confidentiality and its implications for the principle of seamless services. The public need to know whether, and if so, how information will be used and shared. It is important that this is transparent in order to build the trust of the public.
Delivering the vision
Q2. How can LSPs be further encouraged to lead the development of local egovernment, and to embrace the opportunity for transforming public services and their integration at the local level?
Whilst we believe that LSPs are a key factor in the successful delivery of local e-government, our concern is that these have only been recently set up, and are still unproven.
It is vitally important to involve the advice sector in the LSP. We provide local information relevant to policy development. We act as a “local social barometer” and provide outlets for reaching “hard to reach” groups. This can usefully be done via the Community Legal Service Partnerships, which provide a ready-made network.
It is crucial for CABx to be involved from the outset to ensure local e-services are effectively shaped. Too often the advice and other parts of the voluntary sector are brought in at the end when services plans are already defined and agreed.
There could usefully be a voluntary sector consortium created and supported by the strategy to help identify and find solutions to critical operational issues for the charity voluntary sector.
It is important from several perspectives – not least of which is financial – for partnerships to have access to a centrally coordinated service that is set up to provide (and facilitate) the sharing of knowledge, information, and expertise. Such a service could usefully incorporate a database of consultations, projects, etc from all local authorities across the country. In addition to providing inspiration and encouragement, it would assist partnerships in avoiding the trap of “reinventing the wheel”.
Other useful components within such a service would be online discussion forums, expert advice sections.
Q3. Which services – national and local – should be joined at local level to bring the greatest benefits to local customers and communities?
NACAB proposes to run a project that aims to define (using information from the CAB service nationally) what opportunities exist to join up local and national services. As results become available from this, we will be happy to share them.
At the moment we believe the greatest benefits will come from the following services:
- Consumer support & advice - particularly from CABx, LSC
- Services from and to support groups
- Trading Standards
- Environmental Health
- Benefits services
- Employment services
- Planning applications
- Inland Revenue services
- Local service information e.g. child care
Currently we see two main types of service, information and transactional
In terms of information services, one stop shops are likely to be significant as it makes access to information easier. Content is an important issue here. The CAB Service can help provide this content, subject to sufficient resources being available.
Transactional services are more complicated; detailed opportunities in this area will be identified in our study mentioned above.
We also believe that there is continued scope for improving the “life episode” model, this provides a client-centric view of what needs to be joined up. The UK Online portal omits a number of life episodes including “I have lost my job” and “I am in debt”. It is also dependent on the existing provision of web-based information. This means that relevant information in some of the life episodes is excluded because it is not currently available electronically. This raises issues of quality standards.
Q4. What obstacles to close joint working need to be tackled for this joining up to succeed?
- Varying levels of technological facilities
- Technological interoperability issues
- Protocols on civil rights, privacy, security & confidentiality
- Information storage & retrieval
- Establishing common objectives
- Lack of expertise & change management skills
- Access to funding
- Gaining support, confidence and participation from general public
- Standardisation and simplification of processes, to ensure high quality services for all itizens regardless of where they live, such as:
- Standardisation of forms across local authorities (e.g. housing benefit, council tax benefit)
- Benefit claims processes need to be simpler and clearer
Q5. How can local service providers maintain strong branding and clear accountability whilst delivering integrated services?
We endorse the point made in paragraph 3.13 that Seamless access to joined-up services must be accompanied by clear branding of service providers and by effective championing of customer and citizens rights. However we feel that the consultation paper gives insufficient emphasis to the importance of “independence” and perceived trust. It is important that in any partnership, the independence of the various partners is explicit. This will not always be easy to achieve.
Strong branding and clear accountability can be achieved by:
- Clear indications of who provides the service
- Clear referral protocols
- Clear lines of redress, with call centre and face to face support
- Training for all support staff
- Transparent and explicit statements how any information collected will be used and shared.
It should be noted that one of the principles of the CAB service is that of independence. We would not want joined up services to threaten this. Similarly the issue of confidentiality is very important, there is a danger here that this too could be threatened.
Face to face access needs to be available, at least minimally, as a default option. It is particularly necessary when services are failing the public, and people cannot convey via the telephone or electronically their problems.
A model of local e-government
Q6. In Chapter 5 we aim to provide a model that is sufficiently clear to facilitate communication, but sufficiently detailed to be of practical use to practitioners and policy makers. Does the model proposed fulfil this ambition? Are there any important issues omitted, or are any of those included redundant?
The provision of e-services must not be seen as a panacea that will cure inherent problems with services. These services need to be supported by an holistic approach which ensures that people can access services, no matter where they live and what their local facilities are.
From the ‘citizen’s’ perspective, all provision of services must be supported by means of telephone helplines, call centres, access to information and redress, and face to face services (especially where the former fail citizens). Local government should enlist the support and services of such organisations as NACAB and the CAB Service, in order to be seen to provide independent advice that is highly valued and trusted.
We welcome the statement in paragraph 5.11 on social inclusion but this does not appear to be sufficiently integrated into the strategy or model presented in the consultation paper.
Q7. Without being unduly prescriptive, how can we ensure that the model is used consistently as a basis for planning and performance management across local government and the wider local e-government sector?
- Ensure that standards, KPIs, etc are based on the model
- Publicising & rewarding ‘best practice’ based on this model
- Encourage & facilitate the adoption of successful initiatives based on this model
- Maintain the model’s ‘flexibility’ by ensuring that it can adapt to enhancements
- Recognition & support for use of appropriate alternatives to e-government
- Ensuring community involvement in plans & monitoring – including, via intermediaries such as CABx and other advice providers
- As CABx can help deliver e-citizenship & e-democracy, it is important to engage in an early dialogue with NACAB
Building the e-organisation
Q8. Should BVPI157 be reviewed to improve a common analysis of transactions across local government? Should a common analysis be adopted across the public sector?
The BVPI should be reviewed so as 'to improve a common analysis of transactions across local government', with such a review taking account of the alternative analyses that authorities are already known to have used and therefore serving to "streamline" the process of performance data collation
Since BVPI 157 does not apply across the public sector, adherence to it could only be encouraged rather than enforced. It may be that such a review outlined above will produce a set of common transactions that can be adopted across the public sector, but the review needs to be conducted before such a move can be considered.
There is little emphasis on evaluation of the impact of the development of e-government services on those involved in providing services or acting as intermediaries or on outcomes for clients.
Q9. Should additional performance measures be developed to reflect the quality of electronic services, their take up and customer satisfaction with the outcomes?
While agreeing to the principle of such performance measures (and for all three of the suggested areas), it is important that their development involves consultation with users on the definitions and monitoring of performance measures.
It may be particularly useful to develop a PI covering all forms of access– perhaps that could be introduced first as it would not require such customer participation as quality and satisfaction PIs. Benefit take-up would also be another relevant PI.
Q10. How can these be integrated with Local Public Service Agreements and with the new Corporate Performance Assessments for local authorities?
No comment.
Q11. Do you support the approach to developing national projects? What alternative approaches might we adopt?
Yes, we support the approach to developing national projects. Experience such as the delivery of housing benefit have demonstrated the impact on the public when software is developed locally.
Q12. Do you agree with the priority developments proposed? What other building blocks (if any) would you identify for national development?
The current proposal of blocks for national development reflects inadequate attention to those pertaining to end-users and organisational impact. We would like to see consideration being given to the following additions -
- Transactions:
- Providing Information
- Consultation
- Access to Networks
- Enablers:
- Access Channels:
- Organisational Development:
- Leadership
- Project Management
- Change Management
Q13. Could your organisation make a significant contribution to one of the national priority projects? Would you like to register an interest?
Yes, we are interested in National priority projects:
- Personalised Local service websites
- Digital TV
- Mobile Technology for home/site visits
- Customer relationship management [check w/Emma]
- Workflow
- We would also be interested in “providing information” listed in Q12 if it were added to the list of transactions, and with the earlier caveats on independence.
We would like to see more detailed definition of these projects before we can commit significant resources, due to our own resource constraints.
We would also like to express our interest in initiatives in the following two sections of the consultation paper.
Pp 46-47 National Projects
- Consumer services/Trading standards
- Benefits (Local Pensions/Job Centre plus)
- Crime reduction/Youth offending
Appendix A – Joining it up
- UK Online Centres
- Consumer group portals
- Care Direct
- Local Pensions Service
- Local Implementation Strategies
- business.gov
- Supporting People
- Consumer Services
For the projects listed in these two sections, the same caveat as above applies.
Joining it up: delivering priority outcomes
Q14. Do you agree with the first two phases of priority transaction initiatives proposed? Are these the right priorities for joint activity to support the priority outcomes?
Also need Consumer rights & advice (e.g. of the nature & extent that NACAB provides)
Q15. In what other areas could joint e-initiatives make significant contributions to joined-up service delivery and customer service?
Significant contributions to joined-up service delivery could be made in the area of consumer advice, especially of the nature & extent that NACAB provides, and better benefit take-up to ensure adequate income for those who can’t work and help into work.
In general, NACAB would welcome a dialogue with LGA over the involvement of the CAB Service in the planning and delivery of joint initiatives. (NB: The CAB Service would be interested in further discussions regarding involvement including the Consumer Services Project).
The national framework
Q16. Do the standards proposals described in this chapter and Appendix B cover all of the priority issues? Will they meet the needs of local e-government? Are there any significant omissions you would want to see addressed?
It is important that standards are developed to the needs of people with insufficient literary and numeracy skills, those with visual impairment, and people whose first language is not English.
Q17. Do you agree that the national Accreditation Body and Project Repository proposed by the IDeA and SOCITM would make a valuable contribution to the delivery of local e-government? How could authorities and suppliers be engaged in the standards process?
We agree with the principles behind the proposed Standards Body & Project Repository, with the following proviso – namely that standards of service, delivery, security and quality are not in any way compromised or lowered in the pursuit of achieving 100% compliance with BVPI 157
Q18. Do the infrastructure proposals outlined in this chapter and Appendix C cover all of the priority issues? Will they meet the needs of local e-government? Are there any significant omissions you would want to see addressed?
It is important that consumers’ access to services is not in any way hindered by the implementation of the use of broadband. In seeking to increase market penetration and usage of broadband, narrowband versions must continue to be provided so that consumers are not excluded.
Q19. What more could – or should – be done to promote local partnerships?
We welcome recognition in paragraph 8.26 that local agencies need to be supported and offered incentives to work together. All partners should be involved at the outset, especially at the planning phase and not just brought in at the implementation phase. There is an important role for local authorities to build the capacity of other partners where necessary.
Since CABx have the potential to be key, central players in providing access to local and national e-government, NACAB is particularly interested in being involved in discussions on the development of local partnerships. Resource constraints can prevent us from taking part in such initiatives. There needs to be consideration for recompensing agencies such as the CAB Service for the time they spend on such initiatives.
National partnerships also need to be examined. For example, we are disappointed that the research project being carried out by the Audit Commission does not include voluntary sector organisations, despite interest having been shown. This suggests that the role that can be played by the voluntary sector is not widely understood even at national level.
Q20. Should the PSA/LPSA process specifically identify targets for central Departments to deliver jointly with local authorities in integrated processes?
These would seem rather prescriptive; shouldn’t LSPs be identifying targets to be included in PSAs ? Electronic access to services may not be seen as a local priority.
Q21. What can be done to promote greater flexibility in creating joint local delivery organisations? How can e-technology be used to support employees of such organisations?
No comment
Q22. What more could the government do to promote an effective response to this strategy from private sector suppliers?
No comment
Q23. What more could be done to provide local e-government support to local service providers? Do you support the concept of local authority “Centres of Excellence”?
We support the concept of local authority “Centres of excellence”
Any involvement from CAB Service in these will be constrained by the availability of resources.
Funding local e-government
Q24. Given the objectives of the LGOL programme, is the proposed balance of financial support for authorities, partnerships and national projects broadly targeted in the right areas?
There is concern about the perspective taken in the first bullet point in paragraph 9.2 that e-government can be achieved by redirecting existing budgets. There is no current evidence to support this statement. E-government is not merely replacing services but an additional service providing added value. It will need considerable investment if it is to be effective and provide high quality public service. Its development should not be at the expense of face to face or telephone services, especially for elderly people and people whose first language is not English.
|
