CHAPTER 5 | Challenges in complaint handling

Introduction

This chapter looks at some of the areas we have been working on over the past two years to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of complaint handling and investigation within the office.

We recognise that if we are to continue to maintain relevance and effectiveness in a strategic manner, we need to evolve with the changing environment in which we operate. At times we criticise other agencies and recommend that they implement better and fairer systems and procedures. This underscores the importance of being rigorous in our own work practices and continually striving for improvement.

In the past two years, we have reviewed many of our internal policies and processes to evaluate their quality, consistency and accountability. As a result, we adopted a new approach to complaint resolution, created the Public Contact Team (PCT) to manage more efficiently the approaches we receive annually, and introduced a new complaints management system. We also responded to feedback on the difficulties people sometimes experience when we refer them to the agency they are complaining about, and collaborated with other ombudsmen in Australia about the management of unreasonable complainant conduct.

Public contact

Our national structure, with investigation officers located in each Australian capital city, is a strength of the office. Historically, approaches and complaints were mostly handled in the state offices in which the contact was received. A review of our internal processes made it clear that it was time to change this practice and to use the national structure in a different and more effective manner. Over time there had been an increase in the volume and complexity of cases coming to the office, with a heightened risk that work practices in responding to those initial contacts would vary between offices. This limited our capacity to:

• align complaints with the investigation officers with the most appropriate skills
• allow investigation officers to concentrate on more complex cases or investigations
• ensure national consistency in our response to complaints and enquiries
• recognise national trends in complaints and trouble spots in government administration.

In February 2006, we created the PCT to address these issues. The PCT comprises 12 people located in Canberra who:

• provide a national point of contact for all telephone approaches to the office
• respond to all electronically submitted complaints
• provide greater uniformity in data entry
• provide a physical reception and point of first contact for residents of the ACT and surrounding regions.

Between February 2006 and 30 June 2006, the PCT has handled 24,235 telephone calls.

Public contact officers (PCOs) and investigation officers have different roles. PCOs do not investigate complaints—they manage initial approaches to the office and resolve less complex cases. PCOs routinely refer a person back to an agency if the person has not yet discussed their problem with the agency, or provide advice on where to seek alternative assistance if the complaint is not within our jurisdiction. As 36% of approaches are outside our jurisdiction, the work of the PCOs ensures that people are efficiently referred to the appropriate agency for assistance and that the time of investigation officers is not taken up in providing this advice.

The PCT has enhanced our ability to provide a nationally consistent service. During the initial contact with a person, a PCO clarifies the scope of a person's complaint and the remedy they seek, and enters data into the office's complaints management system, such as personal details, details of the agency and issues complained about. If further investigation is needed, the PCO forwards the complaint to an investigation officer with the relevant specialist skills to handle the complaint.

The PCT's role allows investigation officers to focus on approaches and complaints of a more complex nature and spend less time on routine public contact work and preliminary complaint analysis. Investigation officers will also have greater capacity to undertake own motion and other cross-agency investigations, increasing our capacity to improve government administration generally.

The number of investigation officers located in each state office has either been retained or increased. With the introduction of the PCT, the state offices now have a strengthened capacity to undertake outreach activities and to interact with Australian Government agencies in their state.

Work practice changes

We have also taken a new approach to managing and handling complaints. In October 2005, we implemented a five-tiered structure for categorising and responding to complaints, based on the type of approach, the degree of effort required to resolve a complaint, and any potential sensitivities. The categories range from simple contacts that can be resolved without investigation through to the formal use of the Ombudsman's powers. This tiered structure ensures that complex or sensitive matters are assigned to senior, experienced officers and delineates a clear path for internal review.

We have also refined our complaint-handling objectives and the way we record complaint statistics. The emphasis in our work is on assisting complainants and giving them practical remedies for redressing their grievances. In many cases, we can provide assistance or a remedy without having to reach a firm view on whether an agency's administrative processes were deficient.

'... complex or sensitive matters are assigned to senior, experienced officers ...'

Sometimes it can be difficult or unproductive to form an objective view on deficiencies in agency processes. For example, many people who complain to the office have misunderstood or been confused about advice given by an agency. Generally, such complaints are most efficiently resolved through cooperation and responsiveness by agencies, without the Ombudsman needing to formally express critical views.

This change is reflected in the statistics in this annual report. The remedies provided during the year to people who approached the office are set out against the relevant agency in Appendix 4—Statistics. The most common remedy provided to complainants was a better or more detailed explanation by an agency of its decision or action, and expedition of an action.

Nevertheless, an important part of the work of the office is to decide whether there was any administrative deficiency by an agency. To do so feeds into the systemic work of the office; it is also an important message to an agency about its administrative performance and can help the agency improve its administrative processes. In line with other work practice changes, a recording of 'administrative deficiency' is signed off at the Senior Assistant Ombudsman level or above, and each finding is individually notified to an agency.

These and other changes to the work practices of the office were introduced by thorough work practice training for all staff members, a comprehensive online work practice manual, and the creation of the Professional Standards Team. The Professional Standards Team is responsible for implementing changes to improve the consistency, efficiency and effectiveness of complaint handling in the office. We also established the Work Practice Steering Committee to drive the change management agenda and to promote continuous improvement and consistency across the office.

Data management

As reported in the Ombudsman's annual reports in 2003–04 and 2004–05, a major project for the office has been the development of a new complaints management system to meet the challenge of better alignment with other systems and activities in the office. This computer-based system is integral to the effective management of individual complaints and the collection of data from those complaints.

The new system (Resolve) supports the office's work practice changes and provides significant enhancements over the previous system used since 2001, including:

• improved network response times
• simplified data entry and more effective data capture
• capacity to structure workflows
• improved reporting capability
• increased user assistance
• simplified system administration
• standard application interface to allow for future development
• greater interoperability with other office products and systems.

A key feature is the strength of Resolve's workflow capability. This allows the office to build in procedures to the complaints management system that will help investigation officers manage both individual complaints and complaint workloads. We expect this will lead to greater efficiency and better service delivery to people using the office.

'... a major project for the office has been the development of a new complaints management system ...'

During January and February 2006, the Resolve complaints management system was 'rolled out' to each of the Ombudsman's eight offices. The rollout was supported by comprehensive training sessions for staff, followed by work practice training.

While Resolve has better statistical reporting capability, the transition from our previous complaints management system has made it hard to align statistics this year. In 2006–07, it will be possible to provide more reliable statistical reporting.

Referrals to agencies

The Ombudsman has discretionary power to decline to investigate a complaint, unless it has first been raised with the agency concerned. The results of a May 2004 client satisfaction survey and conclusions drawn from a 2005 sample study into the referral of taxation complaints suggest that many people do not follow our advice to first raise their complaint with the agency involved.

With the creation of the PCT we can better control the guidance and advice we offer people when referring them back to an agency. As a large part of the PCT's work is referral work, we train PCOs to make referrals appropriately. In an attempt to limit 'complaint fatigue', PCOs give the person the contact details for an agency's complaint area and advise them to contact our office again if they are not satisfied with an agency's response.

Part of the training for PCOs is about when to depart from usual practice and refer a complaint to one of our own investigation officers rather than another agency. This may be more suitable if, for example, the person needs assistance in articulating their complaint with an agency, or if previous interaction between an agency and the complainant has been problematic.

Outreach into regional areas

A priority in 2005–06 was to build on the office's outreach activities to more effectively target key stakeholders in rural and regional Australia.

Awareness survey

A market research company surveyed 1,282 people in rural and regional areas to establish a benchmark level of awareness of the office. The research results indicated a high level of prompted awareness of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, with 74% of respondents having heard of the office. However, the survey also indicated confusion in the community about the roles of different ombudsman offices in Australia.

Outreach activities

We conducted 104 outreach activities across all states and territories, achieving our aim of conducting or participating in an average of at least one focused outreach activity each week during the year. One outreach activity was a seminar for federal parliamentarians and their electorate staff in Victoria, which we held in Melbourne in June 2006. It was the first of a series of such seminars to be held in all states in 2006–07. Another activity involved our staff visiting rural and regional locations, such as the Pilbara region of Western Australia. During the Pilbara visit, we participated in the local FeNaCLNG mining community festival in Karratha and talked to community groups in Port Hedland and other small towns in the region.

'We conducted 104 outreach activities across all states and territories ...'

During the year, Ombudsman staff made presentations at a wide variety of functions to diverse audiences. There was an emphasis this year on establishing relationships with multicultural organisations, particularly those representing refugees, in the light of the office's expanded function as Immigration Ombudsman. Staff also made presentations at accountancy and taxation organisations to highlight the Taxation Ombudsman role, and at Defence Force establishments to highlight the Defence Force Ombudsman role.

In 2006–07, we intend to build further on our activities over the past two years, to draw on the results of the benchmark survey to better target outreach activities and to measure the effectiveness of our outreach program over time.

Service delivery to Indigenous Australians

In November 2005, the Ombudsman established an Indigenous Working Group to review the office's communication with, and service delivery to, Indigenous Australians. We recognise that we cannot by ourselves overcome the cultural and other barriers that lead to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples being under-represented in approaches to the Ombudsman's office. Implementing a culturally appropriate service is a long-term process requiring initiative in addressing issues of concern to Indigenous people and the development of partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities.

The working group is developing a program of consultation with a range of Indigenous groups and individuals. This program is designed to improve our understanding of:

• Indigenous people and communities' experiences with and perceptions of the Ombudsman's office
• forms of communication that work best for Indigenous people who might want to complain to the Ombudsman
• key issues about how government agencies deliver services to Indigenous people and communities.

It is intended that the outcomes of this consultation program will inform the office's handling of complaints from Indigenous Australians and our program of own motion investigations.

Difficult or unreasonable conduct by complainants

Many complaint-handling agencies have to deal with complainants who engage in unreasonable conduct: they can be verbally or physically aggressive, unreasonably demanding, excessively persistent or unwilling to accept the decision of the office to conclude an investigation. Such unreasonable conduct can place an inequitable demand on resources and can cause distress for staff.

When reviewing our work practices, we clarified our policies to reflect the need for balance between complainant expectations and the demands placed on the office. Part of the challenge for the office is to instil confidence in staff that it can be wise and defensible to conclude an investigation against the wishes of a complainant.

'... we clarified our policies to reflect the need for balance between complainant expectations and the demands placed on the office.'

More can always be done to develop complaint-handling policies and strategies that strike an appropriate balance. To that end, we are participating in a cross-agency project, coordinated by the NSW Ombudsman's office, to develop and trial management strategies for people who exhibit unreasonable conduct. The aim of the project is to develop strategies across ombudsman offices nationally to ensure that unreasonable conduct is managed consistently and that a high-quality service is provided without reinforcing inappropriate conduct or placing our staff at risk. This work will continue into 2006–07.