Executive Summary

The Operating Environment: Public service delivery in times of distrust

Public sector leaders around the world are facing a common set of challenges to meet the increased expectations of their ‘customers’, ‘consumers’, ‘clients’, or ‘citizens’ in an era of declining public trust.[1] A common challenge faced by every organisation (public and private) and, particularly the Australian Public Service (APS), is how to service its citizens and businesses, better and at a sustainable cost. To address this, the APS needs to find ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of its service delivery functions. This means providing value for money by improving quality of service (accessibility for all and satisfactory citizen experiences and outcomes), and where possible and appropriate, reducing the costs involved in providing those services.

This challenge is particularly acute in regional and rural Australia where a combination of the tyranny of distance, the absence of critical population mass, idiosyncratic demography, more limited smart phone and internet access, the difficulty of attracting core public service capabilities and declining public trust has increased the complexity of service delivery. This is prompting the APS to explore new sustainable models for service delivery – models that can improve user experience and outcomes through enhanced service levels at the same or reduced cost.

We argue in this report that public services can be a critical space for trust-building between government and citizen but this requires development of citizen-centric service models that place the language of the citizen at the centre of service culture, design and delivery and embrace the mantra – “Citizens not customers – keep it simple, do what you say and say what you do”. “Citizens and not customers” because the notion of citizenship builds trust. It helps establish a trust system between government and citizen that is based on parity of esteem and creates common ground for transactions to take place. In contrast, given imperfect access to resources, customers are inherently unequal and potentially a force for distrust.

Meeting citizen expectations inevitably requires both a better understanding of the service needs and aspirations of an increasingly segmented citizenry and a service culture that see’s like a citizen and not a customer.

Purpose

The primary objective of this research is to provide the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet with a better understanding of public demand for, and trust in, Australian public services in regional/rural/remote areas with the aim of guiding the delivery of responsive public services that better meet the needs of these areas.

The research is designed also to make sense of existing key quantitative findings generated from the 2018-19 Citizen Experience Survey:

• satisfaction with Australian public services (52%) is higher than trust in government services (31%);
• public trust is lower in regional (27%) in contrast to urban (32%) areas;
• personal individual service delivery experiences drive overall levels of public trust;
• perceptions of transparency affect trust;
• service experience during significant life events affect trust in the APS;
• citizens and/or residents who were born overseas have higher levels of trust; and,
• citizens do not establish an independent view of the APS – they just see government.

With these observations in mind, the research focuses on identifying regional citizen perceptions of the key barriers and enablers to high quality service delivery, and gathering stakeholder insights into the capability, governance enablers and technologies to support long term policy thinking and service change. It is important to note that this research does not provide a comparative study of regional and urban citizen perspectives. Rather, in recognising the potential differences in service delivery approaches and requirements it focuses on giving voice to the perceptions of regional citizens of Australian government services.

Methods

A participatory action research design was selected for this project ensuring that innovative qualitative research and sampling methods were deployed combined with the latest applied insights. A co-design approach with core stakeholders was used to determine the research design and included:

• a review of national and international practice-based literature on public trust and achieving “line of sight” in the delivery of “customer” oriented service systems;
• documentary analysis of recent reviews of existing APS practice to provide an assessment of the quality of current service systems;
• a series of ‘one to one’ interviews with senior public servants with a strategic role in the area on the barriers and enablers to improved public service production;
• a qualitative investigation with a representative sample of 34 focus groups conducted across regional and rural Australia, and an additional two conducted in an urban area; and,
• a co-design workshop convened with core stakeholders to translate the research findings in a meaningful way for practice.

Operationalising trust

The survey research draws on the notion of political trust as a relational concept about “holding a positive perception about the actions of an individual or an organisation” (OECD 2017: 16) that requires “keeping promises and agreements” (Hethrington 2005: 1). In addition, we consider trust as a psychological contract between the individual and the organisation as “expectations and obligations” (Cullinane and Dundo., 2006; Rousseau 2001); and simultaneously as a social contract between government and citizens involving rights and obligations. This has commanded the attention of political philosophers since the 17th century from Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, to Rawls and Gauthier, amongst others. We hypothesize that in combination, trust comprises of various micro-psychological contracts between government and citizens that encompass expectations of service culture, quality and obligations and entitlements of citizenship.

It is important to recognize the three different components of trust that operate in a liberal democracy:

• Trust occurs when A trusts that B will act on their behalf and in their interests to do X in particular and more generally.
• Mistrust occurs when A assumes that B may not act on their behalf and in their interests to do X but will judge B according to information and context. This definition is associated with the notion of a critical citizen and active citizenship and is viewed to strengthen democracy.
• Distrust occurs when A assumes that B is untrustworthy and will cause harm to their interests in respect of X or more generally.

In contrast to mistrust, distrust is viewed to weaken democracy and confidence in government.

We asked focus group participants to describe what a trusted public service meant to them. They were uniform in emphasising the importance of:

• Integrity (“honesty”, “transparency”, “consistency”, “say what you do” or procedural fairness).
• Empathy (“care”, “respect”, “understanding”).
• Delivery (“do what you say”); and, more surprisingly
• Loyalty (to “have your back”, expectation for institutional paternalism).

These observations help to validate our understanding of the various micro-psychological contracts between government and citizen that encompass expectations of service culture, quality and obligations and entitlements of citizenship. Above all, public trust in government services is earned by delivering (‘Do what you say’) on the service promise (‘Say what you do’) in a way that values and respects citizens’ rights and input.

In general, our regional focus group findings validate the findings of the Citizen Experience Survey and provide greater detail on the factors informing citizen perceptions. For example:

• Trust in politicians in general remains very low and declining political trust does impact on all aspects of citizen trust in government (trust in government services, service satisfaction and confidence in the problem-solving capability of federal government).
• Trust in government services declines by social income and individual and community capability.
• Citizens are less likely to trust services that form part of government policies that they disagree with.
• Negative personal and network experiences of the significant effort required to access complex services diminishes trust.
• Many informants had a negative experience of the service culture except for simple transactional services.
• Digital service delivery is often the preferred channel for simple transactional services for those with capacity and access to digital technology. For complex services, mixed channels of service delivery are crucial. The more complex the service, the greater the need for consistent human support and advocacy.
• Citizens do not distinguish between different levels of government unless prompted; they just see government and expect jurisdictions of government to collaborate effectively.

APS leaders were not surprised by the results of the Citizen Experience Survey but did identify several mitigating factors that need to be considered in any response. Firstly, constitutionally the APS cannot address the problem of declining political trust and by implication the role of politicians; although it clearly impacts on public perceptions of the quality of public service delivery. The focus of the APS effort should therefore be on improving the quality of service delivery; a task within the APS’s remit of responsibility. Secondly, citizens are less likely to trust services that form part of government policies that they disagree with; hence you will never be able to please everybody. Thirdly, Australians have high expectations of service delivery that might be difficult to meet given budgetary constraints. They expect to have the same quality of experience with public and private sector service providers. It is therefore important to establish a public expectation thesis i.e. given prevailing constraints what could the service provider reasonably be expected to achieve? Fourthly, accessing complex services requires significant effort due to legislative requirements which is likely to lead to diminished trust. The incremental impact of targeting to contain costs has inevitably led to more complex service delivery. Fifthly, many services that Australians receive are, in David Thodey’s terms, “seamless” and “invisible” (e.g. PBS, Medicare), but because they do not involve formal evaluation touchpoints go unrecognised by the citizen.

The impact of current public service delivery approaches on trust

APS leaders identified both cognitive and institutional barriers to the delivery of high-quality government services. Cognitive barriers, i.e. obstacles to the capacity of the APS to understand the service needs of Australians citizens and deliver on the service promise, involve:

1. unpredictable target group behaviour due to citizen bias against the policy intervention or frustration with previous service experience;
2. the absence of delivery expertise in APS SES and limited understanding of the imperatives of a service culture;
3. a ‘top-down’ approach to policy and service design; and,
4. negative perceptions of the “Canberra-bubble” (and the ‘tyranny of distance’).

The institutional barriers (internal organisational issues which impact on the capacity of public organisations to create and deliver quality public services) identified included: siloed systems that are not conducive to service delivery; complexity in service design and access; difficulty in finding the ‘right information, at the right time, in the right context’; reactive service management; and poor communication with citizens about entitlements and obligations; citizens being required to provide information multiple times; and, the complexity of tools provided by government.

A set of environmental barriers were also identified. These are exogenous factors which can undermine the capacity of public organisations to create and deliver quality public services. They are generally beyond the organisation’s control but need to be factored into strategic thinking particularly in areas of risk-management and strategic communication to staff. In this instance they include: 1) low levels of political trust; 2) high citizen expectation of the quality of service; 3) low levels of trust between jurisdictions; and, 4)fragmented policy and service systems.

Many APS leaders recognised the need for a whole of government approach that leveraged off the APS footprint to combat declining trust in regional and remote communities, informed by three service delivery principles:

• regional decentralisation;
• user-first design; and,
• personalisation supported by a strong service culture.

APS leaders and citizens share a common concern with two conceptual barriers to quality service delivery: that a ‘top-down’ approach to policy and service design dominates determined by ‘faceless Canberra bureaucrats’ with a perceived lack of understanding of the needs of regional and rural Australians; and, negative perceptions of the ‘Canberra bubble’ compounded by the ‘tyranny of distance’. Although, it must be emphasised that it would be wrong to exaggerate the urban-regional-rural divide with respect to trust in government services. Regional and rural Australians are only somewhat more disaffected than their urban counterparts and there is often a false division of citizens based on their geography. This research found that regional citizens perceptions of service delivery were similar to urban citizens – while delivery approaches may vary, the service qualities demanded by regional and urban are generally the same.

Citizen perceptions of environmental barriers to quality service delivery tend to focus on localised economic, political and social factors that mediate or embed broader perceptions of trust/distrust in government services. For example, the seasonal nature of the economy in certain parts of regional Australia adds a degree of complexity to the relationship between citizens and government that heighten distrust; the system is seen as not responsive to people with abnormal working patterns and it becomes easier not to engage or to seek alternative pathways (e.g. use of the ‘black’ economy, family and/or community support, or ‘go without’).

In other areas, a sense of economic insecurity due to the changing nature of local economic conditions is impacting on declining trust in government services and the view not only that ‘the government doesn’t care’ but that the government deliberately makes it more and more difficult to get the help that they are entitled to, and that they don’t provide services appropriate to their specific circumstances (e.g. support during times of economic downturn or restructuring due to closure of major industries or in times of disaster management due to fires, floods or drought).

Many focus group participants accepted that certain services would be more difficult to access in regional and rural settings due to escalating costs of provision; however, they also contended that the higher costs of living in regional Australia legitimated increased provision (i.e. increased costs results in increased GST paid, so they were ‘owed’ improved services).

In general, there exists within this cohort very low patterns of political trust in federal politicians. Indeed, it was consistently difficult to steer focus groups away from negative discussions about politicians; however, the urban groups similarly were highly cynical.

Socially, there is also evidence of increasing antagonism and declining social trust due to perceptions that particular groups (mainly New Australians and asylum seekers, and to a lesser extent Indigenous Australians) are getting special treatment.

Most of the perceived barriers to quality service delivery identified by citizens tend to be institutional in character and again replicate many of the concerns of APS leaders:

• poor service communication - citizens’ awareness, access and use of services is hampered by poor information and communication;
• siloed service delivery - leading to time delays and inconsistent outcomes;
• poor service culture – low trust is based on the negative experiences of both the individual citizen and their kinship networks and manifest in lack of empathy, timeliness, pressure to use phone/online delivery approaches, inconsistent information, and poor accountability;
• complexity of service needs – increases the likelihood of negative experience compared to simpler transactional services.

Impacts on the uptake of Australian public services in regional areas

The focus groups identified a range of influences affecting service uptake which have strong linkages with the characteristics of trust previously identified. Some factors are based on prior experience (demand-side drivers), others relate to the performance of government (supply-side drivers):

• Poor communication – a lack of awareness of available services was the most cited reason for lack of service uptake. Other communication issues included poor information provision on websites (complexity, jargon, poor navigation) and insufficient advice from service providers about additional services available.
• Complexity of service delivery - complexity of service delivery was both a significant eroder of trust and an inhibitor of service uptake. Simplification of application and compliance requirements is deemed essential for improved uptake of available services.
• Improved resourcing and service culture is essential for uptake and equitable provision – service delivery delays and perceived poor treatment from frontline staff inhibited service uptake.

Service complexity, coupled with the push for online service delivery, inhibits many vulnerable people from being able to access services. Advocacy from family, friends, NGOs or service providers helps certain citizens to navigate service delivery processes in a respectful manner. But they are the lucky ones.

Improving trust in public services in regional Australia

The key findings that emerge from this research are reflected in the subtitle of our report – “Citizens not consumers – keep it simple, say what you do and do what you say”. The evidence from our research points to the need to drive a public sector reform agenda that:

• empowers service users as citizens with rights and obligations;
• builds whole of government collaboration;
• enhances the quality of service-delivery reform, and
• co-designs tailored responses with the citizenry that reflect the plurality of individual and community identities in Australia.

It should also be noted that regional Australians in the vast majority of the communities we visited, welcomed and enjoyed the opportunity to engage with us on these issues. The findings demonstrate that everyday Australian citizens have the capability to both identify service problems and make informed suggestions for their improvement. When we asked our sample of focus group participants how service provision could be improved, they proposed many similar changes to our sample of APS policy leaders although articulated in a different language:

• Improve the service experience – cut the complexity, reduce the silos, collaborate across jurisdictions, make services easier to access, increase the knowledge and interpersonal skills of front-line staff;
• Increase the transparency of the service process – including clear lines of accountability between government and citizen;
• Embed a service culture – address issues of poor service through reforms that recognise and respect citizens – improved training and resourcing of front-line staff is deemed essential;
• Deliver for citizens – deliver services that suit citizens not government. Make them accessible by reducing wait times, hold office hours outside normal business hours to improve access, use a variety of delivery platforms that are designed for the local context;
• Ensure that the right information is in the right place at the right time – improve clarity of, and access to, information and thereby increase awareness of services. Use a variety of channels to target segmented audiences.

In summary, citizens have high expectations of service culture, quality and procedural fairness. They see these expectations as entitlements of citizenship. Public trust in government services is therefore undermined by:

• Localised social, economic and political factors (demand-side factors)
• Perceptions of a ‘top-down’, impersonal service culture (supply-side factors)
• Negative personal and social network experiences (demand-side factors)
• Perceptions of procedural unfairness (supply-side factors)

The degree of common ground between citizens and APS leaders on both the barriers and enablers to a higher quality service experience is remarkable and helps us to clarify pathways to reform. Many of the underlying drivers of trust and areas for potential improvement stem from and/or are exacerbated by current service systems and culture. We therefore propose a set of future-state options drawing on international best practice and citizen and stakeholder insights. The following recommendations do not represent a commitment by PM&C or the Australian Government to change but have been distilled by the research team for further exploration by the APS.

1. Achieve ‘line of sight’ between policy, programs and services around the first principle of integrating program management and delivery functions through regional service centres.
2. Citizen-centred service culture – introduce a ‘user-first’, ‘co-design’ approach for all services and a personalisation approach with strong advocacy capability for citizens experiencing complex problems. Citizens expect greater personal care and support.
3. Capacity, communication and capability – enhance service culture capability, greater advocacy support for the vulnerable and intelligent marketing and communication of government services through targeted channels (strategic communication and engagement).
4. Service quality – establish a single source of truth across government information and reduce the complexity of the service offer.
5. Service experience – introduce a ‘tell us once’ integrated service system which values the time of the citizen and understands and empathises with their service journeys.
6. Citizen-centred service innovation – an opportunity for innovation lies in digital access and support; the creation of integrated regional service hubs; the recruitment of “trusted” and “local” community service coordinators; and viewing complaints as learning opportunities.

Ongoing research

There are at least seven important gaps in our knowledge of the present APS service system in regional Australia that require consideration:

1. The findings of this research are not new, many of these barriers and enablers have been identified over recent decades, although this comprehensive focus on regional citizens does provide novel insights. Given that we have known these challenges for some decades, why has more change not materialised? More research is needed to better understand disconnections in line-of sight whole of Commonwealth government and between jurisdictions and the community sector. What is constraining positive changes in service delivery?
2. There is a lack of coherence around the common purpose, principles and operational parameters governing the present APS service delivery framework. The data reported here demonstrates that staff both anticipate and expect change and they believe a culture shift is looming through the launch of both Services Australia and the APS Review. In the main, morale is fairly good (with some outliers) but a sense of uncertainty about the future is palpable and there are diminished levels of trust between policy owners, program managers and service providers. In sum, the present governing context provides an opportune time for change.
3. We have no data on the views of street level bureaucrats on the strengths, weaknesses and future development of the present service system and yet we know from existing literature that service innovation largely emerges from the frontline.
4. Despite significant public investment over the past decade, we also have limited evidence on what works in terms of regionally and rurally-based governance structures for coordinating citizen-facing services.
5. We also have limited geospatial mapping of existing service and program delivery. Developing the ability to understand what is being delivered into a community by postcode (or other relevant spatial measure) would provide a powerful planning and decision-making tool. For example, we could use this to map under and over-supply of services in relation to the SEIFA index (see Figure 10).
6. At the core of this change process is the need for better collaborative practice and yet our understanding of what this looks like in practice is limited. A research-practice program could be established to identify and share best-practice collaboration principles.[2]
7. We have limited knowledge about the costs of delivering a siloed approach versus an integrated service approach suggesting the need for the Department of Finance to undertake a productivity review of the existing service delivery system.

These are significant gaps in the evidence base that, if bridged, could enable better decision-making on regional service delivery problems and solutions.

Footnotes

[1] It is noteworthy that the APS does not have a common language to describe the beneficiaries of its programs, products and services; different agencies use different concepts. Henceforth, unless stated we will use the concept of customer, consumer and client interchangeably.

[2] See: Evans, M. (2019), Discovery Report: Building a culture for change: from “collegiality” to “collaboration”, A joint submission from AusIndustry, Strategic Policy, Economic and Analytical Services and The Science and Commercialisation Division, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and Evans, M. (2018), Methodology for Evaluating the Quality of Collaboration, Canberra, IGPA.