1. Scotland’s Complaints Standards Authority: A New Role for Ombuds?
Dr Chris gill
University of Glasgow

2. Introduction
Background on the SPSO’s “Complaint Standards Authority” (CSA) role
Outline of the research
Overview of some key findings
Conclusions
Reflections on extending the model

3. Background on the CSA

4. Key aspects and novelty of the CSA role
Power/ duty
Novel?
Publication of a statement of complaint handling principles (approved by Scottish Parliament)
Similar principles already exist, but the involvement of the legislature in approving them is novel
Monitoring practice and identifying any trends in the way authorities handle complaints
Ombuds monitor their own caseloads for trends, but monitoring internal complaints is novel
Promoting best practice in relation to such complaint handling
Ombuds generally do this, but without a statutory basis for doing so
Encouraging co-operation and sharing of best practice among authorities
The role around coordination is novel
Publishing model complaint handling procedures and making declarations of non-compliance.
The imposing and monitoring of complaint procedures is novel
Statement of CH. LGO axioms of good administration PHSO principles in 2007.
Monitoring practice and trends. Novelty is that this monitoring for trends relates to internal CH, not just those complaints the O sees. Move from looking at the tip of the iceberg, to being concerned with the iceberg itself. Monitoring requires new range of tools and practices for an ombuds.
Promotion of best practice there for some time, but novel for it to be formalised in this way and put on statutory footing.
Encouraging cooperation and sharing of best practice – this is new and means that not only must guidance be issued in a “top down” way by the ombuds, they must also have a role in coordinating the “bottom up” development of ideas around good practice.
Finally, the heart of the reforms are the design of procedures, monitoring their operation and deciding on whether they comply.
So, in summary, the CSA role is in many ways an evolution of existing practice, but with some significant extensions that involve the ombuds moving into new territory.

5. Implementation of the CSA role
Model CHPs
Monitoring practice and identifying trends
Standardised two stage process:
Stage1: informal resolution (5 days)
Stage 2: investigation (20 days)
Stage 3: SPSO
8 performance indicators, including:
Number of complaints
Outcomes of complaints
Timeliness
Customer satisfaction
Learning
So, what does this look like in practice?
Promotion of best practice
Cooperation and sharing best practice
Training
E-learning modules
“Valuing complaints” website
Research
Guidance
Hosting sectoral complaint networks
Annual complaint handler conferences
Learning and improvement unit

6. Research insights

7. The research project Aims Method
1: Compare how the Model CHPs are operating across Scottish local authorities;
2: Evaluate the usefulness of newly reported data for administrative justice researchers;
3: Highlight areas for further investigation in future research; and
4: Draw lessons for wider administrative justice policy and practice from the Model CHPs.
Note: this was a small-scale exploratory project, not a full or systematic evaluation.
19 qualitative interviews:
Three SPSO staff;
Two Local Authority Chief Executives and another a senior official;
10 members of the Local Government Complaints Network;
Two staff of Audit Scotland; and
An advocacy service representative.
Documentary analysis:
Complaint network annual report; and
6 local authority annual complaint handling reports.
Focus today:
Our research had a number of broader aims as can be seen here, but today I’m just going to focus on a few key findings that help give a sense of how the CSA role is working in practice.
You’ll see that we only focused on the local authority sector and that the public of our fieldwork involved local authority staff. So we spoke to about 19 people, as you see here and also analysed some of the complaints data now available as a result of the CSA.

8. Perceptions of model CHPs
Universal view that model CHPs were positive development
Benefits included:
Speed
Simplicity for citizens and staff
Consistency
Quality of responses
Enhancing status of complaint handling
Learning easier to track and monitor
Start of culture change around complaints

9. Perceptions of performance measures
Most respondents were positive about the SPSO’s performance indicators
Areas for improvement included:
The relevance of complaints per 1000 of population
The lack of data on complaints a service/ departmental level
The lack of data on the subjects of complaints
There were also concerns about the consistency and accuracy of data collection
Uncertainty about reporting against more qualitative indicators (customer satisfaction and learning)

10. Perceptions of benchmarking
Benchmarking viewed positively: prompt for discussion rather than league tables
The Local Government Complaint Handler Network was seen as key to the process, and learning resulted from discussion not data themselves
There were challenges around benchmarking
Accuracy and consistency of collection
Timeliness
Comparability across authorities

11. Perceptions of learning
Systematic collection and reporting of data had put learning from complaints on local authority agendas
Interviewees were able to mention various instances of learning having occurred
There were challenges around learning from complaints:
Making sense of aggregate data
Low volumes of complaints
Resource implications of making some changes
Capturing learning

12. Perceptions of new SPSO role
SPSO defined role as:
a monitor (“someone who sees what is happening and alerts people to things”)
not a regulator (“someone who applies a set of rules with penalties”)
Emphasis very much around encouraging best practice, facilitating change, and allowing “local” ownership (non-coercive)
Local authority staff emphasised SPSO’s cooperative approach as key in making the new CSA approach work and gaining acceptance
Some local authority staff wanted a more directive approach
Some lack of clarity over degree to which SPSO’s work aligns with existing bodies (Improvement Service, Audit Scotland)
AS – early stages
IS – role highlighted but degree of engagement unclear

13. Conclusions
Simplification and standardisation of complaint processes has been achieved
Early emphasis has been on processes, rather than outcomes:
Are citizens seeing a difference?
Are public services improving?
More thought needed on (a) what to measure and (b) how to measure it, particularly around citizens’ views and learning
Cooperation, local ownership, and emphasis on facilitating good practice seem to have been features of the process valued by stakeholders
Tentative conclusion that the CSA approach has merit and should be considered elsewhere, but some further discussion needed on this

14. Is this a model for England/ UK?

15. Reflections on extending the model (I)
Draft Public Services Ombudsman Bill
Duty to provide information, advice and training regarding complaint handling
Advice “may in particular be framed with reference to” complaints made to ombudsman
Duty on bodies under jurisdiction to “have regard to” information, advice and training when handling complaints
Power to provide information to bodies + others regarding complaint to ombudsman

16. Reflections on extending model (I)
Practice
Northern Ireland
Publication of a statement of complaint handling principles (approved by Scottish Parliament)
Monitoring practice and identifying any trends in the way authorities handle complaints
Promoting best practice in relation to such complaint handling
Encouraging co-operation and sharing of best practice among authorities
Publishing model complaint handling procedures and making declarations of non-compliance.
England – draft bill
Wales – Bill as introduced to Assembly October 2017 (Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill)
Northern Ireland – as per NIPSO Act 2016 – Public Services Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Act 2016

17. Reflections on extending the model (III)
Could it work in a larger jurisdiction?
Are there risks in ombuds using more “cooperative” approaches?
Is there sufficient evidence of positive outcomes?
What are the costs associated with the CSA model?
Is user-focus enhanced e.g. what about complaint/ appeal distinction?
Is the model CHP flexible enough/ too managerial?
What about comparators e.g. FCA regulation of complaint handling?
E.G. does it allow for creativity in dispute resolution, does it offer sufficient participation, can it be adapted?