Citizens Charter-Sevottam Model

Introduction

Department of the Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, GOI has come out with a framework for improving delivery of public services, which is known as the Sevottam framework and the same is presented below.

The framework is the Indian Standard IS: 15700:2005 of delivery of public services. It is a quality management framework which provides a systematic approach to improving public service and any public organization may acquire the said certification by complying with the steps.
The Sevottam framework is applicable to all public services delivered by the central and state governments.

The framework has three different modules as shown below:

• Citizen Charter for defining the level of services to be provided to the citizen.
• Improving capability for delivery of services to the desired standard.
• Grievance redress standard

The rationale of the Sevottam Framework is that the service standard should be defined first so that every citizen knows what to expect in terms of service types and standards. The next task is to receive feedback and complaints from the clients to know what has gone wrong in not meeting the service standard. The third task is to meet the service standard by developing capability of the delivery system.

A New Approach for Making Organizations Citizen Centric

The Citizens’ Charter cannot be an end in itself it is rather a means to an end – a tool to ensure that the citizen is always at the heart, of any service, delivery mechanism. The IS 15700: 2005 of the Bureau of Indian Standards is an Indian Standard for Quality Management Systems. The Standard stipulates that a Quality Management System helps an organization to build systems which enable it to provide quality service consistently and is not a substitute for ‘service standards’. In fact they are complementary to each other.

The Sevottam model seeks to assess an organization on

• (i) implementation of the Citizens’ Charter;
• (ii) implementation of grievances redressal system and;
• (iii) service delivery capability.

The Sevottam model is in the take off stage. It has been pointed out that a model to make administration citizen centric should be easy to understand both by the citizens and the organizations.

Therefore, prescribing a rigid model and implementing it, following a top-down approach is not always the best option. Since the maximum interaction of citizens takes place with field formations, it is necessary that reforms for enshrining a citizens’ centric administration take place at that level rather than following a trickle down approach by concentrating on reforms at the apex level.

The same approach is also necessary for Citizens’ Charter. Today most of the field formations either do not have a Citizens’ Charter or they adopt a generic one provided by the Headquarters.

The ARC Seven Step Model for Citizen Centricity

This model draws from the principles of the IS 15700:2005, the Sevottam model and the Customer Service Excellence Model of the UK. Each organization should follow a step by step approach which would help it in becoming increasingly more citizen centric. This approach should be followed not only by the top management but also by each unit of the organization that has a public interface.

The top management has the dual responsibility of setting standards for itself as well as guiding the subordinate offices in setting their own standards. Besides, all supervisory levels should ensure that the standards set by the subordinate offices are realistic and are in synergy with the broad organizational goals. Thus, though each office would have the autonomy to set standards, these would have to be in consonance with the organizational policies.

Step 1: Define Services

• All organizational units should clearly identify the services they provide. Here the term service should have a broad connotation. Enforcement departments may think that enforcement is not a service. But this view is not correct. Even the task of enforcement of regulations has many elements of service delivery like issue of licenses, courteous behaviour etc. Normally, any legitimate expectation by a citizen should be included in the term ‘service’.
• Defining the services would help the staff in an organization in understanding the links between what they do and the mission of the organization. In addition, the unit should also identify its clients and if the number of clients is too large it should categorize them into groups, which would be the first step in developing an insight into citizens’ needs.

Step 2: Set Standards

• It has been well said that ‘what cannot be measured never gets done’. Once the various services have been identified and defined, the next logical and perhaps the most important step is to set standards for each one of these services.
• A good starting point would be getting an input from the clients as to what their expectations are about each one of the identified services. Thereafter, based on their capability the organization’s overall goals and of course the citizens’ expectations, the unit should set standards to which they could commit.
• It is very important that these standards are realistic and achievable. Complaints redressal mechanism should form an integral part of this exercise. These standards should then form an integral part of the Citizens’ Charter.

Step 3: Develop Capacity

• Merely defining the services and setting standards for them would not be sufficient unless each unit has the capability for achieving them.

• Moreover since the standards are to be upgraded periodically. It is necessary that capacity building also becomes a continuous process. Capacity building would include conventional training but also imbibing the right values, developing a customer centric culture within the organization and raising the motivation and morale of the staff.

Step 4: Perform

• Having defined the standards as well as developed the organizational capacity, internal mechanisms have to be evolved to ensure that each individual and unit in the organization performs to achieve the standards.
• Having a sound performance management system would enable the organizations to guide individuals’ performance towards organizational goals.

Step 5: Monitor

• Well articulated standards of performance would be meaningful only if they are adhered to. Each organization should develop a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the commitments made regarding the quality of service are kept.
• Since all commitments have to form a part of the Citizens’ Charter, it would be desirable that an automatic mechanism is provided which signals any breach of committed standard, is would involve taking corrective measures continuously till the system stabilizes. Compliance to standards would be better if it is backed up by a system of rewards and punishments.

Step 6: Evaluate

• It is necessary that there is an evaluation of the extent of customer satisfaction by an external agency, is evaluation could be through random surveys, citizens’ report cards, obtaining feedback from citizens during periodic interactions or even an assessment by a professional body. Such an evaluation would bring out the degree to which the unit is citizen centric or otherwise.
• It would also highlight the areas wherein there have been improvements and those which require further improvement. This would become an input in the continuous review of the system.

Step 7:Continuous Improvement

• Continuous improvement in the quality of services is a continuous process. With rising aspirations of the citizens, new services would have to be introduced, based on the monitoring and evaluation, standards would have to be revised and even the internal capability and systems would require continuous upgradation.

The Commission is of the view that the approach outlined in the model described is quite simple and there should be no difficulty for any organization or any of its units to adopt this approach and make it citizen centric. Commission would like to recommend that the Union Government as well as State Governments should make this model mandatory for all public service organizations.

Drawbacks of the Citizens’ Charter

Here are some of the key drawbacks and limitations of the Citizens' Charter initiative:

• Vague commitments

The commitments made in the charter tend to be vague and general rather than specific and measurable. This makes it difficult to measure progress and hold agencies accountable. The charter may state that a service will be delivered in a "reasonable time" or applications will be "promptly processed". But there are no defined timelines. The education department's charter may promise "high quality of teaching". But there are no defined parameters like student-teacher ratio, training hours per teacher etc. This makes the commitment vague and non-measurable.

• Lack of awareness

There is poor awareness among citizens about the charter, its commitments, and grievance redressal mechanisms. This limits its effectiveness. In a survey, only 13% citizens were aware of the existence of a charter in their city. This severely limits its effectiveness. In a metro city, only 18% of respondents in a citizen survey knew about the municipal corporation's charter. Many were availing services without knowing their rights and entitlements.

• No legal backing

The charter does not have any statutory backing. There are no penalties for non-compliance by government agencies. In the case of passport services, despite delays, citizens have no recourse if the commitments in the charter are not met. The railways charter promises ticket refunds within 2 days for cancellations. But a passenger has no legal recourse if refund takes longer. The charter has no statutory backing to enable enforcement.

• Implementation issues

There are challenges in implementing the charter such as resistance to change, lack of training, and absence of an institutional framework for coordination and monitoring. Frontline staff in agencies like transport departments are often not trained in the charter provisions. This leads to lack of compliance. A hospital's charter may prescribe a 2-hour waiting time for outpatient consultation. But lack of adequate doctors derails this. No training is provided on charter provisions and no workflow reengineering done.

• Resource constraints

Many public agencies lack sufficient resources, staff and capacity to fulfill charter commitments. A municipality's charter commits to timely garbage clearance. But insufficient staff and trucks make this commitment impossible to fulfil. The PDS charter commits to food grain availability within 2 kms radius. But the district has only 5 supply trucks to cover 500 villages. This hampers ability to fulfil the charter promise.

• Exclusions

The charter covers only selected services and departments. Several public services are not included within its ambit. The charter in a district may cover only ration shops, schools and hospitals. Other essential services like policing, courts, registrations may be left out. The district's charter covers only health, school and PDS. Law and order, land records, utilities like water and electricity are outside its purview.

• Grievance redressal

The grievance redressal mechanisms prescribed are often ineffective and the timelines not adhered to. A charter may prescribe a 21-day timeline for grievance resolution. But in practice, grievances remain unresolved for months due to systemic inefficiencies. The metro rail charter sets a 60 day deadline for grievance resolution. But most complaints go into a black hole and remain unattended beyond this timeframe due to lack of monitoring and citizen interface.

• Monitoring gaps

There are no standardized performance indicators or tools to measure citizen satisfaction. This makes monitoring charter implementation difficult. When service standards are vague, and no citizen satisfaction surveys are undertaken, there is no metric to judge charter performance. The municipality's sanitation charter prescribes cleanliness standards. But with no citizen feedback surveys or audits, there is no way to track progress and deficiencies continue unchecked.

• Lack of citizen inclusion

Citizens are rarely consulted in the formulation of the charter and setting of service standards. Citizens who are meant to be beneficiaries of the charter are rarely consulted before finalizing charter commitments. The transport department's charter is designed internally without any inputs from daily commuters who could provide insights based on ground realities.

• Narrow focus

The charter has a siloed approach focused on citizen-government interactions. It does not address systemic issues of service delivery. The charter focuses on transactions like issuing certificates and paying bills. But does not address reforming underlying supply-side constraints. The taxation department's charter looks only at property tax payment and refunds, not at the entire tax administration system and need for reforms like simplification of procedures, digitization etc.

Overall, while well-intentioned, the Citizens' Charter suffers from issues in awareness, implementation, inclusiveness and monitoring. A more binding and collaborative framework is needed to make it effective.

Defects of earlier systems of public service delivery

Here are the defects of earlier public service delivery mechanisms pointed out:

• Citizens Charter 

1. Prepared without involvement of citizens, clients or stakeholders

2. No linkage with service delivery improvement

3. Lack of awareness amongst ground-level staff hindering implementation

• Public Grievance Redressal

1. Absent in many government organizations

2. Grievances not leveraged as feedback to improve services

3. Staff not trained for improving assigned tasks

• Public Delivery Standards

1. Standards not prescribed or unmet due to inadequate infrastructure
2. Lack of involvement, demotivation and training of frontline staff
3. Suboptimal resource planning and utilization

Conclusion

The Sevottam framework holds immense promise to transform India's public service delivery system by incorporating elements of excellence like citizen focus, accountability, transparency and efficiency. However, nationwide implementation remains a formidable challenge that will require committed leadership, change management skills, resources and digitization. If adopted effectively, Sevottam can usher in improved governance that delivers citizen-centric services in a timely and quality manner. It has the potential to restore public trust, fulfill aspirations and enable a $5 trillion economy powered by good governance. Sevottam provides the blueprint to steer much-needed reforms, but concerted efforts by all stakeholders will be key to realizing its full benefits.