Public's Satisfaction with Government Services (IL0019)

The Government has yet to conduct a broad examination of the quality of services provided to the public. Only a small portion of the bodies examined themselves with regard to this aspect and each in a different manner.Main objective - To improve service to the public by creating standardization, while defining reference points to provide excellent government services and using them as an administrative tool to focus resources and for learning. Challenge - Accountability and transparency

Commitment 6. To Measure the Public's Satisfaction with Government Services and the Quality of Service in the Various Channels

Commitment Text: To measure the quality of services provided to the public by government offices.

Status quo or problem/issue to be addressed: The Government has yet to conduct a broad examination of the quality of services provided to the public. Only a small portion of the bodies examined themselves with regard to this aspect and each in a different manner.

Main Objective: To improve service to the public by creating standardization, while defining reference points to provide excellent government services and using them as an administrative tool to focus resources and for learning.

Milestones:

6.1 To measure ten large bodies that provide service to the public.

6.2 To publish the annual report for 2014.

6.3 To expand the assessment to all bodies that provide extensive face-to-face services (excluding hospitals).

6.4 To examine the methods used by various countries to expand the assessment to additional bodies and to increase the assessment of existing ones beginning in 2017.

Responsible institution: Unit for the Improvement of Government Public Services, Government ICT Authority, Prime Minister's Office

Supporting institution(s): NA

Start date: January 1, 2014     End date: December 31, 2015

Context and objectives:

Israel has been collecting information regarding the quality of public services since 2010. Prior to this effort, there was no statistically viable information to assess public satisfaction or dissatisfaction with government services, which hindered government efforts to identify and correct public service problems. However, while measurement now exists, the government does not examine all government agencies. This commitment aims to provide all government officials with statistical information on perceptions of the quality of all public services provided by their agencies.

While this commitment may improve public services, the IRM researchers found it irrelevant to the four core OGP values.  ^{Although government findings argue that this is not an acute problem, as the government services overall enjoy positive feedback from users. This is expressed in the 2014 quality of government services index (see above, fn. 15).}   This commitment only collects statistical data on services and it is an internal procedural commitment. It has only one public-facing element: the issuance of a publicly available report of the survey’s outcomes. Yet, this is not the focus of this commitment. The commitment only documents government activities, it does not make available any new category of information. Therefore, the milestones have no potential impact on opening government.

Completion

The 2014 annual report was published in December 8, 2015, containing the results of twelve public service providers; these twelve were an increase from the ten indicated in the first milestone of the commitment.  ^{https://www.gov.il/exfiles/dochtikshuv/2015/files/assets/common/downloads/publication.pdf.}  The annual report gave separate measuring efforts for separate units within government agencies in Israel. For instance, within the Ministry of Justice, four different units were measured, while only three units were measured within the tax authority. While this study does not encompass a major part of Israel's 22 ministries and numerous government agencies, according to the unit in charge of the selection, the measured units were chosen because they are major 'street-level' providers of services to citizens.  ^{Tamar Peled-Amir (Member of the Society and Governance Division in the PMO) interview, 28 Sept. 2016.}  The measuring process was done primarily through polling citizens that used government services either online, over the phone, or face-to-face.

According to an interview with a government official, the second phase of measurement included 15 more government agencies.  ^{Interview with Ms. Ilana Pinchu of the PMO in interview in Tel-Aviv, September 25, 2016.}   Thus, the goal of measuring the service in 'all bodies that provide extensive face-to-face services' was limited in its level of completion, however according to the head of the unit conducting the measuring, these agencies cover 'more than 80%' of those providing 'extensive services' to 'a large portion' of the population  ^{As mentioned in government comments received to draft version of this report on March 13, 2017.}  Furthermore, the government has not conducted research on the international assessment methods for public service quality as indicated in the commitment.

Next Steps

The IRM researchers suggest not including this commitment in future OGP action plans. The commitment is not clearly related to OGP values. It does not promote openness in government, with the exception of the public reporting of the surveys. As currently presented, these reports are a by-product of the main commitment, which in itself does not promote access to information, civic participation or innovation and technology at the service of transparency. The reporting of surveys itself is indeed related to access to information, but it is a limited activity which would appear as an unambitious commitment by itself in a national action plan.

Alternatively, this commitment could serve as the basis for a commitment where the public responds to the polling conducted under the commitment’s text. The commitment might also benefit by more robust accountability components. An example for the suggested public involvement could be participation in setting benchmarks for governmental service providers, and a governmental commitment to respond to such demands. Accountability components can also include sanctions against government units and officials who fail improve over time or inquiries together with public representatives into the sources of failures to provide adequate services.

6. To Measure the Public's Satisfaction with Government Services and the Quality of Service in the Various Channels

Commitment Text:

To measure the quality of services provided to the public by government offices

Status quo or problem/issue to be addressed: The Government has yet to conduct a broad examination of the quality of services provided to the public. Only a small portion of the bodies examined themselves with regard to this aspect and each in a different manner.

Main Objective: To improve service to the public by creating standardization, while defining reference points to provide excellent government services and using them as an administrative tool to focus resources and for learning.

Milestones:

6.1. To measure ten large bodies that provide service to the public.

6.2. To publish the annual report for 2014.

6.3. To expand the assessment to all bodies that provide extensive face-to-face services (excluding hospitals).

6.4. To examine the methods used by various countries to expand the assessment to additional bodies and to increase the assessment of existing ones beginning in 2017.

Responsible institutions: Unit for the Improvement of Government Public Services, Government ICT Authority, Prime Minister's Office

Supporting institution(s): NA

Start date: 1 January 2014

End date: 31 December 2015

Commitment Aim

This commitment aimed to offer decision makers statistically viable information to assess the levels of public satisfaction with government services. Decision makers would thus have a tool to identify problems in public services and work towards their solutions. More specifically the commitment called for:

· Measuring public satisfaction from the services of 10 large government agencies;

· Publishing a report presenting survey findings;

· Expanding the scope of the assessment surveys;

· Learning from the experience of other countries in such activities.

Since this commitment focuses on collecting statistical data on services from the public and internally documents government activity without making any new category of information available to the public, the IRM researcher assessed it as not relevant to any OGP values. ^{Israel IRM Midterm Report, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Israel_MidTerm-Progress_2015-2017_ENG.pdf, pg. 40.} The survey's results were published online in August 2017. ^{http://cio-shipur.gov.il/Lobby/MeasurementAndControl/Pages/%D7%93%D7%95%D7%97-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%93%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-2016.aspx.}

Status

Midterm: Substantial

The end date for this commitment was set at December 2015, before the preparation of the IRM midterm report, which listed the commitment as substantially implemented. The government surveyed more agencies than planned in the first milestone but came short of 'expanding the assessment to all bodies that provide extensive face-to-face services (excluding hospitals) as anticipated for the third milestone.' Nevertheless, more than 80 percent of such bodies were surveyed. For more information, see the IRM midterm report. ^{Israel IRM Midterm Report, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Israel_MidTerm-Progress_2015-2017_ENG.pdf, pg. 41.}

End of term: Substantial

The head of the Unit for the Improvement of Government Public Services which oversees the implementation of this commitment replaced his predecessor in March 2017. After some delay (in February 2018), the incoming head of the Unit informed the IRM researcher that during the implementation period, the scope of this activity was widened to include 20 leading government agencies. According to him, this covers all large-scale face to face service providers in government except for one. In regard to milestone 6.4 (examine the methods used by various countries) the head of the Unit informed the IRM researcher that this is planned as part of the next stage of the project in 2019.

From discussions with CSOs involved in OGP in Israel, the IRM researcher learned that the implementation of this commitment, including in its later stages, did not bring any engagement with CSOs, and that the officials involved in the commitment were not active members in the OGP forum that met twice to bring together CSOs and the relevant government officials. ^{Interview with Mr. Tomer Lotan, former head of CECI, 17 September 2017; Meeting with CSO representatives, 13 September 2017.} The government's midterm self-assessment report did not provide additional information on the progress in implementation of milestones 6.3 and 6.4 that were yet to be completed when it was published.

Did It Open Government?

Access to Information: Did not Change

Civic Participation: Did not Change

Public Accountability: Did not Change

This commitment was designed to improve government services to the public. As mentioned above, it aimed to offer decision makers (and the public at large, since its findings are published online) tools to assess the level of public satisfaction with governmental services. It largely succeeded in doing so, as described in the IRM midterm report. ^{Israel IRM Midterm Report, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Israel_MidTerm-Progress_2015-2017_ENG.pdf, pg. 41. Details can also be found on, https://www.gov.il/exfiles/dochtikshuv/2015/files/assets/common/downloads/publication.pdf.} However, as was also stated in the midterm report, the commitment is not relevant in any significant measure to the three main OGP values. ^{Israel IRM Midterm Report, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/Israel_MidTerm-Progress_2015-2017_ENG.pdf, pg. 40.} The Government ICT Authority believes that the consistent annual evaluation and publication of government services performance plays a key role in government accountability. However, this commitment did not bring upon change in this respect - neither with disclosure of previously undisclosed information, nor opportunities for the public to influence decisions, nor any measures to increase public accountability after the survey findings.

Carried Forward?

This commitment has not been carried forward to Israel's third action plan due to preference for a new initiative.