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:
- unpredictable target group behaviour due to citizen bias against the policy intervention or frustration with previous service experience;
- the absence of delivery expertise in APS SES and limited understanding of the imperatives of a service culture;
- a ‘top-down’ approach to policy and service design; and,
- 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.