I've had two very interesting experiences with public sector organisations during the last fortnight. What made them interesting to me was the emotions I felt during each one - which were at oppostive ends of the good to bad spectrum.
This post explains how I felt about the first, there'll be a further one later about the second. Some background about the first: I have an elderly mother who suffers with dementia and lives in a residential home. About 18 months ago I applied to the Court of Protection to be appointed as her Deputy - a legal representative responsible for managing her property and financial affairs. I'm sure every family hope that it's never necessary for them to have to do this, but given the deterioration in mum's mental capacity it was in ours, and so with the agreement of my two brothers and sister we agreed that I would apply to act as her Deputy. Incidentally, given the forecasts about the increase in the number of people with dementia in the future I anticipate many, many more people will have be in a position where they need to do this in the future. If you're reading this in the UK I recommend you consider putting a Lasting power of Attorney in place to prevent the difficult Court of Protection Process.
The process of applying to the Court of Protection is difficult, and I understand the reasons why. It's important for anyone fulfilling the role of a Deputy to be able to demonstrate they have the integrity and capability to do it properly. Anyway, I was eventually confirmed as Deputy in April 2011. Responsibility for the monitoring of Deputies then passes to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) - a government body that protects the private assets and supervises the financial affairs of people who lack mental capacity for making decisions.
Following my appointment I received a letter from the OPG that was full of phrases clearly designed to ensure I fulfilled my duties properly:
"You are required ...."
"It is a condition ...."
"Your order specifies ...."
"You must ensure that ...."
"Please be aware ....".
I also received a telephone call shortly afterwards to check that I'd taken action to comply with one of the conditions although to be fair, the lady I spoke to also said in a much softer tone that the role of her team was to provide guidance and support for Deputies like me.
I then received a letter just before Christmas advising me that a visitor from the OPG would be calling to see me and mum at the residential home on January 6th. It also clarified what I was required to produce on the day to illustrate that I was performing my role properly. It went on to state that I should let the visitor know if that date wasn't convenient and that I should inform the residential home of the visit.
I felt insulted. It seems to me that the correspondence contains an implicit assumption that careful monitoring of my actions is required because either a) I am incapable of performing the role or b) I am dishonest. I thought that the application process had illustrated that a) isn't the case so I was left feeling that b) is the real reason for the visit and I feel cross and indignant that anyone could feel that I would betray my own mum.
I'm not saying by the way that this was specifically intended or that it is unique to me. The OPG approach all Deputies in the same way. It's not personal - but it becomes so for Deputies who out of love for their family member are doing all they can to ensure that the remainder of their life is happy and their needs are taken care of. The OPG would probably say that they are fulfilling their statutory duty but do they really need to be so confrontational in the way they do it?
Minor changes could result in a huge difference in perception. Letters could start by thanking Deputies for their role in assisting the person they represent, pre-prepared accounting spreadsheets could be distributed (rather than telling the Deputy it's up to them how they keep records and then giving them a prescribed format at year end when an annual report is required , which is what happens now), visitors could ring (they have my number!) and soften the delivery of what they'll need to check.
My guess is that a small number of Deputies are not capable of fulfilling their role and that a further small number are dishonest so the policies and procedures followed are designed to prevent such problems. I say that it would be better to improve the application process so that these people are more effectively identified at the outset, and to assume that the majority of Deputies are capable and honest.
The biggest challenge is to change the mind-set within the organisation. To change it from being one which is focused on itself and which results in its customers having to comply with its policies, processes and behaviours, to one which is focused on it's customers and which designs itself to support them. They design the organisation 'inside - out' rather than 'outside - in'. This is by no means exclusive to the public sector, but it's the reason it has such a bad reputation.
Being 'inside - out' is also the reason why many private sector companies can't engage their customers, it's impossible until they think 'outside - in'.
Having said all of that ......the second story which I'll post later paints a different picture, one of a public sector organisation who are delivering 'outside - in'.
No comments:
Post a Comment