The IPAM (Informal Pro-active Approach-Model) provides a fundamental and innovative change for complaint handling and conflict resolution procedures in public administration. From a traditional, formal, judicial, procedural and written approach, IPAM initiates, stimulates and supports a pro-active, personal, open and solution driven approach for all government organisations.
IPAM consists of two sets of possible interventions, depending on the phase of the decision making;
1. During the preliminary phase in decision making, (before a government decision is made) that has (negative) consequences for a certain person, the citizen concerned is contacted by the civil servant. Typically, through a phone call, the civil servant validates the information on which the decision will be based (is this correct and complete); explains why a certain decision is about to be made; and explores possible alternative solutions within the framework of the law. This in order to (a) improve the quality of decisions, (b)to stimulate procedural justice –in particular voice- for the citizen; (c) to increase understanding and acceptance of decisions, and (d) to prevent future objection or appeal procedures wherever possible.
2. Upon receiving a complaint or objection against a government decision;
- a civil servant ensures quick and direct personal contact with the citizen concerned (telephone call or informal meeting);
- the civil servant explores possible ways to solve the issue in cooperation with the citizen. To achieve this, he/she applies an open, unbiased approach, using communication skills such as listening, summarizing and questioning, and conflict resolution techniques.
Measuring impact
The IPAM approach is applied in three stages. In a first round (2008), five organizations applied the model; in a second round (2009) another 26 organizations applied the model. Currently (2010), over two hundred government organisations in the Netherlands are now experimenting with this approach. Effects were measured, in cooperation with three leading universities (Groningen, Amsterdam and Leuven), on:
(a) reduction of objection procedures;
(b) administrative burdens for citizens;
(c) government costs; (d) customer satisfaction;
(d) job satisfaction by civil servants;
(e) the processing time of objection cases.
More than 2.000 objections, handled through the IPAM approach, were monitored, analysed, and compared with ‘standard’ procedures. Results show a reduction in the number of procedures, saving the authorities time and money (20%-30% cost reduction); increasing citizen satisfaction by 40% and improving job satisfaction for government employees by 20%. In 40%-60% of the cases where the informal approach was used a solution was found and the objection procedure was cancelled. Results also show a positive effect on the processing time of objection cases (37% reduction of processing time). All in all, even in a relatively small country as the Netherlands, a national implementation of IPAM results in a calculated reduction of financial costs for the government of €55 billion annually on formal objection procedures alone. When also other procedures (such as complaints and appeal procedures) are included, the estimated cost reduction is at least doubled.
|