7. Access and Reception
Is the Office easily accessible by the public? Are there facilities for disabled access? Does the layout provide a safe and healthy work place? Are there sufficient reception arrangements which are customer-friendly and designed to respect the public's right to privacy?
8. Opportunity to be Heard and to Respond
Are the parties affected by a decision given an adequate opportunity to present information and evidence in support of their positions?
Are decisions made and actions taken within a reasonable period of time?
10. Explanation Given
Are the reasons for the decision, action or non-action fully explained to the public, and communicated in a way that is meaningful and easily understandable?
11. Objection Channels Available
Are individuals informed of their right for an appeal, review and complaint, and the channels available, both internally and externally? Are these channels sufficiently publicized for general information? When this information is provided to individuals, is it done in a non-confrontational and respectful manner? Are these channels properly and adequately staffed?
12. Complaint Procedures
Are there realistic and clearly defined complaint procedures at all levels? Are there up-to-date performance pledges and customer liaison groups etc. which will facilitate public monitoring of standards of services and input for improvements?
13. Nomenclature Used
Are the names of the divisions, sections, and units which made up the department sufficiently self-explanatory? Do the classifications of the department's components and the designations of individual officers reflect clearly and simply their main function performed? Are the use of abbreviations and jargons avoided in communication with the public?
Is there any way to combine, separate or re-organise what the department does to achieve a higher quality of service delivery?
Would policy or procedural changes in working relationships with other organisations or departments bring about overall improvements in service quality and fairness to the public? What mechanisms are in place to encourage this kind of review and internal audit of practices? What has been done to develop an attitude that promotes continuous improvements?
Is there adequate consultation with affected individuals and groups all the way before programme initiatives are planned, developed, modified where necessary, and implemented? Is this consultation done in a meaningful and timely way? Is the way in which the final decision will be made clear from the outset to the affected persons?
17. Performance Pledges
Do they reflect realistically the standards achievable? Do they meet the public's expectation of the standards desired? Are there systems in place to constantly drive for improvements? Do they cover as much as possible of all the services of the department? Are their achievement reviewed and standard improved on a regular basis? Do we have Mission Statement for our staff so that they know what they are setting out to accomplish and how the organisation's standard is to be judged?
Are public grievances used as a barometer to measure the improvements necessary in the planning and review of programmes and policies? Is sufficient regard given to appeal, review and complaint data in finalising programmes and reviews with a view to redressing public grievances and addressing the concerns of the community?