In 2006, the DARPG Web site listed 767 charters drafted by various government agencies in the country. Of these, 561 were downloaded by the PAC study team for a preliminary review, based on which about 200 were selected for desk review. Finally, 80 were selected for an extensive field survey.

The desk review of 200 charters comprised 52 in the infrastructure and financial services sectors; 50 in social development; 32 in agriculture and rural development; 30 in industry and commerce; 28 in general administration and eight in environment. For each of these charters, the PAC researchers examined the 10 components that form a part, assigned a point value for each in such a way that the maximum score would not be more than 100. The percentage scores for each component and the overall scores for groups of Citizen’s Charters are valuable information which the citizens and public officials concerned should take note of, despite the caveat that the scoring is based on subjective judgments of the researchers.

Except the eight charters in the environment sector, which received an overall average score of 54 per cent, none of the other sectors perform too well, with a score in the 40-45 per cent range.

Most of the 200 charters scored well on mission statements and listing of functions, with average scores of 73 per cent and 85 per cent respectively. The worst scores of 21 per cent and 23 per cent were claimed by ‘rights and compensation’ and ‘listing of services’ respectively, which are among the crucial components for the effective operation of a Citizen’s Charter.

The field survey covered 80 charters, 1,176 users and 318 officials. Besides 16 Central government agencies, the coverage included 6-12 Citizen’s Charters, each in Andhra Pradesh, Chandigarh, Delhi, Haryana, Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.

What really matters is the way users perceive how well the services have been rendered by government agencies. Based on a 1-10 scale rating, the overall grading of service providers was considered ‘very good’ if the grade was 9-10, good if it was 7-8, average for 5-6 and poor for 1-4.

The situation is not as bad as one might expect, based on common perceptions about government service agencies. Yet, if those giving a poor rating to the service providers can be reduced further , the Citizen’s Charter would have accomplished its work.

I have had the most common experience of writing to some top bosses and never getting a response. If that were so for formal written letters, Web-based form filling addressed to the CEO is nothing short of a gimmick. Either one never gets a response or if one does, it is from an employee who is paid just to send non-committal, useless responses. What counts really is not what a CEO might say, but what happens in the frontline.

A private airlines surprised me when I took one of its flights recently. First, the baggage check-in was taken care of by an attendant, who politely refused a tip stating that accepting it was against the airlines’ policy; the woman in charge of checking requested me to take a seat and not wait and brought the counterfoils of the luggage tags and boarding pass to me.

Service providers in the public sector too can do just that and with a smile too. Also, in the spirit of the Citizen’s Charter, the Web site should actually publicise all evaluations and, of course, the main findings of the PAC report as well.

More Stories on : Economy | Public Policy Note

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page