Responding to enquiries: service delivery through National Enquiry Point

Direction

109.During our inspection, we considered the purpose of Enquiry Point and the role it plays in the service delivered by COPFS. We also considered the leadership and governance arrangements for Enquiry Point, and the extent to which COPFS understands the enquiry-related demand from and needs of its service users.

Purpose

110.COPFS established Enquiry Point as its national customer contact centre in 2009. Previously, those wishing to contact COPFS required to contact their local procurator fiscal office. By establishing a centralised customer contact centre, COPFS’s aim was to improve the service delivered to the public by providing a ‘high quality and prompt telephone enquiry service building on best practice in the contact centre industry’.^[19] It was expected that, as a single point of contact, Enquiry Point would respond to enquiries from the public and partner organisations and provide them with information. Where Enquiry Point operators were not able to provide the information needed, they would route the caller to the relevant team within COPFS.

111.Since being established, the role of Enquiry Point has evolved. For example, while Enquiry Point initially only dealt with enquiries made by phone, its remit was later extended to responding to email enquiries. During our inspection, we also heard that, in more recent years, there has been a greater focus on Enquiry Point resolving enquiries at the first point of contact, minimising the need to transfer callers or forward emails to other teams within COPFS. This shift was described by some as a focus on the quality of enquiry handling, rather than the quantity of enquiries handled.

112.The context in which Enquiry Point operates has also changed significantly since the service was established. This includes:

• legislative changes, including the duties placed on COPFS and the rights accorded to victims and witnesses from the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014
• a greater focus from COPFS on the need to improve communication with service users and stakeholders
• improved understanding of the impact of trauma on those affected by crime
• changes in the profile of work undertaken by COPFS
• changes in COPFS’s working practices, including increased specialisation and the greater use of flexible working
• changes in public expectations of services.

113.Despite these developments in the role of Enquiry Point and its operating context, we could find no up-to-date, clear statement of the purpose of Enquiry Point, its remit and how it sits alongside other services within COPFS. While there appeared to be a common understanding of the work of Enquiry Point among senior leaders and those working in Enquiry Point itself, this understanding was not shared across COPFS.

114.Some staff incorrectly believed that Enquiry Point operated as little more than a switchboard, redirecting those making enquiries to the relevant teams within COPFS. They had no awareness of the volume or nature of enquiries resolved entirely by Enquiry Point operators. This misconception led to some staff not valuing the contribution made by Enquiry Point.

115.The lack of clarity about the role of Enquiry Point contributed to a ‘them and us’ attitude among some staff. Enquiry Point staff often felt isolated from and undervalued by the rest of the service, while some staff outside Enquiry Point had limited understanding of how Enquiry Point supported their work or contributed to the overall mission of COPFS. The sense of a collective ‘team COPFS’ approach to responding to enquiries was absent from some of the discussions we had with staff.

116.Enquiry Point managers and staff have sought to address the lack of awareness and understanding of its work within COPFS. They have publicised their work in various ways, including by making presentations during visits to other COPFS offices and by publishing articles on the intranet. They have also encouraged staff from across COPFS to visit Enquiry Point and shadow operators. This work has been supported by senior leaders and corporate communications staff who have also sought opportunities to highlight the work done by Enquiry Point. These efforts were having an impact and should continue – staff who had read articles or heard presentations about Enquiry Point felt their understanding of its work had improved.

117.Those staff working across COPFS who did have more awareness of the role of Enquiry Point tended to also value its contribution more. They appreciated that enquiries about their cases were often dealt with entirely by Enquiry Point, thereby reducing demand on them. These staff seemed more likely to assist operators to resolve enquiries when needed.

118.While the work of Enquiry Point was highly valued by senior leaders, including the Law Officers, we found its role was often missing from key strategic documents. For example, while COPFS has committed to improving how it communicates with customers and partners in its strategic plan and to improving its customer service in its service improvement plan, no mention is made of the role Enquiry Point will play in delivering these commitments. More recently, however, COPFS did reference the role of Enquiry Point in its Business Plan 2024-25.^[20]

119.Aside from this recent statement in its business plan and more general statements around customer service, COPFS has not published any clear, accessible and specific commitments regarding the service those contacting Enquiry Point should expect to receive. This would be helpful. Not only would clear commitments help manage user expectations, but they would help staff understand what is expected of them and provide clear standards against which COPFS could be held to account.

120.The lack of clarity and understanding about Enquiry Point’s purpose and the role it plays in COPFS’s wider work are longstanding issues and have been highlighted previously. In the 2015 review of Enquiry Point carried out by an external consultant, it was noted:

‘The current function of the EP [Enquiry Point] is not clear within the business. There is no clearly defined scope of the EP’s responsibility… lack of visibility has led to a failure to recognise the EP’s contribution in the wider business, and within the EP, a lack of clarity about what it can and can’t do, and indeed what it should and shouldn’t do.’

121.Despite the 2015 review making recommendations to address these issues, they persist. There remains a need for COPFS to clarify the purpose of Enquiry Point for the benefit of the public and its own staff, and to specify the role that Enquiry Point will play in delivering COPFS’s strategic objectives and in the transformation and improvement of COPFS’s service. The respective roles of Enquiry Point and VIA would also benefit from clarification.

Recommendation 1

COPFS must ensure that there is a clearly defined and widely understood purpose, remit and vision for Enquiry Point, as well as a plan for how this will be delivered. COPFS should also publish commitments about the service the public can expect to receive.

Leadership and governance

122.Within COPFS, responsibility for Enquiry Point lies with the Procurator Fiscal for Policy and Engagement. The Procurator Fiscal reports to the Deputy Crown Agent who leads on Operational Support. Enquiry Point itself is led by a business manager.^[21] All of these individuals recognise the importance of the work of Enquiry Point and have sought to address challenges in service delivery. The business manager is an effective leader who is committed to supporting Enquiry Point staff and developing and improving the service.

123.Within Enquiry Point, there is regular scrutiny of the performance of the service and of individual operators. This scrutiny takes place at, for example, weekly manager meetings and monthly team meetings. However, there is scope for more effective and regular strategic oversight of Enquiry Point’s performance, including around unmet demand from callers, speed and quality of response, and compliance with key performance indicators. In addition, there is a need for strategic understanding of how well COPFS as a whole responds to enquiries, including those which are passed from Enquiry Point to other teams for resolution. Such oversight is essential if COPFS is to truly understand how well it is delivering its commitment to improve communication with customers and partners.

124.Improved governance and oversight would also facilitate greater consideration of:

(a) how decisions taken elsewhere in COPFS impact the volume and nature of Enquiry Point’s workload

(b) how the work of Enquiry Point can act as an indicator of pressures elsewhere in the service.

125.With regard to (a), we heard that decisions taken by other teams within COPFS can have a significant impact on the work of Enquiry Point. These decisions are sometimes taken without informing or consulting Enquiry Point and without assessing the impact on Enquiry Point.

126.With regard to (b), we noted that trends in the number and nature of calls can point to systemic issues or areas of risk or concern in other teams within COPFS. For example, at the time of our inspection, there were clearly problems in the countermanding of witnesses in a particular area. While a lack of data about the nature of calls (see paragraph 131) hampers the ability of Enquiry Point to easily monitor trends, where operators do identify emerging issues, they raise these with managers. We heard that managers can face challenges in knowing where and how to most effectively raise these issues with others in COPFS. More effective governance arrangements would help facilitate this.

127.We have previously commented that COPFS could more effectively exploit the data and intelligence it holds to inform and improve its service.^[22] We have highlighted the benefits of using quality assurance, performance data, complaints information and service user and stakeholder feedback to monitor and improve service delivery. The volume and nature of enquiries received by Enquiry Point are an additional source of intelligence that could be used by COPFS.

128.The 2015 review of Enquiry Point also noted the lack of communication of Enquiry Point’s performance across the wider business, and the need to improve visibility of performance to improve service delivery. It also noted that Enquiry Point was sometimes unaware of decisions taken elsewhere that affected its work. That the findings and recommendations of that review, commissioned at some expense to COPFS, have not been effectively actioned, illustrates the need for improved governance and oversight of Enquiry Point.

129.COPFS recently embarked on a programme of work to revise its structure, governance and management capabilities. Known as ‘Designed for Success’, this programme provides a timely opportunity to consider the governance and oversight arrangements for Enquiry Point. There is an opportunity to align oversight of the work of Enquiry Point with other COPFS services which have direct contact with service users. This would facilitate a greater focus on understanding and meeting service user needs, including how COPFS is delivering its commitment to improved communication and customer service.

Recommendation 2

COPFS should ensure there is effective governance and oversight of Enquiry Point and its performance.

Understanding demand

130.Understanding demand is key to COPFS designing and delivering a service that meets the needs of its users. COPFS requires to understand who makes enquiries, what enquiries are about, and how the volume and nature of enquiries changes over time. It also requires to understand the extent to which enquiry-related demand is met by Enquiry Point itself or passed to other teams within COPFS. Understanding demand helps COPFS to meet the demand for its service by allocating sufficient resources and ensuring staff are appropriately trained. Monitoring and understanding shifts in demand allows COPFS to change and improve its service in response.

131.While data is available about the volume of calls received and answered, currently no data is available about the identity of the caller or the nature of the call. It was hoped that such data could be gathered following the introduction of a new contact centre application in 2022, but problems encountered during its implementation prevented this. There is also a lack of data about emails. Again, the introduction of new systems resulted in Enquiry Point losing the ability to easily monitor the volume of emails received.

132.The lack of data about the volume of emails received means it is not possible to monitor whether the shift from calls to emails during the pandemic has been permanent, or whether service users have reverted to making enquiries by phone. This limits COPFS’s ability to understand users’ channel preference, which impacts consideration of the development of additional channels in future.

133.This lack of data about the source, nature and even volume of enquiries limits COPFS’s ability to understand demand. This impedes efforts to develop its service, to the detriment of those making enquiries. Such data is routinely gathered in contact centre environments in other organisations and is fundamental to their ability to meet the needs of service users.

134.During our inspection, we used our contact audit to gather information about enquiries. Table 1 shows who made the enquiries we audited. It shows that some groups are more likely to make enquiries by phone, while others prefer to use email. Of the 200 enquiries we audited, 82% were made by members of the public (that is, those not making contact in a professional capacity). Members of the public made 93% of phone enquiries but only 52% of email enquiries.

135.The largest proportion (38%) of enquiries came from witnesses (or those making an enquiry on behalf of a witness). However, witnesses made 44% of phone enquiries but only 21% of email enquiries. There is a similar pattern for victims – they appear to prefer to phone Enquiry Point (31%) rather than use email (13%).

136.This pattern was reversed for professionals contacting Enquiry Point, including defence agents and the police. For example, defence agents made 9% of all enquiries, but 27% of those made by email and only 2% of those made by phone.

137.Enquiry Point receives enquiries about a range of issues. Table 2 shows the nature of the enquiries that we audited. The nature of the enquiry was often linked to the identity of the person making the enquiry, thus different patterns in the source of phone and email enquiries are also found in the nature of phone and email enquiries.^[23]

138.The most common types of enquiries are from:

• people (including members of the public and professionals) looking for information about the status of a case
• people looking for information about the outcome of a court hearing
• witnesses enquiring about being cited to give evidence at court
• witnesses providing information about their availability to attend court or seeking an excusal
• people looking for information about a court date.

139.While there were several common types of enquiry, there were also a large number of subjects about which there were only one or two enquiries, hence the volume of enquiries categorised as ‘other’. Examples of ‘other’ enquiries include enquiries about special measures, bail or undertaking conditions, non-harassment orders, viewing a statement, complaints, productions, warrants, disclosure, deaths, diversion from prosecution, the criminal justice process, whether papers had been received and updating an address.

140.This volume of ‘other’ enquiries illustrates the breadth of the work undertaken by Enquiry Point and the need for operators to be knowledgeable and skilled at dealing with a range of issues.

141.Further analysis of data such as that in Tables 1 and 2 would show the most common types of enquiries made by specific groups, such as enquiries most often made by victims or by partner organisations.

142.Improved data collection and analysis would allow COPFS to understand what type of enquiries are not being resolved at first point of contact by Enquiry Point. This would help assess whether enquiries are being appropriately passed on to other teams whose expertise is needed, or whether operators require additional training to resolve enquiries themselves.

143.While our contact audit represents a snapshot of the source and nature of enquiries from a particular week in April 2024, it nonetheless provides a useful indication of who is contacting Enquiry Point and what they want. If this data was routinely collected and analysed, it could be used to inform improved service planning and delivery, not only in Enquiry Point itself but also in teams across COPFS which play a role in responding to enquiries.

144.In summary, COPFS does not currently have the necessary data that would help it better understand demand and develop Enquiry Point to its fullest potential. While Enquiry Point staff know about some of the issues highlighted in our audit as a result of their day-to-day experience, data would help quantify the issues and provide more robust evidence for decision making. To fully exploit its data, Enquiry Point may also benefit from the support of a performance analyst.^[24]

Recommendation 3

COPFS should gather the data needed to inform the design and delivery of an improved enquiry handling service.

Pre-empting, diverting and reducing demand

145.One of the benefits of understanding enquiry demand is considering whether there are options for better managing demand. This could include pre-empting, diverting or reducing demand.

146.For example, comprehensive, accessible and easy to understand information on the COPFS website may help those who would otherwise contact Enquiry Point with a general rather than case-specific enquiry. In our survey of those who had contacted Enquiry Point, a third of respondents said they had visited the website for help prior to contacting Enquiry Point. Respondents who were victims or witnesses were more likely than others to have done so. A few respondents said they found the website useful, clear and straightforward. Indeed, some Enquiry Point operators told us that they themselves used information available on the website to help answer enquiries. However, other survey respondents said the information they were looking for was hard to find online, or that information could have been explained more clearly or concisely. They felt more information could be provided about justice processes.

147.While there has been some coordination between those managing the COPFS website and Enquiry Point to identify and address frequent enquiries online, more could be done in this area. However, this would be made significantly easier if more comprehensive data about enquiries, as well as user feedback, was available.

148.Analysis of data regarding the source and nature of enquiries may also help identify opportunities to divert or reduce demand. For example, the police frequently seek an update about the status of a case from Enquiry Point. Such enquiries could be reduced or even eliminated if the police could access this information directly.

149.During our inspection, we noted several types of recurring enquiry where COPFS is not the correct or most appropriate organisation to provide the information. One example was enquiries about fiscal fines. Operators told us they receive a large number of enquiries about the payment of fines, a process administered by SCTS. Operators redirect these enquiries to SCTS. To reduce this unnecessary demand on Enquiry Point, COPFS could review the documentation it issues with fiscal fines to clarify which organisation individuals should contact if they have a query about a fine.

150.Another example was enquiries about court scheduling. In 7% of the email enquiries we audited, defence agents asked for information about the scheduling of cases. This information was supplied by Enquiry Point, but such enquiries are more appropriately directed to SCTS.

151.More generally, enquiries from defence agents often cover a range of cases and accused. Responding requires careful examination of COPFS systems and can be particularly time consuming for operators. COPFS should consider whether this is an appropriate use of operator time. We welcome COPFS’s introduction of the Defence Agent Service, a digital portal that can be used by the defence to access information about cases. It is hoped this will reduce the volume of enquiries received by Enquiry Point.

152.Finally, there is an information sharing protocol between COPFS, SCTS and Police Scotland.^[25] The protocol guides victims and witnesses as to which organisation to contact for information about a case. For example, they should contact Police Scotland about why a crime is being investigated; COPFS about a decision not to institute criminal proceedings; and SCTS about a final decision by the judge, sheriff or justice of the peace in a case. We found that Enquiry Point operators, where possible and permissible, answered enquiries that should have been directed to SCTS under the protocol. They would often do so by accessing SCTS’s own system in order to share a case outcome with victims and witnesses.

153.While it is commendable that operators are taking a proactive approach to addressing enquiries from victims and witnesses, we are concerned that Enquiry Point is absorbing demand that should more appropriately be managed by SCTS. There is a risk that COPFS may become the repository for any enquiries about cases. If this approach continues, this should be reflected in resourcing decisions across the two organisations and the protocol may require revision to reflect what is happening in practice.

154.In our contact audit, we considered that 13% of the enquiries should have been directed to another organisation. While operators redirected a small number of these enquiries, they sought to resolve the majority themselves.

155.There is some work already underway that COPFS intends will reduce demand on Enquiry Point. For example, COPFS has developed Witness Gateway, an online portal which will allow witnesses to update their contact details, access their statement, confirm their availability to attend court and receive updates on the status of their case. The Witness Gateway is currently being piloted for certain types of case in select areas in advance of a national rollout. In the long term, it is anticipated that the ‘self-service’ approach will reduce the need for witnesses to contact Enquiry Point. In the short term, however, demand may increase as witnesses let Enquiry Point know they wish to opt out of using Witness Gateway or as they seek assistance in accessing the portal.

Recommendation 4

COPFS should explore opportunities to pre-empt, divert and reduce demand on Enquiry Point.

Failure demand

156.In our review of the prosecution of domestic abuse cases at sheriff summary level, published in April 2024, we noted that COPFS is experiencing ‘failure demand’.^[26] This is when a service’s failure to deal with an issue the first time prompts further demand. An example of failure demand found in that inspection was local procurator fiscal offices failing to respond to emails from victims and advocacy workers, prompting them to send another email or to follow up with a phone call. We said that if COPFS focused on a ‘right first time’ approach, demand across various channels of its service would reduce. We recommended that, ‘To improve the efficiency of its service, COPFS should identify and reduce failure demand.’^[27]

157.Our inspection of how COPFS responds to enquiries reinforces the need for COPFS to identify and reduce failure demand and to do so urgently. In our contact audit, we found that 22% of the 200 enquiries were a result of COPFS failing to do something correctly or at all.

158.While the failure to get it right first time tends to happen outwith Enquiry Point, it is Enquiry Point that is often the recipient of the resulting failure demand. Examples that we found in our audit included:

• a failure to respond to communication from victims, witnesses, victim support organisations and defence agents, resulting in the communication being resubmitted or followed up via Enquiry Point
• information supplied to COPFS not being acted upon, such as correspondence being sent to an old address when the new address had been supplied
• victims and witnesses not being proactively kept up to date with the progress of or developments in their case, causing them to request the information
• procedural failures, such as witnesses not being cited or countermanded
• witness expenses not being processed and productions not being returned timeously.

159.Failing to get it right first time not only causes additional work for COPFS, but damages confidence in the service and hampers the efficient operation of the criminal justice process. For example, one phone enquiry concerned a case in which a plea submitted by the accused had not been acted upon, resulting in the case being continued several times.

160.Failure demand also affects staff morale and their job satisfaction. Enquiry Point operators spoke of their dismay and frustration at speaking to the same individuals who had still not had a response to an earlier enquiry about the same issue from another team within COPFS.

161.Given the challenging financial circumstances that public services are facing, it is critical COPFS operates efficiently and productively to avoid failure demand. We consider that there are significant gains to be made if COPFS were to achieve a right first time approach. Savings could be made that could be reinvested elsewhere or in further improving the quality of its service. If the failure demand found during our audit of enquiries from one week in April 2024 was replicated across the year, a right first time approach would achieve a reduction of more than 44,000 enquiries per year.

Understanding service user needs

162.As well as understanding demand, COPFS requires to understand the needs of its service users. As noted at paragraph 3, arrangements are in place for those who require additional assistance to access Enquiry Point, which we welcome. This is in keeping with COPFS’s published equality outcomes, one of which states that, ‘services provided by COPFS are suitable and accessible to all who need to use them’. While operators were generally confident about using these arrangements, such as telephone interpreting, staff working in other teams across COPFS were less confident. This suggests the need for more guidance or training for non-Enquiry Point staff when dealing with enquiries from those with additional support needs.

163.During our visit to Enquiry Point, we observed an operator successfully using a telephone interpretation service to communicate with a caller whose first language was Urdu. In our contact audit, we also heard an operator dealing patiently with a caller who had had a stroke. However, there were also some enquiries that could have been dealt with better. For example, one caller indicated they struggled with reading and writing and said they had a support worker listening in to the call to assist them. No record was made of these additional support needs. Consideration should have been given to referring the caller to VIA.

164.Extending Enquiry Point’s remit to include email as well as phone enquiries has been a positive development, allowing service users the option to select their preferred means of contact. Given that Enquiry Point’s opening hours are generally aligned with office business hours, the option of sending an email enquiry at any time is helpful for those whose jobs do not allow for making calls during working hours, particularly when they may be queuing or on hold for some time.

165.Many contact centres offer an increasing range of options to those who wish to make contact, including webchat and text messaging. There is scope for COPFS to explore whether additional channels may be appropriate for those who contact Enquiry Point. However, care should be taken to ensure service developments meet the needs and wishes of service users, rather than a means of shifting contact to channels which suit the organisation.^[28]

166.Among Enquiry Point staff, it is well recognised that those using the service may be doing so at some of the most difficult moments in their life, and that a compassionate, empathetic and trauma-informed response is needed. In 96% of the enquiries we audited, we found operators to be polite, respectful, professional and empathetic. Almost two thirds of respondents to our survey said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with how polite and professional the person who dealt with their enquiry was.

‘The agent was very polite, helpful and knowledgeable – the agent directed my enquiry to the appropriate person and followed up with an email.’ (Victim/witness survey respondent)

‘The person who responded was very cordial and polite.’ (Victim/witness support organisation)

167.Despite this positive feedback, we consider there is further work COPFS could do to ensure it is meeting the needs of service users when responding to enquiries. This includes COPFS itself not only seeking and acting on user feedback about the quality of the current service (see from paragraph 99), but also exploring service user needs and inviting suggestions about the future development of Enquiry Point. Feedback should be sought directly from members of the public and from professionals and partner organisations. Our own survey of those who have contacted Enquiry Point provides useful information, but gathering and acting on feedback should become a routine part of COPFS’s journey to improving its customer service.

Recommendation 5

COPFS should seek feedback from service users about how well it responds to their enquiries and how best it can meet their needs. This feedback should be analysed and used to inform service improvements.