THE 5C THEORY: Unknown Citizen Service Audit

A practical worksheet for testing whether a public-facing procedure works without private access, influence or an unofficial intermediary.

Resource type
Civic tool, Worksheet
Audience
Citizens & civic groups, Community facilitators, Public servants & institutions
Suggested use
45–90 minutes
Format
Interactive web worksheet
Revision
2026-08-14

Use this worksheet to examine whether a public-facing process works for a person who has no private connection, political access, famous name or influential intermediary.

Define the service

  • Institution or service: name the exact office, programme or public-facing process.
  • Ordinary user: describe the person’s legitimate purpose without recording unnecessary personal information.
  • Expected outcome: identify the decision, document, service or explanation the process should provide.
  • Review period: state the dates or sample window being examined.

Use a simple evidence scale

Score each statement 0 when the safeguard is absent, 1 when it exists inconsistently or cannot be verified, and 2 when it is published, usable and supported by a reliable record. Use N/A only when the item genuinely does not apply.

Procedure and access

  1. The requirements are available before a person begins.
  2. The procedure can be understood without a private intermediary.
  3. Fees, required documents and eligibility rules are stated accurately.
  4. People with disabilities, language needs or limited digital access have a usable route.

Tracking and time

  1. A request receives a dated acknowledgement or reference.
  2. The expected response time and current stage can be checked.
  3. Delay is explained and does not silently reset the person’s place.

Decision and correction

  1. The outcome records the rule or reason used.
  2. Similar cases can be compared without exposing private case details.
  3. A person can correct an error or request review without finding someone influential.

Private-access warning signs

  • The process moves only after an unofficial call or introduction.
  • Requirements change after the identity or affiliation of the applicant becomes known.
  • Staff cannot explain why comparable cases received different treatment.
  • People are encouraged to find a helper instead of receiving a usable procedure.

Turn the score into action

Do not treat the total as a scientific ranking. Use it to identify the weakest safeguard, the evidence still missing and one correction that can be assigned and reviewed. A useful action record names the responsible role, the change required, the evidence of completion and the next review date.

The unknown citizen should not need private recognition before the public procedure recognizes the claim.

Privacy and fairness

Audit the process, not identifiable individuals. Remove personal data from examples, distinguish documented facts from allegations, offer a right of response where findings concern a responsible office and avoid publishing security-sensitive operational details.

For educators, libraries and facilitators

Cite this resource

Copy a common citation or download the publisher-approved record for a reference manager.

Download RISDownload BibTeX

Generated from the current approved learning-resource metadata. Apply any local style rules required by your institution or publication.

Continue learning

Explore more Leone Connect resources

Find additional reading guides, educator materials and library pathways, or use the secure form for a clearly scoped educational-use request.

Private to this browser

My Leone Connect reading list

Saved items, reading status and progress, private collections, notes, highlights and annotations stay only in this browser on this device. Leone Connect does not receive or track them.

Open My Library home

Nothing saved yet. Use “Save to reading list” on a book, Insight or learning resource.