By ERIN Research CITIZENS FIRST 5 National Results 2008

By ERIN Research

CITIZENS FIRST 5National Results2008

2

Table of contents

1 History of Citizens First

2 Objectives

3 Highlights

4 Method and sample

5 Service quality ratings are improving

6 For routine services, citizens say…

7 Channels and access

8 Other learnings

9 New insights into the roots of confidence

10 The forward path

Objectives

4

The 7 main objectives of CF5

1 Assess government performance in providing services

2 Determine the factors that drive customer satisfaction

3 Identify priority areas for improvement

4 Monitor progress against key performance indicators

5 Understand privacy and security priorities of citizens

6 Focus on the experiences of persons with disabilities

7 Provide more insight into factors that contribute to confidence in government and in the public service

A brief history of Citizens First

6


• CF5 is the latest in a series of world class initiatives. The pan-Canadian research equips service managers with client-centred results

• In 1998, a group of federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal service providers came together to forge a citizen-centred approach to improving public services

• The objective was to gain empirical evidence that would guide improvements in service delivery

• Canadians had their say in a survey, telling governments their thoughts about the delivery of public services, their expectations, and their priorities for improvement

• The 1998 survey formed the baseline against which progress has been measured through 4 subsequent studies

7


• In 2004 and 2007, Taking Care of Business provided a parallel perspective on business customers

• The original CF, together with the Common Measurements Tool (CMT), garnered national and international acclaim with a Gold Award (IPAC) and a Silver Award (CAPAM) for Innovation in Management

• In 2003, the innovative Institute for Citizen-Centred Service (ICCS) took over the CF venture

• In 2008, 18 federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and regional partners participated in CF5

• Canada has the most advanced program of this nature in the world

• Canada is regarded as a leader and model in citizen-centred research

8

What leaders say…

The Citizens First series, together with related series, Taking Care of Business, has established the gold-standard for research on public sector service delivery, not only in Canada, but around the world. The ICCS methodology and approach have equipped public sector managers with the tools they need to identify action priorities for service improvement in the public sector.

Ralph Heintzman, Adjunct Research Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, Canada, 2008

”

“

9

What leaders say…

Our connection with the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service has allowed us to adapt Canada's world-leading, all-of-government approach to driving performance improvements in the New Zealand context. Using the Citizens First intellectual property we have determined the New Zealand drivers of satisfaction with service quality and have carried out our first public survey, Kiwis Count.

Helene Quilter, Deputy Commissioner, State Services Commission, New Zealand, 2008

”

“

10

Sponsors of CF5, 2008Principal SponsorsCanada Revenue AgencyGovernment of British ColumbiaGovernment of OntarioService CanadaTreasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Enhanced SponsorRegion of Peel

Core SponsorsCanada PostCity of CalgaryCity of TorontoCity of VancouverGovernment of AlbertaGovernment of ManitobaGovernment of Nova ScotiaGovernment of QuebecGovernment of YukonVeterans Affairs CanadaWestern Economic Diversification, Government of CanadaYork Region

Highlights

12

1 - Service Quality ratings rise over 10 years

• 26 federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal services have been tracked in all 5 CF surveys. The average score for these services has risen from 64 in 1998 to 72 in 2008 - an 8-point increase

• 70 services have been tracked in at least two surveys: 37 show an upward trend, 31 show no statistically significant change, and 2 have declined. Of those that did not change, 15 have appeared in just the last two Citizens First studies, therefore, the time frame is relatively short

13

2 - Five drivers are the key to customer satisfaction

Five drivers account for customer satisfaction across the full range of government services:

Timeliness: the single most important driver across

all services and all governments

Staff: Customers appreciate knowledgeable staff

who treat them fairly, “go the extra mile", and make

that extra effort

Positive outcome: “I got what I needed”

Ease of access

Citizens’ recent experiences with public

services

14

3 - For routine services, citizens say…

• Citizens’ number one priority is timeliness – in government offices, on the telephone, in electronic communications, and through the mail

• In most of these areas, citizens’ expectations have remained stable over the past 10 years, for example: 2 people is the maximum number that most citizens want to deal with, either in a government office or on the telephone, 5-9 minutes is the maximum length tolerated of any queue, and same day response to voicemail or email if message is left at 10:00 AM

• One area has shown a steady and dramatic shift over time: citizens now want much faster turnaround in mail services – their expectation is just one to two weeks to receive a reply after mailing a request

15

4 - Multi-channel use is on the rise

An important source of information in each Citizens First study is a recent experience with government service that respondents describe in detail

Over time, access patterns have changed:

• Nationally, in 2008: 59% of respondents used more than one channel to address their needs

• This is a significant jump from the 50% who reported using multiple channels in CF3, 2002

16

5 - The Internet has “come of age”

• The initial CF study (1998) had no questions about Internet use – government services online were barely visible

• Today, Internet use is practically on a par with visits to government offices and telephone use

• 47% of citizens used the Internet during their “recent experience"

• Perhaps surprisingly, the Internet is not displacing traditional channels. Citizens use the Internet as a complement to, rather than as a replacement for, other channels

17

6 - The people’s channel remains the phone

• The people’s channel, the telephone, remains the most commonly used channel in government services

• In terms of satisfaction, government offices and the Internet rate high, while the phone continues to rate considerably lower

• Citizens have more access problems on the phone than in any other channel

• Busy lines, difficulty finding the right number, trouble with automated phone systems, difficulty understanding the person at the other end, and waiting on hold all contribute to frustration

• Solving phone problems is essential because these problems manifest themselves in lower overall ratings

18

7 - Persons with disabilities need more positive outcomes

• 7% of CF5 respondents reported they have a disability.

• People with disabilities rate the broad spectrum of government services lower than do persons without disabilities by an average of 2 to 5 points out of 100

• A major reason is that persons with disabilities get a “positive outcome” less often, i.e. they do not get what they need

• As outcome is one of the key drivers of citizens’ satisfaction, this represents a significant concern

19

8 - Privacy and security for online services

• Governments need to balance privacy and security with ease of access

• Concerns about Internet security and identity theft have become more prevalent in recent years

• CF5 asked two questions of respondents to gauge the degree of comfort that citizens have with this trade-off and to determine where they feel the balance between security and ease of access should rest

• A majority of Canadians are regular Internet users, and this group largely supports a single online ID for a) federal government services and b) services of all orders of government

20

9 - Insights into the roots of confidence in government

• Confidence in government has roots both in good service and in confidence in the public service

• Confidence in the public service, in turn, rests on competent management and the perception that the public service is fair, honest, and in touch with the needs of their community

Method and sample

22

Method

• CF5 is a national survey of citizens in every Canadian province and territory

• The results presented in the report are all based on the weighted sample in which the number of respondents aligns with the actual population of the jurisdiction

• CF5 was designed to enable comparison service quality scores with the four previous iterations of Citizens First

• CF1 and 2 were conducted entirely by mail

• In CF3, one-sixth of the responses were obtained from an online panel and the intent was to increase the proposition of online respondents over time

• In CF5, the online panel contributed fifty percent of respondents (CF4 did not report any online data)

23

Sample

Mail sample

• In field, October 2007 to January 2008

• National: 3,727 completes, a response rate of 13%

Online panel sample

• In field, October to November 2007

• National: 3,040 completes, a response rate of 13%

Service quality ratings are improving

25

The long-term trend in client satisfaction• The long-term trend has been upward for the majority of

services tracked over 10 years, in 5 studies, since 1998

• 86 services were measured in CF5 and about one-third of these have appeared in each study since 1998

• The average rating for the services common to all 5 studies has increased to a statistically significant degree. The change from 2005 to 2008 is not statistically significant.

Long-term trend for 26 services

7273

676464

50

60

70

80

1998 2000 2003 2005 2008

Average service quality rating(0-100)

Year

26

Major municipal services

Average score (0 - 100) Service CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5

Drinking water at your residence * - - 66 75 78

Garbage collection or disposal * 74 72 72 81 79

Recycling * - - 70 75 74

Sewage, waste water * - - 66 72 76

Snow removal services - - - 58 59

Roads maintained by the municipality * - - - 46 51 * Significant upward trend over the years shown. Trends reflect all the available data; not just difference between CF4 and CF5.

- No data collected for these studies.

27

Municipal, provincial and territorial services (1)

Average score (0 - 100)

Information services CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5

Information services of your municipality, incl. telephone, Internet and publications – – – – 64

Information services of your province or territory, incl. telephone, Internet and publications – – – – 60

Permits, certificates, licences

Building permit * 58 56 57 65 60

Birth, marriage, death registration and certificates * 60 60 59 65 68

Health card application or renewal * 62 67 69 76 73

Hunting or fishing licence * 63 58 73 80 74

Motor vehicle registration, transfer of ownership – – – – 74

Driver testing, licensing – – – – 71 Financial aid, compensation, support

A childcare subsidy (provinces other than Quebec) – – – 55 61

Automobile insurance (Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia only) * – – 64 73 71

Injured workers' compensation or programs * 34 37 49 50 47

Financial aid/subsidy for a new business start-up * – – – 46 35

A housing subsidy – – – 53 48

A provincial/territorial student loan * 40 43 52 49 60

Social assistance, welfare * 44 45 51 56 58

Financial aid for activities related to agriculture – – – 49 44

* Significant linear trend (either up or down) over the years shown.

28



Non-financial aid, advice CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5

Contacted a planning and land development department for information or advice – – 49 58 52

Lived or stayed in public housing (e.g. rent is based on income) 52 50 46 60 53

Lived or stayed at a shelter or hostel – – – 58 50

Obtained advice and/or retraining at a local public employment centre (Centre local d’emploi-CLE in Quebec) – – – 67 58

Requested technical help or advice for activities related to Agriculture * – – – 55 45

Requested technical help or advice for starting up a small business * 41 44 49 59 46

Legal, human rights and security

Contacted the courts for information regarding legal procedures – – – 56 53

Contacted the fire department for help * – – – 85 75

Contacted the municipal police force for help * – – – 64 59

Contacted your municipality regarding property taxes – – – 59 58

Contacted a provincial police force for help – – – 65 59 Culture, recreation – in your province or territory

Visited a provincial/territorial museum, heritage site *71 73 75 – 78

Visited a provincial/territorial park or campground 71 69 71 – 71


29



Culture, recreation, transit: municipal CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5

Used a municipal recreation centre * – – – 76 72

Used municipal public transit (bus, subway etc.) * 58 58 61 64 61

Visited a municipal museum or heritage site – – – – 77

Visited a municipal park or campground – – – – 76

Visited a public library * 77 77 79 83 80 Health care, counselling

Called a toll-free health information line (e.g. poison) – – – 73 72

Obtained family services, counselling, or children's aid from a public organization * 56 55 45 67 68

Obtained vaccinations * – – – 86 82

Received hospital services as an outpatient (e.g. follow-up, medical exams) – – – 66 65

Stayed in a hospital to receive care – – – 66 65

Used ambulance services – – 80 79 78

Visited a medical doctor’s office or clinic 73 71 Education, early childhood care, daycare

Taken a course or completed a program of study at a provincial college or university * – – – 74 67

Sent one of your children to attend a public school * 54 58 60 66 66

Sent a child to subsidized public daycare, (or, in Quebec, Sent a child to a Centre de la petite enfance (CPE) or other placement) – – 60 69 69


30

Federal services (1)


Information services CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5

Information services of your federal government, including telephone (1-800-O-Canada), websites (Canada.gc.ca and servicecanada.gc.ca) and in-person Service Canada offices * – – 60 62 63

Statistics Canada information services/ data from surveys, Census, etc – – – – 63

Canadian Government publications – – – – 63 Taxation: Services provided by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), formerly Revenue Canada:

Obtaining tax information, by phone, Internet, publications – – – – 59

Filing income tax returns (either yourself or through an accountant or tax service) – – – – 71

Other benefit and credit programs, e.g., Canada Child Tax Benefit, Universal Child Tax Credit, GST/HST Credit – – – – 69

Permits, certificates, identification

Social Insurance Number (SIN) * – – – 72 75

Passports: Get or renew a passport * 66 65 60 64 62

Licensing and Permits for Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Firearms, Transport, e.g. Pleasure Craft Operator Card, pilot’s licence – – – – 63


31



Health, public safety, security and justice CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5

Health Canada services: Information on health issues: Canada Food Guide, Smoking, etc. * 55 55 59 62 71

Consumer Information: recalls, complaints – – – – 58

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, e.g. food safety – – – – 57

Canadian Coast Guard/Search and Rescue 66 63 66 68 68

National Parole Board, federal prisons, Corrections Canada 36 37 34 42 43

Customs and Border services, including crossing the border * 58 57 59 61 60

Federal Courts * – 44 44 49 52

RCMP 68 59 62 69 63 Financial benefits, pensions, support programs

Canada Pension Plan (CPP), Old Age Security (OAS), Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) CPP applies to residents outside Quebec only * 69 71 68 73 76

Employment Insurance (EI) * 45 51 53 57 61

Services provided by Veterans’ Affairs Canada: disability pensions, Veterans’ Independence Program, War Veterans Allowance, etc. * – – – 65 52

Other Financial Services: Farm Credit Corp, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, Canada Deposit Insurance Corp * 53 52 54 61 58


32



Jobs, training CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5

Job Bank - Jobs.gc.ca – – – – 65

Canada Student Loans Program – – – – 54

Employment Programs / Assistance – – – – 50 Parks, museums, culture

National Film Board, National Museums, National Arts Centre, National Archives, National Gallery * 70 73 75 75 75

National Parks * 73 71 73 73 76 Weather, environment

Environment Canada - Weather information * – – – 74 77

Environment Canada - Information on climate change, air, water, ice, etc. – – – – 72

Natural Resources – databases, inventory, map products, information related to sustainable development, mining, forests, etc. – – – – 64

Aboriginal services

Services provided to aboriginal peoples: e.g. educational support and training – – – – 64

Canada Post

Services provided by Canada Post * 57 62 66 71 70 International and non-Canadian services

Citizenship Services – e.g. temporary resident visa, permanent resident card, student study permits 57 54 56 58 50


For routine services, citizens say…

34

For routine services, citizens say…

5 to 9 minutes The maximum time to wait in any lineup at a government office.

2 people The maximum number of people you should have to deal with in order to

get service at a government office.

15 minutes A reasonable amount of time to spend travelling to a government office,

one way.

30 seconds An acceptable amount of time to wait on hold on the phone before you

speak to a person.

2 people The maximum number of people you should have to deal with in order to

get the service on the telephone.

Same day When you should receive a reply to a voice mail or email, if you leave your

voice mail or email at 10:00 AM.

1 to 2 weeks The acceptable length of time to wait from the day you send the letter until

the day you receive a reply by mail.

35

When you visit a government office…

When you visit a government office...

“How many minutes is it acceptable to wait in any single lineup?”

31

15 15 17

43 39 3934

20

35 3428

61112

21

0

20

40

60

80

1-4 5-9 10-14 15+

Percent of respondents

Waiting time in minutes

CF1 CF3 CF5 TCOB 21998 2003 2008 2007

36



“What is the maximum number of people you should have to deal with in order to get the service?”

18 18

29 31

71 6959 64

10 12 105 1 1 2 0

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 or more


Maximum number of people

CF1 CF3 CF5 TCOB 21998 2003 2008 2007

37



“What is a reasonable amount of time to spend travelling to the office, one way?”

3240 40

5448 48

9 9 8 5 3 4

0

20

40

60

80

Up to 15 30 45 >45


Travelling time in minutes

CF2 CF3 CF52000 2003 2008

38

When you telephone a government office…

When you telephone a government office...

“What is an acceptable length of time to wait before you speak to a person?”

18 16 14 12

31

1916 13

2732 31

26

131719 20

1116

2129

0

20

40

60

80

20 sec 30 sec 1 min 2 min 3+ min


Waiting time in minutes

CF1 CF3 CF5 TCOB 21998 2003 2008 2007

39

When you telephone a government office…

When you telephone a government office...

“What is the maximum number of people you should have to deal with in order to get the service?”

15 17

29

20

70 6661 67

13 158 13

2 2 2 10

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 or more


Maximum number of people

CF1 CF3 CF5 TCOB 21998 2003 2008 2007

40

When you leave a voice mail at a government office…

When you leave a voice mail at a government office ...

“If you leave a voice mail at 10:00 AM on a Monday,

what is an acceptable time to get a reply?”

16

28

5045

29 25

5 3

0

20

40

60

80

4 hr Same day Next day 2+ days


Time to respond

CF5 TCOB2 2008 2007

41

When you email a government office for a routine service…

When you email a government office for a routine service...

“If you send an email at 10:00 AM on a Monday,

what is an acceptable time to get a reply?”

30

106

13

23

4440

30

45 43

24

4352

3631

27

136 4

0

20

40

60

80

4 hr Same day Next day 2+ days


Time to respond

CF1 CF2 CF3 CF5 TCOB21998 2000 2002 2008 2007

42

When you mail a letter to a government

When you mail a letter to a government office...

“What is an acceptable length of time to allow from the day you send the letter

until the day you receive a reply?”

13

26

34

46 45

5752

47

15 13 116

13

3 3 2

15

1 1 0

0

20

40

60

80

1 2 3 4 5+


Number of weeks

CF1 CF3 CF5 TCOB 21998 2003 2008 2007

Channels and access

44

Recent experiences were analyzed to understand channel use, access, and satisfaction

• Respondents chose one recent experience with any order of government (i.e. federal, provincial, territorial, regional, municipal) services and answered a series of more than 50 questions about it

• The next table illustrates the 36 services that respondents most frequently chose as their recent experience. The services listed here account for about two-thirds of the total number of “recent experiences”

• In all, the 6,700 respondents described more than 100 different services

• The recent experience data are broadly representative of citizens’ day-to-day contact with government services

45

Citizens described these major recent services

Major services chosen for the recent experience

Service % of respondents Service % of respondents

Passports: Get or renew a passport 7.4 Municipal snow removal services 1.8

Services provided by Canada Post 5.7 Driver testing, licensing 1.8

Visited a medical doctor's office or clinic 4.0 Environment Canada – Information 1.6

Recycling 3.6 Social assistance, welfare 1.3

Visited a public library 3.6 Hospital services – inpatient 1.2

Garbage collection or garbage disposal 3.5 Job Bank – jobs.gc.ca 1.2

Motor vehicle registration 3.5 Building permit 1.1

Filing income tax returns 3.5 Hunting or fishing licence 1.1

Employment Insurance (EI) 3.4 Provincial colleges, universities 1.0

Drinking water at your residence 3.2 Information services – federal 1.1

Roads maintained by your municipality 3.2 Customs and Border services 1.1

Used municipal public transit 3.0 Citizenship Services 1.0

Health card application or renewal 2.7 Info services – province or territory 1.0

Obtaining tax information – federal 2.7 Municipal recreation centre 0.9

Birth, marriage, death certificates 2.4 Public schools 1.0

Hospital services – outpatient 2.1 Provincial/territorial park or campground 0.8

OAS/GIS 2.1 Obtained vaccinations 0.8

Information services – municipal 1.9 National Parks 0.8

* Indicates jurisdiction’s services

46

Which governments did you deal with?

Which government(s) did you deal with?

34

5

34

33

11

0 10 20 30 40 50

Municipal

Regional

Provincial / Territorial

Federal

Don't know

Percent of respondentsOrder of government

Percentages add to more than 100 as some respondents dealt with more than one order of government

47

Reason for seeking the service

Reason for seeking the service

62

59

64

44

55

0 20 40 60 80

Get information or advice (32)

Application or registration (32)

Routine transaction, e.g. payment (25)

Solving a problem (23)

Everything else (22)

Overall satisfaction with the serviceType of service (and % who described the service as being of this type)

Percentages add to more than 100 as some services involved more than one type of activity

48

Service quality: up close and recent

Overall satisfaction with the recent service

“How satisfied were you with the service “Was this experience better or worse that you got?” than you expected when you began?” Average = 55/100 Average = 46/100

15 11

24 25 25

0

25

50

Verydissatisfied

Percent of responses

Very satisfied

22

10

36

20

12

0

25

50

Muchworse

Muchbetter


49

Multi-channel use on the rise

An important source of information in each Citizens First study is a recent experience with government service that respondents describe in detail.

Over time, access patterns have changed:

• In 2008: 59% of respondents used more than one channel to address their needs.

• This is a significant jump from the 50% who reported using multiple channels in CF3, 2002

50

Multi-channel use

Number of channels used during the recent experience

4131

18

63 2

0

20

40

60

1 2 3 4 5 6+


Number of channels used

51

Channel use

Percent who used each channel in the recent service experience

55 5548 47

30

47

2521

813

5 5 5 5 4

0

20

40

60

Phone Gov'toffice

Net Mail Email Fax Kiosk Visitby rep


Channels used

CF3 CF52003 2008

Percentages add to more than 100 as some respondents used more than one channel

52

Single-channel use

Percent of single-channel customers who used each channel

38 34

20

51 0 1 1

0

20

40

60

Gov'toffice

Phone Net Mail Email Fax Kiosk Visit byrep


Channels used

53

Switching behaviour

Switching between personal and non-personal channels

Personal to personal,e.g. phone to office

27%Personal to non-personal, e.g. phone to web

23%

Non-personal to non-personal, e.g. web to mail

12%

Non-personal to personal, e.g. web to

phone38%

65% of switchers end

up in a personal channel

54

Satisfaction with channels

Satisfaction with channels

65

64

63

60

58

55

54

52

0 20 40 60 80

Government office

Internet

Kiosk

Mail

Visit by government rep

Email

Phone

Fax

Overall satisfaction (0 - 100)

55

The Internet has “come of age”

• The initial CF study (1998) had no questions about Internet use – government services online were barely visible

• Today, Internet use is practically on a par with visits to government offices and telephone use

• 47% of citizens used the Internet during their “recent experience".

• Perhaps surprisingly, the Internet is not displacing traditional channels. Citizens use the Internet as a complement to, rather than as a replacement for, other channels

56

The people’s channel remains the phone

• The people’s channel, the telephone, remains the most commonly used channel in government services

• Government offices and the Internet rate high, while the phone continues to rate considerably lower

• Citizens have more access problems on the phone than in any other channel

• Busy lines, difficulty finding the right number, trouble with automated phone systems, difficulty understanding the person at the other end, and waiting on hold all contribute to frustration

• Solving phone problems is essential because these problems manifest themselves in lower overall ratings

57

Impact of access problems (1)

Percent who Decrease experienced in satisfaction

Problem the problem (0 - 100) Among all respondents…

I got bounced around from one person to another 35 30

I didn’t know where to start or who to contact 39 18

I was concerned about privacy or about security of my personal information 31 13

Among those who used the telephone…

I waited too long on hold 40 21

It was difficult to understand the person I was talking to 28 21

It was difficult to find the right telephone numbers 36 18

Telephone lines were busy 42 17

I had trouble using an automated phone system 31 17

58

Percent who Decrease experienced in satisfaction

Problem the problem (0 - 100)

Among those who used a government website…

I had trouble finding what I needed 35 21

The Internet site did not have all the information I needed 35 18

The site was too complicated 32 17

The search engine did not work well 20 16

The Internet site did not work properly – there were technical difficulties 18 12

I forgot my password 15 2

Among those who visited a government office…

I had to wait too long to get service 32 23

I was told I did not have the right papers or documents 8 16

I had to travel too great a distance 8 13

Impact of access problems (2)

59

Number of access problems impact satisfaction

Number of access problems and satisfaction with service delivery

40434953

6068

79

20

40

60

80

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

Overall satisfaction

Number of access problems

CF5

TCOB 2

60

Access problems underlie the ease-of-access rating

Number of access problems underlies the ease-of-access rating

82 7463

55 5348

41

0

25

50

75

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6+

Ease of access rating


61

Access problems in different channels

Number of access problems in different channels

2.7

2.3

1.8

1.5

1.5

1.4

5.1

3.6

2.9

2.7

2.2

1.7

5.0

4.9

3.6

2.8

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

SINGLE CHANNEL

Telephone

Internet

Email

Regular mail

Office, service counter

Kiosk

TWO CHANNELS

Telephone, net

Telephone, mail

Telephone, office

Net, mail

Net, office

Office, mail

THREE CHANNELS

Telephone, net, mail

Telephone, office, net

Telephone, office, mail

Net, office, mail


Drivers of satisfaction by channel

63

Drivers for mail, email and fax

64

Drivers for online services

65

Drivers for services that involve staff

66

Impact of each driver on overall satisfaction

Total effect of each driver on overall satisfaction

0.69

0.40 0.35 0.33

0.19

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Timeliness Recentservices

Staff Outcome Access

Total effect of the

drivers

Driver\

Values are standardized regression coefficients

67

Current performance on drivers

Average score Performance measure (0 - 100)

I was treated fairly * 68

Staff were knowledgeable and competent * 66

Staff went the extra mile to help me get what I needed * 56

erall, were you satisfied with the amount of time it took to get the service? 54

Outcome (Percent who got what they wanted) 69

68

Illustration of drivers in 5 specific service situations

Drivers in specific service situations

Employment Medical Public Parks & Get/ Renew

Driver Insurance treatment library recreation passport

Timeliness √ √ √ √ √

Staff went extra the mile √ √

Treated fairly √

Outcome √ √

Staff knowledgeable, competent √

Got clear accurate information √

Treated in a courteous manner √ √

Clear what to do if I had a problem √ √ √

Other learnings

70

7% of all CF5 respondents reported disabilities

Persons with disabilities:

• Are more negative on most of the attitudes toward government by 4 to 10 points out of 100

• Tend to rate satisfaction with services slightly lower than others, although the difference on most services is not statistically significant

• Tend to use certain services less, as might be expected because of their disability (e.g., parks and recreation, employment programs, Employment Insurance)

• Also tend to use other services less, possibly because of visual and auditory barriers (e.g., National Film Board)

• Are slightly older and have a slightly lower income than the rest of the population

71

Accessibility problems encountered

• When asked whether government service providers could improve access for persons with disabilities: 63% of persons with disabilities said yes for phone service 62% reported likewise for visits to government offices 57% reported likewise for Internet usability 63% reported likewise for staff training

• “I can readily access any government service that I need” Average agreement score for persons with disabilities is 48 out

of 100 Average agreement for others is 53 out of 100

72

Perspectives on service delivery of persons with a disability

“The service was designed so that I could access it without difficulty

Average = 58/100

14 13

25 24 25

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


“My independence was respected Staff interacted with me while getting this service in an appropriate manner Average = 62/100 Average = 64/100

913

2521

29

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


912

2522

32

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


73

Drivers related to persons with disabilities

Persons with disabilities rated satisfaction in their “recent experience” service lower than others by 6 points out of 100 (average scores = 53 and 59, respectively)

• The drivers fully account for the difference between persons with disabilities and others

• The problem centres on lack of a positive outcome

• There is a 13 point spread: 58% of those with disabilities got what they wanted compared to 71% of others

• A negative outcome is associated with lower ratings of staff performance and timeliness and this in turn reduces overall satisfaction (the model of customer satisfaction explains these dynamics)

74

Privacy and security for online services

• There is an ongoing need to balance ease of use with security and privacy

• Citizens who use the Internet indicate ease of use is important

• Most support a common ID to access all government services

75

Overall response to privacy and security questions

Overall response to privacy and security questions

Same user ID for Same user ID for all federal services services of all governments Average = 70/ 100 Average = 64/ 100

115

19 21

44

0

20

40

60

80

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


158

19 18

39

0

20

40

60

80

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


76

Regular Internet users favour a common user ID

Regular Internet users favour a common user ID

72

6361

5666

60

545550

60

70

80

Rarely,never

Monthly Weekly Daily

Average agreement

(0-100)

Frequency of Internet use

A single ID for:

Federal services

All gov't services

New insights into the roots of confidence

78

Confidence in public institutions

The new model of confidence in public institutions provides a roadmap for leaders and managers

“Confidence” has 2 main components in CF5:

• Confidence in government, measured by: “I believe the government does a good job” “I get good value for my tax dollars”

• Confidence in the public service, measured by: “I trust the public service to do what is right” “I can count on the public service to do what is right for

citizens”

79

Drivers of confidence in Government and the Public Service

80

How to read the confidence model…

• At the top level, confidence in the public service contributes to the broader concept of confidence in government

• The middle level contains “direct drivers” – things that have a direct effect on either confidence in government or confidence in the public service

• The impact of the lower level drivers is mainly indirect – they affect the middle level drivers, and through these affect confidence

• This confidence model accounts for 81% of the variance in citizens’ confidence in government and 82% of the variance in citizens’ confidence in the public service - an excellent result

81

Middle level - “direct” drivers

• Service reputation scores contribute to confidence in the government and confidence in the public service

• Service impact of government services: Citizens who believe that services had a positive impact on their lives express greater confidence in government. These citizens also express greater confidence in the public service, though this relationship is not as strong

• Public Service management: Citizens who believe that the public service is well managed have greater confidence in both the public service and government in general

• Public Service is in touch with the needs of my community: This perception has a strong impact on citizens’ confidence in the public service

82

Bottom level - “indirect” drivers

• Satisfaction with recent services: This measure combines ratings of specific municipal, provincial/territorial, and federal services. Positive experiences with government services contribute to the direct drivers. They cause citizens to:

have a more positive view on the impact of government services

regard the public service as more in touch with the needs of their community

give higher ratings of Service reputation

• Citizens who experience the public service as honest and fair:

see the impact of public services as more positive

see the public service as more in touch with the needs of their community

have greater confidence in the public service

83

Service reputation

“Service reputation refers to the overall view that a personholds of the services of an order of government"

Service reputation scores

Average score (0 - 100) Government CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5

Municipal * 53 57 59 62 55

Regional - - - - 53

Provincial/Territorial * 47 50 51 51 51

Federal * 47 51 56 59 51 * Significant upward trend over the years shown. - No data collected for these studies.

84

Views on government (1)

Measures of confidence in government

“I believe the government does a good job” “I get good value for my tax dollars” Average = 43/ 100 Average = 36/ 100

15

2635

18

6

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


2429 29

144

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


85

Views on government (2)

Drivers of confidence in government: Service impact

“Government services have had a positive “The services that I get from effect on me and my family” government meet my needs” Average = 49/ 100 Average = 48/ 100

10

20

40

22

8

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


11

23

37

24

6

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


86

Views on the public service

Measures of confidence in the public service

“I can count on the public service “I trust the public service to do what is best for citizens” to do what is right” Average = 45/ 100 Average = 44/ 100

11

27

39

19

4

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


14

26

36

19

5

0

20

40

60

Stronglydisagree

Stronglyagree


The forward path

88

The forward path

• The results of CF5 are relevant to every member of the public service across Canada. They give service providers and their leadership critical intelligence on what citizens experience, expect, and want in terms of delivery of government services

• At a high level, action in 3 areas is paramount to successfully achieving a truly citizen-centred public service that delivers services responsively and responsibly

» 1 Service

» 2 Research

» 3 Training and communication

89

Service

• The key to better service lies in improving performance on the key drivers of service satisfaction, especially timeliness

• To make every single interaction as positive as possible, service providers should focus on the 5 drivers of satisfaction: Timeliness: the single most important driver across all

services and all governments Staff performance: which includes fair treatment,

knowledgeable, competent staff, and proactive staff who "go the extra mile", make that extra effort

Positive outcome: "I got what I needed" Ease of access Quality of recent service experiences: which highlights

the importance of consistency in service delivery

90

Service (2)

• The public service itself contributes to citizens’ confidence in government

• To increase confidence in government and the public service, leaders and providers must focus on these drivers:

Impact of service on the family and self

Public service management (strong leadership and competent managers)

Public service that is in touch with the needs of its communities

Positive experiences with services

Honest and fair public service

91

Research

• To build empirically-grounded service improvement, all orders of governments should continue the Citizens First and Taking Care of Business initiatives

• Each study should build on the knowledge gained. Future studies should advance three priority areas: Further refine the Confidence Model to include other

issues that bear on citizen confidence in service delivery such as views of policy

Continue to track key information on service satisfaction and reputation as well as the patterns of channel utilization and perceptions of issues related to privacy and security (which are areas that have witnessed important changes over time)

As other countries have begun to license Citizens First, future research projects may be able to offer comparisons between international jurisdictions

92

Training and communication

• Developing talented and responsive public service providers requires leadership, commitment, knowledge, and training

• It is important that the leadership is committed to enabling staff through training and coaching to achieve the required knowledge and skills

• One new option is the Certified Service Manager Program offered by ICCS. Doing this will enhance the link in the Service Value Chain between engaged employees and more highly satisfied clients and citizens who have greater confidence and trust in government and the public service

• Make “Insights” widely available to staff. “Insights” is a new 8-page bilingual resource for government service providers. It summarizes the key results of CF5, providing a handy overview of the important findings CF5 in an accessible format and readable style

Appendix

94

4 key terms

• Driver – is a feature or element that has an important impact on satisfaction or confidence

• Service standard – is a commitment to delivering service at a particular level (e.g., how long a client can expect to wait in line)

• Service Value Chain (SVC) – is a model that illustrates the key building blocks in public sector service delivery. It is expressed as three main elements linked together as a chain: employee engagement (a combination of satisfaction and commitment), client satisfaction, and confidence in government

• Variance – is a mathematical measure of how people differ in their response. It is important to ask how much of the variance an analysis explains. If gender, for example, accounts for 1% of the variance in response to a question, it means that women and men are very similar in their responses. The model of satisfaction accounts for 80% of the variance in customer satisfaction – it provides a very full account of why some customers are satisfied while others are not

95

Demographic profile: Community size & first language

Size of community

Size range Percent

1,000,000 or more 20

100,000 to 1,000,000 32

10,000 to 100,000 29

1,000 to 10,000 12

Town under 1,000 2

Rural or remote 5

Total 100

First language

Language

English 71

French 22

Other 8

Total 100

96

Demographic profile: Visible minorities, Aboriginal Canadians & Education

Visible minorities and aboriginal Canadians

Group Percent

Visible minority 13

Aboriginal Canadian 2

Other 85

Total 100

Education

Level of education: Outside Quebec

Some public or high school 8

Completed high school 17

Some post-secondary 23

Completed college or university 39

Post-graduate or professional degree 14

Total 100 Level of education: Quebec

Primary 4

Secondary 22

Professional secondary 15

College 26

University 33

Total 100

97

Demographic profile: Primary occupation and income

Primary occupation

Occupational group Percent

Paid employment, full or part time 58

Student, full or part time 5

Looking for work 4

Homemaker 6

Retired 24

Other 3

Total 100

Household income

Income level

Under $10,000 4

$10,000 to $19,999 9

$20,000 to $29,999 12

$30,000 to $49,999 27

$50,000 to $69,999 22

$70,000 to $89,999 16

$90,000 or more 11

Total 100

98

Drivers of satisfaction: Mail, email, fax

99

Drivers of satisfaction: Internet

100

Drivers of satisfaction: Staff

101

Drivers of confidence in Government and the Public Service

Documents

By ERIN Research CITIZENS FIRST 5 National Results 2008