EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Service Canada commissioned Phoenix SPI to conduct a survey of its clients to assess levels of satisfaction with the service received. Clients of nine different programs/ services were surveyed, including Employment Insurance (EI), Employment Programs (EP), Canada Pension Plan (CPP), CPP Disability, Old Age Security (OAS), the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), Social Insurance Number (SIN), Passports, and 1-800 O’ Canada. A total of 4,023 interviews were completed between March 13th  and April 5th, 2006. Based on a sample of this size, the overall results can be considered to be accurate to within +/- 1.6%, 19 times out of 20. The results were weighted to reflect the actual distribution of Service Canada clients across the various programs/services.

Awareness of Service Canada

Awareness of Service Canada is relatively limited. In total, 30% of surveyed clients claimed to be aware of the department. Moreover, awareness was much more likely to be the result of prompting (26%) than unprompted recognition (4%). Not surprisingly, awareness is higher among Service Canada clients than the population as a whole (30% vs. 19%). Levels of awareness varied considerably across programs/services, being noticeably higher among users of Employment Programs (48%) and 1-800 O’Canada (44%), and lower among GIS (19%) and CPP Disability clients (21%). By comparison, differences in awareness across client segments were smaller.

Awareness of Service Canada is driven mainly by combined internal efforts. Exactly half of those who claimed to be aware identified governmental sources as the way in which they first learned about the department. This included referral by another department, agency or program, federal government websites, government mailings, federal government offices, 1-800 O’ Canada, and the Service Canada website. Media or news reports also played a role, with nearly one-quarter of those aware of the department saying they first learned about it through the media/news.

Service Channels and Interactions

There was considerable variance in the purpose, type and frequency of contact with Service Canada. Clients were most likely to have contacted the department for information or service related to Employment Insurance (44%), followed by almost one-quarter who called 1-800 O’Canada or made contact for service related to a SIN. Over half made contact regarding public pensions or income security programs (OAS, CPP Retirement, the GIS, and CPP Disability), and one in ten made contact for passports or Employment Programs. There was a considerable degree of multiple program/service usage. Although a majority of clients (53%) contacted Service Canada regarding only one program/service, nearly half did so regarding two or more programs/services.

The phone dominated among channels used to contact Service Canada (63%), followed at a distance by in-person contact (39%) and the Service Canada website or some other Government of Canada website (38%). Approximately one in five used mail or fax, while relatively few used email (9%). Use of multiple channels was relatively widespread – while half (51%) used only one channel to contact Service Canada, more than one-quarter used two channels, and almost one in five used three or more. Moreover, despite its overall prevalence, use of the phone was challenged or surpassed by other channels among certain client groups. It was challenged by the Internet among EI and EP clients, and youth, as well as by in-person service among passport clients. Among new Canadians and SIN clients, the phone was surpassed in use by in-person service.

Most service channels used by clients to contact Service Canada were used infrequently (i.e. once or twice) by a majority of those who used them. The average number of contacts initiated by clients across all channels during the previous six months was 3.8 when the Internet is excluded and 7.1 when it is included.

There were some notable differences among clients in terms of service interaction, particularly by program/service. In terms of average number of contacts with Service Canada across all channels (both including and excluding the Internet) EI and EP clients were most likely to have numerous contacts, while CPP, OAS and GIS clients were at the lower end of the spectrum. In terms of channel use, EI, EP, SIN and Passport clients were much more likely to be multiple channel users (with CPP Disability and 1-800 O’Canada clients least likely to be). Among client segments, frequency of contact tended to be similar; however, youth, working-age adults and new Canadians were most likely to be multiple channel users (with seniors least likely to be).

Satisfaction with Service

Satisfaction with the overall quality of service received from Service Canada was widespread. In total, 84% expressed satisfaction with the service received during the previous six months, with more than half (55%) saying they were very satisfied (5-point scale: 5 = very satisfied; 1 = very dissatisfied). This translates into an index score of 82.75 out of 100, using the Common Measurements Tool index. Moreover, satisfaction tended to be widespread across different programs/services, channels, client segments, regions, and demographic groups. That said, satisfaction was somewhat lower among EI, EP and CPP Disability clients, and Aboriginal Canadians and persons with disabilities.

The main differences in satisfaction tended to be in the intensity or degree, as opposed to the level of satisfaction (i.e. those who were very satisfied vs. those moderately satisfied). Differences in expressions of strong satisfaction tended to be quite wide across programs/ services (43-71%) and service channels (37-74%). In addition, expressions of strong satisfaction varied by number of channels used and number of contacts made. The proportion very satisfied dropped by 14% when three or more service channels were used (compared to one only), and by 10% when more than four contacts were made (compared to one contact only).

Underscoring satisfaction with the overall quality of service, over two-thirds offered positive assessments for each of 15 different aspects of service delivery (i.e. timeliness, responsiveness, fairness, etc.). Moreover, most areas were assessed positively by more than three-quarters of surveyed clients, and positive assessments were much more likely to be strong than moderate for each aspect of service.

Multivariate analysis revealed three main service dimensions as drivers of overall satisfaction: staff quality, information quality, and access/speed (i.e. accessibility and timeliness). Staff quality and information quality were the most important service dimensions, and were almost equally important. That said, the analysis also revealed different key drivers of satisfaction for different programs/ services and client segments. In terms of programs/services:

• Quality of staff was dominant for CPP Disability, EP and SIN clients.
• Quality of staff was also important for EI and 1 800 O-Canada clients, but the other two factors were also relevant.
• Quality of staff and information quality were of similar importance for OAS clients, while access-speed was not significant.
• Information quality and access-speed were key for Passport clients.
• Information quality was the only significant factor for GIS and CPP clients.

In terms of client segments:

• Quality of staff was the critical factor for the most vulnerable groups served – visible minorities, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal Canadians, and new Canadians.
• Quality of staff had the strongest impact for working-age Canadians, but the other two factors were still significant.
• All three factors were similar in importance for youth and seniors.

While relatively few surveyed clients experienced problems with the service they received during the previous six months (13%), the likelihood of encountering problems tended to be uneven across programs/services, with those making contact regarding EP, EI, and GIS most likely to have encountered problems (16-18%). The likelihood of experiencing service-related problems also increased noticeably with the number of channels used (from 10% of those who used one channel to 23% of those who used three or more) and the number of contacts with Service Canada (from 7% of those with one contact to 23% of those who had more than 10 contacts).

The problems experienced by clients tended to fall into three categories: issues related to information quality (35%), timeliness of service (34%), and access to service (31%). In terms of the way such problems were handled, there was a relatively high level of dissatisfaction, with 41% expressing dissatisfaction, and over one-quarter being very dissatisfied (only 27% expressed satisfaction, with almost the same number neither satisfied nor dissatisfied).

Looking Forward

Just over two-thirds of surveyed clients said that service staff did not inform them about any other programs, services or information that might be of value or use to them when they had contacted Service Canada. Conversely, one-quarter said they were given such information. The degree to which clients said they were informed about other services or information varied across programs/services (20-37%) and client segments (20-33%). EP clients (37%), 1-800 O’Canada callers (33%), and members of visible minorities (33%) were most likely to have been informed about other information or services that might be useful to them, while those least likely to have experienced this were GIS (20%) and SIN (21%) clients, Aboriginal Canadians (20%) and seniors (24%).

Exactly half of surveyed clients attributed a positive impact to Service Canada’s one-stop approach to service delivery. Most of the rest attributed no impact to it, with very few described the impact as negative.

Among suggestions to improve the quality of service received from Service Canada, the focus tended to be on access issues, staff, and faster service. Suggestions related to access led the way, and included easier phone access, removing the voice message system, making the website more user-friendly, and having more offices and more convenient hours. This was followed by suggestions related to staff, including having better trained staff, more staff, friendlier staff, and staff with better language skills.

Conclusions and Implications

There is widespread satisfaction among Service Canada clients with the overall quality of service they received. Moreover, levels of satisfaction tend to be high across different aspects of service delivery, programs/services, channels, client segments, regions, and demographic groups. This constitutes a strong foundation on which to build a culture of service excellence for the future. While Service Canada might want to target efforts to increase levels of satisfaction where they tend to be lower (i.e. EI, EP and CPP Disability clients, Aboriginal Canadians, persons with disabilities), a key challenge to improve overall satisfaction levels will be to increase the degree of satisfaction (i.e. transforming moderate into strong satisfaction), especially across different programs/services and service channels.

Attention should also be paid to the link between the degree of satisfaction and the number of contacts made and channels used (i.e. strong satisfaction drops with the number of service channels used and contacts made). This is particularly important because the single window approach to service is designed, at least in part, to benefit multiple service users.

The importance of staff quality and information quality as drivers of overall satisfaction suggests that improvements in these areas would have the biggest impact on satisfaction. As well, the high correlation between the two suggests that, for clients, staff competence and information systems are highly interdependent. This underscores the importance of staff training and systems development. The former would be particularly important for the most vulnerable populations (i.e. persons with disabilities, Aboriginal Canadians, visible minorities, and new Canadians) for whom satisfaction levels are highly dependent on quality of staff. While there is room to improve on timeliness of service, this appears to have less of an impact on overall satisfaction.

While relatively few clients experienced problems with the service they received, the following points are worth noting. First, the likelihood of encountering problems tended to be uneven across programs/services, with those making contact regarding EI, EP and GIS most likely to have encountered problems. Second, the likelihood of encountering a problem increased noticeably with the number of channels used and contacts made. While this may mean that the likelihood of encountering a problem increases with the number of contacts and channels used, it may also be that clients who encounter a problem tend to try different channels and/or make more contacts to try to resolve it. Third, the problems encountered tend to relate to timeliness, information quality, and access to service – factors closely linked to overall satisfaction. And fourth, the largest proportion of those experiencing a problem expressed dissatisfaction with the way it was handled. Clearly, most clients who run into difficulties come away unsatisfied with the way in which Service Canada tries to resolve such difficulties.

While most clients said that service staff did not inform them about any other programs, services or information that might be of value to them when they contacted Service Canada, this does not seem to have had a negative impact on overall satisfaction. The service offering concept represented by Service Canada has not yet fully matured, and it is likely that such ‘bundling’ is beyond the expectations of most clients. Recall that there was limited awareness of even the ‘one-stop access’ model of service delivery, with fewer than half thinking that there is a single federal department with primary responsibility for providing services to Canadians.

That said, when this approach to service delivery is brought to clients’ attention, reaction to it tends to be positive. Reflecting on its impact to date, half the clients indicated that this approach has had a positive impact on the service they received, with most of the rest seeing no impact as yet. Those who did claim to have seen a positive impact likely includes both those who did notice improved service, as well as others who are simply positively acknowledging the one-window approach to service delivery. It is worth noting that many clients are already accessing multiplems/services. The relatively high use of multiple programs/services reinforces the Service Canada model of service delivery – the one-window approach offers significant benefit to multiple program/ service users.

While satisfaction levels are high, awareness of the organization that offers the service is limited. This is not surprising in light of Service Canada’s relatively recent launch (September 2005), but does underscore the branding challenge ahead and the need to increase awareness of Service Canada, both among clients and the general public (since this is linked to access).

[ previous |   table of contents  |  next ]