cf7 national report final

INSTITUTE FOR CITIZEN-CENTRED SERVICE

2014

Citizens First 7

This study and the reports were conducted and guided by the following project team members:

From Ipsos Reid Public Affairs

Marina Gilson

Sandra Guiry

Greg Garrison

Diana MacDonald

Daniel Kunasingam

Rudi Wong

From the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service

Nicholas Prychodko

Michal Dziong

© The Institute for Citizen-Centred Service, 2014 Institut des services axés sur les citoyens, 2014

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED/TOUS DROITS RÉSERVÉS

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français. Veuillez communiquer avec l’ISAC pour en obtenir une copie.

This publication is also available in French. Please contact the ICCS to obtain a copy.

The Institute for Citizen-Centred Service

The mission of the ICCS is to support public-sector organizations achieve high levels of citizen and business satisfaction by:

• facilitating inter-jurisdictional collaboration; • sharing research, tools, resources and knowledge; • building organizational capacity through development of the service profession; and • promoting excellence in citizen-centred service.

Internet: www.iccs-isac.org Email: [email protected]

ISBN 978-0-9936825-1-3

2

http://www.iccs-isac.org/



mailto:[email protected]



Citizens First 7

Acknowledgements

This study and the report came together with the involvement of a large group of dedicated individuals who are passionate about improving service to citizens. The Citizens First 7 (CF7) initiative was sponsored by provincial, territorial, regional and municipal levels of government, under the leadership and management of the team at the ICCS.

ENHANCED SPONSORS

Province of British Columbia

City of Hamilton

CORE SPONSORS

Province of Alberta

Province of Manitoba

Northwest Territories

Province of Nova Scotia

Province of Ontario

Region of Peel

Province of Québec

City of Toronto

York Region

Yukon

The research team at Ipsos would also like to express their appreciation to the 5,769 individuals whose valued time taken to respond to these surveys contributed to its success.

3

Citizens First 7

Table of Contents

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12

3. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 17

Service Reputation 18

Service Quality Scores 19

4. SERVICE EXPERIENCE MEASURES 24

The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model 25

Key Drivers of Client Satisfaction with Government Service 34

Priorities for Improvement 52

Channel Use and Preferences 56

Inclusion and Diversity 60

5. CITIZEN SERVICE STANDARD EXPECTATIONS 61

6. MOVING SERVICES ONLINE 73

7. APPENDICES 96

4

1. INTRODUCTION

5

Citizens First 7

1. Introduction

About Citizens First

The initial Citizens First survey was undertaken in 1998, establishing baseline measures with respect to citizens’ satisfaction with and expectations of service from government, at all levels.

This is now the seventh in this series of studies which have been conducted every 2 to 3 years. These extensive and rigorous citizen surveys explore various dimensions of the evolving service environment, tracking perceptions of service quality and performance for a wide range of services offered by municipal, provincial/territorial and federal governments.

Each wave also builds on the learning from previous surveys, providing public sector service managers with new insights and practical recommendations to improve service delivery and continue the drive toward citizen-centred service.

6

The Citizens First series has gained international attention and recognition and remains the “gold-standard” in research on public sector service delivery. Over the past 16 years, the surveys have plumbed key facets of the citizen-government interface, including:

The drivers of satisfaction, by delivery channel;

The challenges associated with creating a seamless, multi-channel experience;

Citizens’ expectations in terms of service standards; and,

The relationship between service and trust and confidence in government.

A similar survey has been undertaken across multiple waves, focused on business representatives’ satisfaction with and expectations of service from government, called ‘Taking Care of Business’.

Citizens First 7

Citizens First 7 continues to report key trends and changes from previous waves of the survey, and also continues the tradition of breaking new ground.

The 2014 survey represents a pivotal point in the program’s history. A number of important changes have been made to the methodology and approach. Key changes include:

• Further development of the model for drivers of satisfaction with government services, in parallel with the approach implemented for Taking Care of Business 4. The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model is employed to provide a robust, integrated approach to measuring client satisfaction and understanding the relative importance of various aspects of service, including functional and emotional dimensions, as well as the contextual situation. For more information on the model and analysis, please refer to Section 4 of this report.

• The proportion of respondents who provide detailed evaluations of services provided by the participating jurisdiction are maximized through the use of questionnaire customizations. (Previous iterations of Citizens First permitted the respondent to evaluate the service of their choosing, regardless of level of government providing the service, which resulted in services outside of the jurisdiction being evaluated.)

Making Citizens First More Actionable

A performance measurement and benchmarking tool

Exploding myths and

misperceptions

Channel strategies and

the multi-channel

experience

e-government

Elements of the service value chain

Building trust and confidence in government

Expectations management

New service technologies

Serving people with disabilities

Service standards for

emerging channels

Satisfaction across channels

CF1 1998

CF2 2000

CF3 2002

CF4 2005

CF5 2008

CF6 2012

CF7 2014

• Qualitative insight is provided by analyzing the comments of survey respondents regarding how service experiences can be improved. For the first time this information has been categorized and included in the reports. Individual participating jurisdictions are also provided with a copy of the verbatim comments for their jurisdiction for further consideration and analysis.

• New topics explored in this iteration include probing the awareness and usage of online government services, examining the attitudinal profile of users and non-users of online services and identifying drivers of online usage.

7

Citizens First 7

The Citizens First 7 survey included two separate components:

National Survey

Firstly, a national survey was conducted with a randomly selected, representative sample of over 800 Canadians from every province and territory. This survey included the topics of service standards and expectations and provision of online services.

Multiple methodologies were used to collect data for the national survey, including a randomly-recruited internet panel, mail and mail-to-online (respondents who received a survey package by mail had the option of completing and returning a paper copy of the survey, or completing the same survey online). Final sample sizes by method of completion for the national survey are as follows:

Online panel: 617 (75% of all responses);

Mail: 155 (19% of all responses); and, Mail-to-online: 47 (6% of all

responses).

The national survey was in field from June to September, 2014. The final data are weighted proportionate-to-population by province/region, age and gender.

Jurisdictional Survey

The jurisdictional survey is the second component. It includes a sample of at least 400 respondents in each subscribing jurisdiction for a total of around 5,000 Canadians (n=4,951). As with the national survey, it is based on a randomly selected, representative sample of Canadians.

Data for the jurisdictional survey was also collected using multiple methodologies.

The aggregate jurisdictional interviews by method of completion for all jurisdictions except Yukon and NWT are as follows:

Online panel: 3,120 (75% of responses);

Mail: 757 (18% of all responses); and,

Mail-to-online: 256 (6% of all responses).

Due to the small population in Yukon and NWT, a combined telephone and mail/mail-to-online approach was used.

The survey was in field from June to September, 2014. The final data are weighted within each subscribing jurisdiction proportionate-to-population by region, age and gender.

Survey Methodology

Participating Jurisdictions: Province of Alberta

Province of British Columbia City of Hamilton

Province of Manitoba Northwest Territories

Province of Nova Scotia Province of Ontario

Region of Peel Province of Québec

City of Toronto York Region

Yukon

8

Citizens First 7

National Survey Sample Composition

The table below shows the total sample distribution (unweighted and weighted) for both CF6 and CF7. Both samples were weighted by age, gender and region to be consistent with the 2011 Census.

Unweighted Weighted

CF6 (2012)

CF7 (2014)

CF6 (2012)

CF7 (2014)

Sample Size (Unweighted) (n=1689)

% (n=819)

% (n=1689)

% (n=819)

%

Region

British Columbia 9 13 13 13

Alberta 7 11 11 11

Manitoba/Saskatchewan 10 7 7 7

Ontario 41 39 38 39

Québec 12 24 24 24

Atlantic Canada 17 7 7 7

NWT/Yukon/Nunavut 4 <1 <1 <1

Gender

Female 48 51 50 51

Male 52 49 50 49

Ethnicity/Language

Visible minority 9 10 9 11

Aboriginal Canadian 3 5 2 5

First language–English 82 71 73 71

First language–French 11 24 21 24

First language–Other 5 5 5 5

Length of Time in Canada

Whole life 82 84 83 84

10 years or more 16 12 15 12

5-10 years 1 2 1 3

Less than 5 years <1 1 <1 2

Disability

Yes 5 4 4 4

9

Citizens First 7

Unweighted Weighted

CF6 (2012)

CF7 (2014)

CF6 (2012)

CF7 (2014)

Sample Size (Unweighted) (n=1689)

% (n=819)

% (n=1689)

% (n=819)

%

Size of Community

City or town of 1,000,000 people or more 17 20 24 21

City or town of 100,000 to 1,000,000 37 34 34 35

City or town of 10,000 to 100,000 25 25 24 25

Town of 1,000 to 10,000 11 11 10 11

Town of under 1,000 3 2 2 2

Rural or remote 6 7 5 6

No response 1 1 <1 1

Formal Education Completed HS or less 16 23 9 22

Some post-secondary 14 18 15 18

Completed college or university 46 44 33 46

Post-graduate or professional degree 24 14 19 14

Household Income (before taxes)

Under $30K 11 20 12 21

$30K to just under $50K 14 17 14 17

$50K to just under $70K 13 16 16 17

$70K to just under $90K 12 14 13 14

$90K or more 35 30 32 30

No Answer 16 2 15 1

Main Occupation

Paid employment, full or part time 53 51 52 55

Student, full or part time 2 5 5 6

Looking for work 4 4 4 4

Homemaker 5 6 4 6

Retired 28 28 27 23

Other 9 7 7 6

10

Citizens First 7

Definitions and Reporting Conventions

0 to 100 scores: Responses to many of the Citizens First survey questions are recorded on a 5-point scale where 1 means ‘very poor’ or ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 means ‘very good’ or ‘strongly agree’. To present findings in a manner consistent with previous iterations of Citizens First, many of the results are scaled from 0 to 100 by applying the following scores to each response:

Where sample sizes are shown, the lower case ‘n’ represents the sample size (number of respondents) upon which the percentages or scores are based.

Statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence interval are designated by arrows ().

‘Best in Class’ represents the highest score achieved by a participating individual province or territory (BC, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec or Nova Scotia), region or municipality (City of Hamilton, Region of Peel, City of Toronto, or York Region). A ‘Best in Class’ score is reported only if the sample size answering is at least n=30 respondents.

The CF7 National Basket of Services is based on an average 0-100 rating for a group of 21 services (which are detailed in Appendix 1). The results are comparable to the basket of 25 services that were included in CF6. Prior to CF6, a basket of 26 services were tracked in this measure.

Rating Very Poor

1 2 3 4 Very Good

5

Score 0 25 50 75 100

11

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

12

Citizens First 7

Reputation scores are positive, and are trending upwards for governments at all levels in Canada. Service reputation scores across

all levels of government show either significant improvement or sustained gains compared to previous measures. In fact,

scores for municipal, regional and provincial/territorial governments have hit an all-time high. Scores for

regional and provincial/territorial governments have increased significantly compared to CF6, while scores for municipal and federal governments have sustained large increases that were made between CF5 and CF6.

Service Reputation

Canada, at least at local level, receives some of the highest scores for government service delivery across the world.1 Residents continue to gauge how well government delivers services on how well it provides some of the toughest services to deliver– and these are the same services residents are most concerned about– traffic management, public transit and road maintenance. Residents tend to be more pleased with other services that are arguably easier to deliver.

As difficult as it is, all levels of government need to start to show improvement in these major service areas that are of the greatest importance to citizens.

1 One World, Many Places, Ipsos, 2010 http://www.ipsos.com/public-affairs/sites/www.ipsos.com.public-affairs/files/ipsos_sri_municipal_final.pdfSee Appendix 3.

Call to Action:

Service Quality Service quality scores for specific municipal services also show increases and sustained gains from the recent past, specifically on composting and traffic management–albeit traffic management still receives some of the lowest quality ratings along with road maintenance and municipally- or regionally-run public transit. At the provincial level, strong upticks in perceptions of provincial/territorial police and the courts are noted, while ratings of EMS services have declined. The overall rating of the National Basket of Services (which is composed of 21 baseline services across all three levels of government) is unchanged from CF6, but continues to sustain gains first noted in CF4 when the score increased from 67 out of 100 in CF3 to 73. This year’s score is 74.

13

Citizens First 7

Recent Service Experience The new ICCS Client Satisfaction Model was implemented for the first time in Taking Care of Business 4. It provides a comprehensive view of what it takes to satisfy citizen expectations of government services. The model utilizes an index of seven components (which comprise the Client Satisfaction Index or CSI) to represent satisfaction–covering various personal and societal components. It includes the important element of impact of service provision on confidence in public service, which is also being measured for the first time in CF7.

The CSI ratings vary greatly between provincial/territorial governments, but all score at least moderately well with an average CSI score of 67 (and that’s just the average!). On average, only 12% of residents were actively dissatisfied with a recent service experience.

The ICCS Customer Satisfaction Model is also a useful vehicle to identify specific priorities for governments to focus on to improve satisfaction. The proprietary model centres on five drivers of satisfaction. Within each driver of satisfaction, dimensions related to personal experience tend to be rated higher than societal dimensions. This suggests that residents are happy with their own experiences, but still would like to see improvement in government service delivery.

Delivery timeliness and issue resolution emerge as the key drivers of overall satisfaction. Dimensions within these drivers are largely within the control of government, and any improvements in these areas will have a measurable impact on overall satisfaction. While scores in these categories are already positive, bringing them up to the next level will be important as expectations of residents in these areas continue to rise.

Focusing improvement efforts in the areas that will have the greatest impact on overall impressions is key to driving an overall increase in client satisfaction. As expectations around speed of accessing services and conducting transactions, and customer service are on the rise (clients even want to be entertained while they wait!), both for government services and for all other consumer services, experiences will need to be in sync with expectations. At the same time, it is important to continue to maintain high performance in other areas that are ‘hygiene factors’–aspects that are simply expected by the public as a matter of course in dealing with services. While government may not realize a huge benefit for their positive performance in staff interactions, it is likely a base expectation, and any declines will result in a negative impact on overall satisfaction.

“I tried to find information online and was unable to

retrieve it. I gave up after 30 minutes.

There was nowhere to ask for 'help'. Live chat would be very

helpful.” - Online user

“The service was excellent. The only

thing that could have made it better would

have been some entertainment while I waited in line (TV or

radio).” - In-person user

Call to Action:

14

Citizens First 7

Online access has the potential to become the ‘new normal’ for government services. Despite lingering concerns about security and privacy, online channels are increasingly being used to interact with government services. Usage of government websites and online services is on par with other access channels, and there is a firm precedent for conducting other business transactions online. Usage patterns are currently uneven between levels of government, with the highest incidence reported for visiting a federal website, likely reflecting the finding that filing taxes is the most frequent online transaction for government services. Awareness of services available online is also uneven between levels of government and among specific services, with again the highest awareness reported for filing taxes. Demand is apparent with nearly eight in ten (79%) of Canadians reporting a likelihood to use the internet for government services in the near future.

As usage is on the rise, so too are expectations, primarily around speed. Speed is recognized as a key benefit of an online channel, but experiences are falling short of expectations–too much time surfing around for needed information is the key issue, as websites for all levels of government receive low ratings for ease of navigation.

Online Service Delivery

Online services need to be easy to find and fast to complete.

Residents expect to find the information or services they are looking for in 6.5 minutes– currently the average resident is spending 19 minutes.

“I hate going on government websites because they are not clearly laid out. It is

difficult to find exact departments and the search button almost never takes me to

what I am looking for.” - Social media user

Call to Action: In order for online to become the “new normal”, government will need to drive awareness of services available, optimize experiences to match rising expectations, and mitigate subconscious concerns. Awareness of what residents can do online at all levels of government needs to be raised. The benefits of the online channel need to be reinforced (primarily speed and convenience) and the user experience needs to be optimized to validate these benefits. Fewer clicks to find the information or services needed is imperative to a positive experience. The security of information and transactions online needs to be reinforced. Residents do not always recognize their fears spontaneously or consider them a barrier to use but, when prompted, lingering concerns are evident. Recent security breaches in the public and private sectors have raised concerns, but have not deterred online users. People are coming to terms that these events can and do occur. That said, in order to drive online usage among a broader audience and attract new users, service managers need to ensure their secure environments are highly visible to reassure users of the security of their information, particularly when it comes to financial (e.g., credit card) information.

15

Citizens First 7

The threshold for waiting for service across all channels is diminishing. Acceptable wait times for service in-person, on the telephone (answering or transferring calls and returning voicemails), and online (looking for information) are declining. This is particularly the case for telephone and online where expectations for near-instant service are increasing. At present, expectations are not in line with experience. More latitude is extended to in-person interactions where speed is not necessarily the key driver of that channel choice. It appears that the value associated with that preference–being able to ask questions, knowing that the transaction is completed accurately–means that clients are prepared to wait a little longer for service. As such, personal experience for this channel is in sync with expectations. A slight majority would like the in-person experience optimized through flexible hours of operation.

In-Person/Telephone Service Expectations

The average telephone service experience lasts 19

minutes. Those who say they had to wait on hold

too long had average calls of 29 minutes compared to only 14 minutes for others.

The average in-person service experience lasts 21

minutes. Those who say they had to wait in line too long had average visits of 34 minutes compared to

only 17 minutes for others.

Call to Action: Wait times expectations for all channels need to be either met or managed. The opportunity for instant and anonymous information transactions across consumer service categories afforded by today’s technology means that there is less tolerance for delay, and government services need to meet these standards. Where wait times are necessary, managing expectations around the duration of the wait or offering a reason for the wait is key to a more positive experience. Thresholds for waiting for a call to be connected or to receive a call back are also diminishing. While a majority of residents continue to find a wait of 5 minutes or less on hold to be acceptable, there has been a notable increase over the previous

reporting period in the proportions of those who want to remain on hold for just one minute or less. A similar trend is found in expectations for receiving a callback. Within the business day remains acceptable to the majority, however there has been a significant increase in expectations of hearing back within the hour. While time on hold and waiting for a call-back is important, equally important is the total amount of time to receive the service over the phone–which needs to stay under 15 minutes. In-person visits need to remain around 20 minutes. In-person is the only channel where governments are meeting the service expectation.

16

3. Performance Measures

17

Citizens First 7

The services of your municipal government

The services of your regional or county government, or urban community (if applicable)

The services of your provincial/territorial government

The services of the federal government

5

4

6%

7%

8%

10%

12%

13%

30%

35%

36%

35%

37%

37%

35%

34%

20%

14%

10%

11%

Base: Total Sample (n=819), excluding not applicable Q4: Overall, how would you rate the services you get from each level of government?

Service Reputation

In CF7 perceptions of government services at the municipal, regional and provincial/territorial levels are at an all-time high. Significant increases in positive perceptions over the previous wave are noted at the regional and provincial levels. Gains made between CF5 and CF6 in ratings of the municipal and federal level are maintained in the current wave.

Overall perceptions of government services at all levels are moderately positive, with municipal government services generating the highest and most strongly positive ratings. Negative ratings for all levels are offered by a minority, with around one-third giving a neutral score.

OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE

OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE: TREND

0 to 100 Score

Level of government: CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7 Municipal 53 57 59 62 55 62 65 Regional/County/Urban Community

-- -- -- -- 53 54 62

Provincial/Territorial 47 50 51 51 51 52 58 Federal 47 51 56 59 51 56 57

Significantly higher/lower than the previous wave (stat testing provided between CF5-CF7 only)

Base: Total Sample (n=819), excluding not applicable Q4: Overall, how would you rate the services you get from each level of government?

18

Very Good (5) Very Poor (1)

Citizens First 7

Municipal services related to drinking water, public libraries, first responders and waste management receive the most positive scores:

Eighty-two percent rate the drinking water in their home, and public libraries, at good or better (4 or 5 on the 5-point scale) with the gains reported for drinking water between CF5 and CF6 maintained in the current wave.

Similarly positive ratings are given to the fire department (85%), ambulance services (76%) and police (74%) at the municipal level.

Residents feel that the various waste management and treatment services provided to them in their local area are also good/very good, with garbage collection/disposal scoring 79%, recycling and composting scoring 78% and 67% respectively, sewage and waste water treatment at 75%, and yard waste at 72%. Gains made in positive ratings of recycling services between CF5 and CF6 are maintained in the current wave, with an increase in ratings of composting services also noted.

Municipal recreation services tend to elicit more moderately positive ratings, with approximately 60% to 70% rating services like parks/campgrounds, recreation centres, museums/heritage sites positively. A similar score is given to municipal/regional courts (63%).

Residents are least inclined to rate transportation-related services positively. Only one-half or fewer residents rate transit, traffic management, road maintenance, and snow removal services at 4 or 5. A significant increase in positive ratings for traffic management is noted in this wave, and the gains made in snow removal ratings between CF5 and CF6 are maintained.

Service Scores for Municipal Services

Service Quality Scores

19

Citizens First 7

Drinking Water provided to you at your residence

Fire Department

Recycling (blue/black bin)

Garbage collection or garbage disposal

Public library services

Municipal or regional EMS or ambulance services

Composting (green bin)

Municipal or regional Police

Leaf and yard waste collection (brown bag)

Sewage and waste water treatment

Municipal parks and campgrounds

Municipal recreation centres

Municipal museums or heritage sites

Municipal or regional snow removal services

Municipal or regional courts

Municipally- or regionally-run public transit (bus, streetcar, subway)

Traffic management in your municipality or region

Roads maintained by your municipality or region

51%

50%

45%

44%

43%

38%

37%

36%

36%

35%

33%

30%

30%

23%

22%

19%

17%

11%

31%

35%

33%

35%

39%

38%

30%

38%

36%

40%

43%

42%

39%

34%

41%

35%

34%

29%

13%

12%

13%

15%

15%

19%

19%

19%

18%

18%

18%

20%

22%

25%

27%

25%

28%

29%

5

4

4

7%

5

5

5

4

5

6%

14%

5

13%

12%

18%

8%

5

5

5

9%

9%

14%

Very Good (5)

MUNICIPAL/REGIONAL SERVICES

Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled Base: Residents who have used the service in past 12 months. Base: varies Q6: Please rate the quality of each of these services (if you did not use this service in the past 12 months, select ‘Does Not Apply’.

Very Poor (1)

20

Citizens First 7

0 to 100 Score

Service CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7

Fire Department -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Drinking water at your residence -- -- 66 75 78 82 81

Public library services -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Garbage collection or disposal 74 72 72 81 79 79 78

Recycling (Blue/Black Bin) -- -- 70 75 74 77 78

Municipal or regional EMS or ambulance services

-- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Sewage, waste water -- -- 66 72 76 75 75

Municipal or regional Police -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Municipal parks and campgrounds -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Leaf and yard waste collection (Brown bag)

-- -- -- -- -- 70 73

Municipal recreation centres -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Municipal museums or heritage sites -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Composting (Green Bin) -- -- -- -- -- 66 70

Municipal or regional courts -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Snow removal services -- -- -- 58 59 63 64

Traffic management in your municipality

-- -- -- -- -- 56 60

Municipally- or regionally-run public transit (bus, streetcar, subway)

-- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Roads maintained by the municipality -- -- -- 46 51 51 52

Base: Residents who have used the service in past 12 months Q6: Please rate the quality of each of these services (if you did not use this service in the past 12 months, select ‘Does Not Apply’.


MUNICIPAL/REGIONAL SERVICES: TREND

21

Citizens First 7

Provincially/territorially-run EMS or ambulance services

Provincial/territorial police

Provincially/territorially-run public transit (e.g., GO TRAIN)

Provincial/territorial courts

32%

30%

19%

18%

38%

36%

35%

35%

23%

24%

28%

35%

4

4

11%

7%

5

8%

6%

Service Scores for Provincial and Federal Services Services at the provincial and federal levels are all rated positively by a majority. Around two-thirds of residents give a rating of 4 or 5 to ambulance and police services. Transit and court services at these levels of government receive slightly lower ratings, but are still scored favourably by a majority at just over 50% positive.

An increase in positive ratings in the current wave is noted for provincial/territorial police and courts.

PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL/FEDERAL SERVICES

Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled Base: Residents who have used the service in past 12 months. Q6: Please rate the quality of each of these services (if you did not use this service in the past 12 months, select ‘Does Not Apply’.

PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL/FEDERAL SERVICES: TREND

0 to 100 Score

Service: CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7

Provincially/territorially-run EMS or ambulance services

-- -- 80 79 78 82 73

Provincial/territorial police -- -- -- 65 59 65 70

Provincially/territorially-run public transit (e.g., GO TRAIN)

-- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Provincial/territorial courts -- -- -- 56 53 53 63


Base: Residents who have used the service in past 12 months Q6: Please rate the quality of each of these services (if you did not use this service in the past 12 months, select ‘Does Not Apply’.

Very Poor (1) Very Good (5)

22

Citizens First 7

National Basket of Services

The National Basket of Services is composed of 21 baseline services across all levels of government–municipal, regional, provincial/territorial and federal. (Refer to Appendix 1 for a list of all services included in the basket.)

The overall rating of the National Basket of Services edged up since CF5, and continues to sustain gains first noted in CF4 when the score increased from 67 to 73 out of 100 since CF3.

The gains in overall client satisfaction with a range of services made between CF3 and CF4 have been maintained over the past 3 survey cycles. In the current reporting period, client satisfaction with the basket of services holds at 74.

LONG-TERM TREND IN CLIENT SATISFACTION

64 64 67

73 72 74 74

50

60

70

80

90

100

CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7

0 to 100 Score

* The CF7 National basket of services is based on an average 0-100 rating for a group of 21 services (which are described in Appendix 1). The results are comparable to the basket of 25 services that were included in CF6. Prior to CF6, a basket of 26 services were tracked in this measure.

Base: Residents who have used at least one of the Basket of Services in past 12 months Q8: If you used this service in the past 12 months, please indicate the quality of the service.

23

4. Service Experience Measures

24

Citizens First 7

The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model

The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model represents an evolution and refinement of the model first established in 1998. The model has been developed over time, with additional insights developed and tested during previous iterations of Citizens First and Taking Care of Business.

In Citizens First 7, client satisfaction is measured using a multi-item composite known as the Client Satisfaction Index (CSI). It incorporates both the individual service experience (personal experience) and the broader “cultural” environment in which the service experience takes place (societal context). This analytical framework connects service quality, client satisfaction, reputation, and trust and confidence in an integrated model that allows for the analysis of data to shed light on these relationships.

The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model© is the property of the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service

25

Citizens First 7

Personal Experience

The personal experience is the component of the model that is most directly under the control of the service provider. It is the component of the model that public service providers have focused on almost exclusively to date.

Personal experience is comprised of two sub-dimensions: functional and emotional. The functional dimension reflects the technical/mechanical aspects of service delivery, while the emotional dimension reflects the strength of emotional engagement in the service experience (telephone and in-person channels).

The functional dimension includes aspects such as access, timeliness, information, staff knowledge and competence, information, and privacy. The functional dimension is also more than the sum of its parts; taking a holistic approach, such drivers are all components of the question “How easy is it to get the service I need?”.

The emotional dimension has in the past been partially reflected in those staff quality drivers associated with extra mile, fairness, and courtesy, but has not been recognized or addressed as a discrete component until Taking Care of Business 4 (TCOB4). Research such as Gallup’s Human Sigma and the 2010 Kiwis Count study has demonstrated that an emotional connection between service provider and the client in the service experience is critical to the achievement of client satisfaction.


26

Citizens First 7

Societal Context

The societal context is the component of the model over which the service provider has no immediate control, but which nonetheless shapes the clients’ perceptions in the service experience.

The broader “cultural” environment in which the service experience takes place includes comparative and reputational contexts.

• Comparative Context: How the experience compares with service experiences from other private and public service providers.

• Reputational Context: What past experience and personal and societal expectations the client has regarding public services.


27

Citizens First 7

Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions/ Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q18 and Q19. Thinking back over your entire service experience, how much would you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

Client Satisfaction Index (CSI) The outcome metric of the Client Satisfaction Model is the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI), which is an average of the ratings of the following seven components that reflect the various personal and societal dimensions of satisfaction. It should be noted that confidence in public service is being measured for the first time in CF7. This establishes an important baseline for future measures.

Overall client satisfaction is moderately high, sitting at 67 out of 100 across jurisdictions, just below the 'Best in Class' score of 71. Scores for individual dimensions of satisfaction are at a similar level to the overall, falling into a range between 60 and 71. Gaps between the average and 'Best in Class' scores for each dimension are relatively small. Dimensions related to the personal emotional and functional components tend to receive the highest ratings, with societal reputational and comparative dimension scores slightly lower.

28

CLIENT SATISFACTION INDEX ACROSS ALL SUBSCRIBERS

0 to 100 Score

Average Across All

Participating Jurisdictions

Best In Class

Overall CSI 67 71

71 75

71 75

70 75

68 74

64 71

63 68

60 62

6

6

6

7

9%

8

9%

6

7

6

7

10%

10%

12%

21%

20%

23%

23%

26%

29%

31%

32%

31%

32%

32%

29%

29%

27%

36%

36%

33%

31%

27%

24%

21%

Overall, I was satisfied with theservice I received

Receiving the service I wanted waseasy

I felt good about the serviceexperience I had

I would speak positively to othersabout my service experience

The service equals the best serviceoffered anywhere

The service I experienced increasedmy confidence in public service

The service experience exceeded myexpectations

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Citizens First 7

30%

16%

7%

5%

4%

4%

2%

Permits, Certificates and Licensing Services

Information or Advisory Government Services

Government-Provided Financial Aid, Benefits,Compensation, Pensions and Support Programs

Government-Provided Healthcare or CounsellingServices

Government Community and Social Services

Government-Provided Employment or ProfessionalTraining and Support

Government-Provided Childcare or Daycare Services

Services Included in Key Driver Analysis After survey respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the government services that they have used in the past 12 months, they were asked to provide a deep dive analysis of one of the jurisdictional services chosen at random. The key driver analysis presented on the following pages is based on the aggregate data collected from the deep dive section.

The proportions below reflect the composition of the services rated in the deep dive section.

CATEGORIES OF SERVICES SELECTED FOR RECENT SERVICE EXPERIENCE

Proportion of CSI Score*

*Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as 20% of residents used some other service and 11% did not evaluate a service For details on the services included in each service category, please refer to Appendix 2 Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions/ Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months

29

Citizens First 7

Client Satisfaction Index (CSI) by Service Category Healthcare/counselling services and permits/certificates/licensing services net the highest satisfaction scores at 70 or higher, as well as the closest alignment with 'Best in Class' scores. Other service types receive average satisfaction scores between 61 and 65.

The largest gaps between the average and the ‘Best in Class’ scores occur for information or advisory services (10 points) and employment of professional training and support (14 points). These are areas where lower-performing jurisdictions can be guided by best practices in the ‘Best in Class’ jurisdictions.

* The Client Satisfaction Index is based on an average level of agreement with the seven components shown on page 28 ** The sample size is too small to present data on the ‘Best in Class’ for Government Community and Social Services and for Government-Provided Childcare and Daycare Services Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months For details on the services included in each category, please refer to Appendix 2

61

74 71 61 62 61 65 67

77 76 71 75

Average Across all Participating Jurisdictions Best in Class

Financial Aid, Benefits,

Compensation, Pensions and

Support Programs

Healthcare or

Counselling Services

Permits, Certificates and

Licensing Services

Information or Advisory

Government Services


Government-Provided

Employment or Professional Training and

Support

Government-Provided

Childcare and Daycare Services

CLIENT SATISFACTION INDEX* BY SERVICE CATEGORY (0 TO 100 SCORE)

** **

30

Citizens First 7

Client Satisfaction Index (CSI) by Primary Channel

Satisfaction tends to be highest with in-person visits, followed by online and telephone experiences. Current ratings for all channels fall slightly below 'Best in Class' scores, with the largest gap occurring with web.

63 66 72 69

74 77

Telephone Website In-person visit

Average Across All Participating Jurisdictions Best in Class

* The Client Satisfaction Index is based on an average level of agreement with the seven components shown on page 28 For details on how many residents used each channel, please refer to page 58 Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q10. What was your first method of contact for this service? Q12. If you used more than one method, which was your main one?

CLIENT SATISFACTION INDEX* BY PRIMARY CHANNEL (0 TO 100 SCORE)

31

Citizens First 7

Nature of the Service Interaction All categories of service interactions are well represented by survey respondents, with a slightly higher incidence of routine or periodic transactions reported at 33% and a slightly lower incidence of issues-related interactions reported at 13%

The total will add to more than 100% because some respondents selected more than one response Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q9. What was the nature of the service interaction?

NATURE OF SERVICE INTERACTION

33%

26%

24%

13%

25%

To complete a routine or periodictransaction (e.g., pay property taxes, renew

a licence plate sticker)

To view, submit or obtain an application orregistration for any type of permit, licence or

certificate

To get information or advice (includingordering publications)

To solve a problem, correct an error or tomake a complaint

Anything else

32

Citizens First 7

Client Satisfaction Index (CSI) by Nature of Service Interaction

Routine/periodic transactions receive the highest satisfaction score and are most closely aligned with the 'Best in Class' average.

Applications/registrations, information/advice, and other services receive an average satisfaction score in the mid-60s, a 6 to 8 point gap from 'Best in Class' scores.

Issues-based interactions receive the lowest satisfaction score at 58, again 8 points lower than 'Best in Class'.

72 67 66

58 65

75 75 74 66

71

Routine orperiodic

transaction

Application orregistration

Information oradvice

Solve problem,correct error,

complaint

Anything else

Average Across Participating Jurisdictions Best in Class

* The Client Satisfaction Index is based on an average level of agreement with the seven components shown on page 28 Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q9. What was the nature of the service interaction?

CLIENT SATISFACTION INDEX* BY INTERACTION TYPE (0 TO 100 SCORE)

33

Citizens First 7

Key Drivers of Client Satisfaction with Government Service

A central objective of this research is to determine which drivers have the most impact on the CSI, allowing service providers to focus on improving those which represent the greatest opportunity to improve the service experience. The five CSI drivers are:

Service design

Delivery timeliness

Staff interaction

Channel functionality

Issue resolution

As with TCOB4, multivariate analysis was conducted to determine which drivers have the most impact on the CSI. Factor analysis was conducted in TCOB4 to confirm the validity of the drivers.

34

Citizens First 7

Service Design Driver The overall service design rating sits at 75 across participating jurisdictions, a bit lower than the 'Best in Class' score. Scores for individual dimensions of service all hover around the same level, with little differentiation between the various tested elements. Seven-in-ten or more agree that they received the service and necessary information they sought, that the process to get access to and receive the service was easy, that they were aware of where or how to get what they needed and that their personal information was protected. All average scores for individual dimensions fall below 'Best in Class' scores, with the widest gap noted in knowing where or how to find the service.

SERVICE DESIGN DRIVER SCORES

0 to 100 Score

Average Across All


Best In Class

Service Design 75 81

78 84

76 81

75 83

76 79

74 78

74 79

5

4

4

5

5

4

4

6

5

6

7

14%

18%

19%

20%

18%

18%

28%

31%

30%

31%

30%

31%

49%

43%

42%

41%

41%

40%

In the end, I received the serviceI was seeking

I received all the information Ineeded to receive the service

I knew where or how to find theservice I was looking for

I am confident my personalinformation was protected

The process to get access to theservice was easy

The process to receive theservice was easy

Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q18 and Q19. Thinking back over your entire service experience, how much would you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?


35

Citizens First 7

Priority Matrices Explained

A priority matrix allows for decision makers to easily identify priorities for improvement by comparing how strongly a driver performed and how much impact each driver has on the CSI. It helps to answer the question ‘what can we do to improve client satisfaction?’. Each driver or its component will fall into one of the quadrants explained below, depending on its impact on overall satisfaction and its performance score (provided by survey respondents).

Please note that “Impact” represents squared Pearson’s correlation coefficients (pairwise against the driver of CSI), and “Performance” represents the average score (0 to 100) for each component of the driver (independent variable).

IMPACT VERSUS PERFORMANCE ON DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION

36

Citizens First 7

Action Priorities for Service Design Driver

Ease of accessing and receiving the service are two of the three most impactful components of service design. Performance scores on these lag behind the performance of most of the other service design components. Therefore, these are the components that most government agencies should prioritize in service provision.

Receiving all the required information is also an impactful component of service design. While performance is a bit stronger compared to the two process components, it too should be prioritized for improvement.

37

Citizens First 7

“Simplify and shorten the number of questions on the form(s) used by employers for submission to workers compensation.”

“One did not seem to know what the other was doing. One department would tell me one thing (and supposedly entered the information in the system), but then I would talk to someone else, and they had some of the information, but not all, and I would have to explain to them that another individual had given me certain information and so on.”

“More courtesy and little bit of privacy in the cubicle. Clear signage of where to go.”

“[The first time] I went in to change my [driver’s] licence and was told what documents I would need. I returned a couple of days later and they weren't good enough. I was sent back. I was refused my licence so it was quite an ordeal.”

“Communication should outline at the outset the documentation, reports, and referrals that are necessary in order to complete a claim, particularly for those who have never used the service before.”

“More detailed information on process, requirements, and expectations before you even start your interactions with personnel.”

“…an office I could go to where you could talk to a real person who had paper copies of all the forms. They could tell you what needed to be filled out and provide envelopes with addresses for mailing them.”

Insights: Service Design The main themes arising from the verbatim comments are a need to increase awareness of what information is required to receive services or what to bring to an in-person visit. Signage in offices should be improved so residents know where to go. When it comes to receiving the service, simplify and reduce the number of forms and ensure confidentiality at service counters. To follow are some examples of issues that residents of Canadian jurisdictions raised with respect to these priority themes.

Easy process for receiving the service

“The relevant application form could have been available online (on the website).”

“It was unclear where I was to go when I first entered the office. It seemed very confusing and I didn't know if I was in the correct line. I had to ask someone else who had already been through the line before I knew if I was where I ought to be.”

“It would be better if all the services I required were available at the one location/office.”

“Receive an e-mail response that the request has been received and have a processing identification so you can keep following up.”

“The area should be made totally handicap accessible. If I had a walker or wheelchair I could not access this place. There should also always be an accessible washroom in a public service area.”

Receiving all of the information needed

Ease of access to the service

38

Citizens First 7

Delivery Timeliness Driver

The overall delivery timeliness score sits at 70 out of 100, 6 points lower than the 'Best in Class' score.

Again, there is little differentiation among the individual dimensions of delivery timeliness, with two-thirds or more reporting satisfaction with the amount of time to access, receive or get help with a service.

All average scores for individual dimensions fall below 'Best in Class' scores by 6 points.

Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q19. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.

39

DELIVERY TIMELINESS DRIVER SCORES

0 to 100 Score

Average Across All


Best In Class

Delivery Timeliness 70 76

70 76

70 76

69 75

8

8

8

8

8

9

18%

19%

18%

28%

29%

27%

38%

37%

37%

I was satisfied with the amountof time it took to receive the

service

I was satisfied with the amountof time it took to get any help I

needed

I was satisfied with the amountof time it took to access the

service


Citizens First 7

Action Priorities for Delivery Timeliness

There is very little difference in both the impact and performance scores between the components of delivery timeliness.

Government service providers in Canada would be well advised to focus on continuing to maintain and improve all three components, since delivery timeliness is one of the top two most impactful drivers of customer satisfaction.

40

Citizens First 7

Insights: Delivery Timeliness The main themes arising from the verbatim comments are a desire for shorter wait times and extended hours. To follow are some examples of issues that residents raised with respect to delivery timeliness:

“Someone could be at the office more. The hours could be extended. Occasionally I go there and they are not there.”

“Services could be open later and on Saturdays.”

“I'd like it if the municipal offices were open later, maybe not everyday, but once or twice a week stay open until six or seven.”

“I don't feel any improvement was necessary other than being able to contact the office on Saturday would be convenient.”

“Faster service at the DMV. Waiting 30-60 minutes in line to receive a 3 minute transaction is too much.”

“Shorten the time it takes to pick up the phone and address the issue directly.”

“They need much shorter wait times [at service counter].”

“Give an estimated wait time.”

“More service personnel needed to be working the counter. The wait time of 45 minutes was excessive.”

Time to access service Hours

“Be more efficient. I've been waiting more than three months to receive a renewed card.”

“The wait time between applying and receiving the benefit was terribly excessive. It was not possible to inquire as to the status of the request. We were told we would just have to wait and that wait was over two months.”

“No one wants to wait for 2-4 weeks to get a social assistance/income cheque so the government really needs to look into this and figure out a better solution because I think at the moment it is not working for people.”

”There should have been more workers made available to handle inquiries [when accessing services online]. Response should have taken a few days instead of several weeks.”

“There is too much paperwork that needs to be filled out by others that makes the process take longer than necessary.”

Time to receive the service

41

Citizens First 7

Staff Interaction Driver The staff interaction score is high with an overall average of 79, just slightly lower than the 'Best in Class' score of 83.

Individual dimensions of staff interaction are rated similarly positively, with little differentiation noted. Three-quarters or more agree that they were: treated fairly and courteously by service staff; that the staff were knowledgeable, understood their needs and made every effort to address them; and that they felt good about their interaction. All scores are within 6 points of the 'Best in Class‘ score.

Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q18B. Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statements.

42

STAFF INTERACTION DRIVER SCORES

0 to 100 Score

Average Across All


Best In Class

Staff Interaction 79 83

80 86

80 85

79 84

79 82

77 82

77 83

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

14%

14%

15%

15%

16%

16%

30%

30%

30%

31%

29%

30%

50%

50%

48%

47%

46%

46%

Service staff treated me withcourtesy

Service staff treated me fairly

Service staff understood myneeds

Service staff wereknowledgeable

I felt good about my interactionwith service staff

Service staff made every effortto address my needs


Citizens First 7

Action Priorities for Staff Interaction

There is little variation in the impact of the components of staff interaction. There is also little variation in the performance scores.

In an effort to bring some prioritization or focus to the components Canadian government service providers should strive to improve the components in the improve quadrant as impact scores are marginally higher and performance scores marginally lower – those are: ‘I felt good about my interaction with service staff’ and ‘service staff made every effort to address my needs’.

43

Citizens First 7

Insights: Staff Interaction

When it comes to the staff interaction driver, the following should be addressed: improving staff knowledge, making sure staff are giving their best effort to address the needs of the resident, and ensuring residents feel good about their interaction with staff.

The main themes arising from the verbatim comments are a desire for greater staff training to ensure there is a consistent level of knowledge across front-line staff and improving the way staff interact with residents. There is also a desire for greater compassion and empathy.

“Increased competence and knowledge.”

“Each time I go in there are a lot of people there and some are really knowledgeable and some not.”

“Have more knowledgeable staff, speak English clearly, have less waiting time and prompter service overall!”

“The volume that the people are dealing with is not high and sometimes they are not familiar with the nuances but they do their best. I would like them to have more experience but no one can really control that.”

“Governments need people who know what they are doing.”

Staff knowledge, communication skills

“People need to learn how to provide better service and have more compassion.”

“Be respected more because having a disability or financial issue does not mean we live on another world. Staff get very easily frustrated; no patience at all; no empathy, and they rush to close the phone call because they do not want to get involved!”

“The [telephone] call representative was rude and not empathetic. The whole process was awful and degrading.”

“Stop the service person from arguing with the client.”

Understanding, compassion

“Often I find that the workers are rude or snarky. The experience would be a whole lot better if they would treat me more like a person with feelings and needs than just a case number or inanimate object.”

“Public service members for the vast majority are not motivated and it shows through their personality.”

“Customer service representative could refrain from bringing religious comments into the interaction with customers.”

“Staff needs better communication & time management skills.”

Soft skills

44

Citizens First 7

Channel Functionality Driver

Overall channel functionality sits at 75 on the 0 to 100 point scale, just under the 'Best in Class'.

Three-quarters rate various dimensions of channel functionality positively, indicating ease of access and achievement of service needs by their preferred method of contact, and overall satisfaction with their main method of contact.

Individual dimension scores are somewhat lower than 'Best in Class'.


45

CHANNEL FUNCTIONALITY DRIVER SCORES

0 to 100 Score

Average Across All


Best In Class

Channel Functionality 75 80

75 80

75 80

74 81

5

5

5

6

6

6

18%

16%

18%

30%

30%

30%

42%

43%

42%

I was able to easily access thisservice by my preferred method

of contact.

I was able to achieve my serviceneeds by using my preferred

method of contact.

I am satisfied with myexperience using the mainmethod of contact I used


Citizens First 7

Action Priorities for Channel Functionality There is virtually no difference between the components of channel functionality on both impact and performance.

Scores on channel functionality vary somewhat by the main channel used. Services delivered through the telephone channel were rated lower than in-person or online. Residents whose main channel was online rate “I was able to achieve my service needs by using my preferred method of contact” 83 out of 100. This compares to 80 among those whose main channel was in-person and 76 among those whose main channel was telephone.

46

Citizens First 7

Insights: Channel Functionality The main themes arising from the verbatim comments related to channel functionality for online service delivery are to make the website/webpages easier to navigate, allow website payments and improve location and downloading of forms.

Regarding the in-person channel at a government office, service counter or kiosk, faster service/less waiting is the most common theme. This also speaks to delivery timeliness.

For telephone, the most common theme is a desire to complete the service with fewer calls (or on the first call preferably) and less time on hold.

“If you provided more comprehensive, streamlined information and a more easy to navigate website, then less people would have to come to the service offices, thus making the wait time at the service offices shorter. Either that or hire more people so that service time is sped up.”

“Better websites that are not as confusing to navigate would be a huge benefit. I hate going on government websites because they are not clearly laid out… The search button almost never takes me to what I am looking for.”

“[The service could be improved] by allowing website payment.”

“I tried to find information online and was unable to retrieve it. I gave up after 30 minutes. There was nowhere to ask for 'help'. Live chat would be very helpful.”

“Technical issues, inability to load/access site/login caused many delays.”

“Improve the search section as it didn't work well and I had to call in for service. Maybe have an on-line live help section that can answer my questions or frustrations while on-line.”

Online

“The office was too far away and understaffed; I wish there was a closer place.”

“Faster service.”

“Less waiting.”

“[In-person services] could provide an estimated wait time.”

“[Make] things more efficient. The information line is way at the back, at the front would make sense to me.”

“Have more stations open in the office. There were 4 stations open and the lineup was out the door.”

“[Make it easier] to get into facilities for wheelchairs.”

“Improve their parking/ not enough space for public parking.”

“Have a shorter wait time or make the service available online.”

“I would like it done online.”

“I would like the use of modern technology and a competent staff.”

In person/office/service counter

47

Citizens First 7

“Speaking to a real person and not an automated service.”

“I was on hold for way too long and I gave up.”

“Put a live person on the end of the phone. The endless automated voice queues that refer me to websites that don't answer my questions or endless automated voice queues that never actually get me to where I needed to go were very annoying.”

“Not have to wait so long on the phone.”

“Adopt other countries' excellence and standards of service/ performance where a telephone call is answered upon the third ring.”

“Include more specific phone numbers on the website and the number you should call for the exact service you want instead of going through all those options.”

“Having the option to reach a person in the beginning.”

“Several messages were left on the phone, but no reply. It's important to give the client a 2 minute call saying, ‘we're still processing information‘ etc.”

Telephone

48

Citizens First 7

Issue Resolution Driver The issue resolution scores are consistent with those for other drivers, both with regard to the average across participating jurisdictions and the 'Best in Class' score, at 72 and 76 respectively.

Some differentiation between individual dimensions is noted, with residents more confident in the satisfactory resolution of future issues than with the handling of issues/complaints currently experienced.

In terms of the correlations between the five CSI drivers, it is interesting to note that the issue resolution driver has correlations with the service design (.86) and staff interaction (.81) drivers that are as strong, or stronger than the correlation with delivery timeliness (.80). This indicates that issue resolution has much to do with resolving barriers to getting service (such as finding the information they need, knowing where to go and what the process is), and issues with staff. Nonetheless, the correlation with timeliness is still quite high, and importantly, having to wait too long is related to issue resolution as well.


49

ISSUE RESOLUTION DRIVER SCORES

0 to 100 Score Average

Across All Participating Jurisdictions

Best In Class

Issue Resolution 72 76

72 76

68 73

65 72

6

7

9

6

8

7

19%

23%

27%

32%

31%

28%

37%

32%

29%

I have confidence that any futureissues will be addressed to my

satisfaction

Any issues I encountered in theservice process were easily

resolved

Any complaints I made about myservice experience were

addressed to my satisfaction


Citizens First 7

Action Priorities for Issue Resolution Driver

The components of the issue resolution driver all have about the same impact, there is some variation by performance. How well complaints were addressed is rated lower than how easily issues were resolved and how confident residents are that future issues will be addressed.

50

Issues were easily resolved

Complaints addressed to my

satisfaction Confident future

issues will be addressed

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

65 70 75 80 85

Improve

Impact

Protect

LOW

HIGH

HIGH LOW Performance

Citizens First 7

Insights: Issue Resolution

Below are some examples of issues that citizens raised with respect to issue resolution. Some comments appear to focus more on service design issues that inhibit the ability of staff to resolve issues, rather than any unwillingness by staff to resolve issues. However, some concerns suggest that staff could offer more compassion when helping to resolve problems.

It is also recommended that issues faced by clients be tracked and analyzed to identify potential improvement strategies.

“Long wait times and the person didn't really have any advice to help me solve my problem.”

“Email took 6 months for a reply and was not targeted nor specific to the question asked, not providing constructive solution to my problem.”

“Too many people did not know what to do and I was passed from one person to another. I finally got the problem resolved.”

“I did not receive a definitive answer as to when the problem would be resolved, not even an estimate.”

“No action has been taken, although I have raised the same complaint three years in a row. The process seems easy but it results in no resolution.”

“I got the information and the department that was responsible was to contact me but they never did. Someone could follow up with inquiries.”

“The person I spoke with wrote down my address incorrectly. As a result, I didn't receive the service I requested which was bulk garbage pickup until I called again. The second person was extremely helpful and arranged for a special truck to pick up my large items the very next day.”

Successful resolution Timely resolution

“Listening is the most important and most people in the service only listen to what they want to hear and try to solve problems when they have heard only part of the problem. This is my biggest problem about the system. Also people who don't understand how to communicate.”

“Service can be improved by asking the needs of the customer specifically and going one step ahead and solving the problem instead of transferring here and there.”

“Show a caring attitude and genuine concern for the customer’s needs. Provide suggestions on other avenues to pursue to get help.”

“[The service would have been better] dealing with the right people who have the compassion, understanding & knowledge of your situation / problem, and who are courteous and sincerely wish to help.”

Communications skills and empathy

51

Citizens First 7

Priority Areas of Improvement–Client Satisfaction Index Drivers

The categories of issue resolution and delivery timeliness have the greatest impact on overall client satisfaction, and also represent the greatest opportunities for improvement as they currently score lower on performance relative to other categories. Focusing on improving dimensions in these categories will net the most significant gains in satisfaction scores.

The strong impact that issue resolution has on satisfaction is a major new finding for the Citizens First 7 study. All jurisdictions should take action to address issue resolution, and citizens’ perceptions of it.

By contrast, while staff interaction is the highest performing category, it has relatively less impact on overall levels of client satisfaction, so any improvements in this area will have minimal effect on overall perceptions.

PRIORITY AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT–CSI DRIVERS

Priorities for Improvement

52

Citizens First 7

Priorities for Improvement—All Components Of all 21 service components considered within the five drivers of satisfaction, five stand out as priorities for improvement, as shown in the priority grid below. Three of the top five are associated with issue resolution and two are associated with delivery timeliness.

1 Confident future issues will be resolved 11 Staff were knowledgeable

2 Issues were easily resolved 12 I received the service I was seeking

3 Amount of time to receive the service 13 Amount of time to get access to the service

4 Amount of time to get help 14 Staff understood my needs

5 Complaints were addressed 15 Staff treated me fairly

6 Received needed information 16 Process to access to the service was easy

7 I felt good about my staff interaction 17 Staff treated me with courtesy

8 Staff made every effort to address my needs 18 Achieve needs by my preferred channel

9 Satisfied with my experience using the main method

19 Easy to access the service by my preferred method

10 The process to receive the service was easy 20 Knew where or how to find the service

21 My personal information was protected

Note: the attributes are ordered from highest to lowest in terms of their impact on overall satisfaction.

53

Citizens First 7

Drivers of Satisfaction by Channel

The improvement priorities for service managers do not vary greatly by service channel. As noted previously, the CSI is highest for in-person experience at a government office, service counter or kiosk, followed by online, and lowest for telephone. Service managers should note timeliness and issue resolution ratings are significantly lower when services are accessed by telephone than online or in-person. Ratings of service design and channel functionality when accessing services by telephone are on par with the comparable online measures.

PRIORITY AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT – CSI DRIVERS BY PRIMARY CHANNEL

54

Citizens First 7

Summary of Priorities for Service Improvement

While there is much to celebrate with respect to Canadian jurisdictions’ improvement both in terms of the reputation of and experience with public service delivery over the past few waves of the CF study, there is room for more improvement. In particular, citizens are less satisfied with telephone and website interactions than they are with in-person visits.

Issue Resolution Driver

The results of the driver analysis demonstrate that a key area for improvement is the issue resolution driver, including the driver’s components of:

Any complaints I made about my service experience were addressed to my satisfaction,

Any issues I encountered in the service process were easily resolved, and

I have confidence that any future issues will be addressed to my satisfaction.

Interactions to Resolve a Problem

In a finding related to the importance of the issue resolution CSI driver, citizens tend to be less satisfied with service interactions that are for the purpose of solving a problem, correcting an error or making a complaint than they are with other types of transactions. This further demonstrates the need for improved problem and issue resolution.

Timeliness

The CF7 results show that service expectations are strongly correlated with timeliness of the service delivery. And, delivery timeliness is the second driver identified in the driver analysis as a priority for improvement. Canadian jurisdictions should strive to meet or exceed expectations on timely service delivery. It is clear that improved performance on timeliness will increase residents’ overall satisfaction with government services. Reducing wait times to under 20 minutes at government offices, greater first call resolution for services available over the phone and less time online finding and completing web-based services are key to enhanced performance.

Residents of Canadian jurisdictions spend substantially more time online looking for information for a routine government service than what is considered reasonable. Improving the navigation of government webpages and making sure that all of the information that is needed is available online is recommended.

55

Citizens First 7

Channel Use and Preferences

Number of Channels Used

A single channel was used by the majority to access government services (53%), with a further 36% using 2 channels.

NUMBER OF CHANNELS USED TO GET SERVICE

Number of Channels Used to Get Government Services:

Average Across All Participating Jurisdictions

One 53%

Two 36%

Three 8%

Four or more 3%

Average 1.6

Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Number of channels derived from all methods of contact used (Q10. What was your first method of contact for this service? And Q11. What other methods of contact did you use, if any?)

56

Citizens First 7

Service Experience by Number of Channels

Using multiple channels has only a small impact on client satisfaction with the service experience. For the ‘Best in Class’ jurisdiction, satisfaction declines by only 3 points between residents using only one channel and those who used 3 or more– and this difference is not great enough to be statistically significant.

69 65 62

72 71

69

One Two Three or More

Average of Participating Jurisdictions Best in Class**

Number of Channels Used

Client Satisfaction Index*

* The Client Satisfaction Index is based on an average level of agreement (0 to 100 score) with the seven service attributes shown on page 28 ** 'Best in Class' defined as the subscriber with the highest Client Satisfaction Index Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Number of channels derived from all methods of contact used (Q10. What was your first method of contact for this service? and Q11. What other methods of contact did you use, if any?)

0 to 100 score

SERVICE EXPERIENCE BY NUMBER OF CHANNELS USED WHEN ACCESSING SERVICE

57

Citizens First 7

Use of Different Types of Channels

Direct contact, either in-person or via telephone, is the most common first approach to access government services, followed closely by online.

USE OF DIFFERENT CHANNELS TO GET SERVICE

Channel Used to Get Services: First Channel Other

Channels

Visit an office or service counter 33% 14%

Telephone 29% 17%

Online/website 27% 14%

Regular mail 4% 3%

Email 4% 10%

Other 2% 7%

No Others n/a 52%

Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q10. What was your first method of contact for this service? And Q11. What other methods of contact did you use, if any?

58

Citizens First 7

Preferred Channel

Channel preference is consistent with initial approach to accessing services, with direct contact (in-person or telephone) leading, and online/website following closely behind.

PREFERRED CHANNEL TO GET SERVICE

Preferred Channel to Get Government Services

Visit an office or service counter 32%

Telephone 28%

Online/website 27%

Email 8%

Regular mail 3%

Other 3%

Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in Appendix 2 in past 12 months Q14. If you were to get this service again, which would you prefer as your main method of contact?

59

Citizens First 7

58 55 53 64

57 69

Total Visible Minority People with Disabilities*

CF6 CF7

57 57 51 63 64 67

Total Visible Minority People with Disabilities*

CF6 CF7

Inclusion and Diversity

Moderate scores are received by provincial/territorial governments on dimensions related to responsiveness and inclusiveness of needs and voices of diverse populations. Ratings among citizens overall are more positive than they were in the CF6 study, however there is clearly room for additional improvement.

Services offered by my provincial/territorial government are responsive to the needs of a diverse population

The voices and needs of varying ethnic and demographic groups are reflected in the services provided by my provincial/territorial government

* Caution: Small sample sizes (n=<30). Significantly higher/lower than the previous wave Base: Total Sample (n=78), excluding not applicable Base: Visible Minority (n=78) People with disabilities (n=34), excluding those who responded ‘don’t know’ Q7 and Q7b: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

0-100 score

0-100 score

60

5. Citizen Service Standard Expectations

61

Citizens First 7

At times government policy has advocated greater personalization of public services to tailor services to the needs of those who use them. Personalization is seen as being a driver by rising public expectations of services in both the private and public sector; people’s daily lives are hectic and pressured, and they increasingly expect services to fit in around their lives rather than vice versa. Being able to access public services using a channel that is convenient is now a ‘hygiene factor’–something that is simply expected by the public as a matter of course in dealing with services. They expect services to fit in around their lives; for example, to be open outside working hours and to be located in a convenient place that they are able to access easily.

Online Channel

• The average number of minutes Canadians are willing to search for information for a routine service on a government website is 6.5 minutes which reflects a shift toward even shorter times in CF7. The proportion expecting to find the information they need in under 5 minutes has increased from 36% in CF6 to 42% in CF7.

• The average number of web pages Canadians are willing to search is 3-5 pages (with a shift toward even fewer pages in CF7). The proportion expecting to search only 1 or 2 pages has increased from 27% in CF6 to 35% in CF7.

• Most Canadians want instantaneous payment confirmation. The proportion expecting this has increased from 59% in CF6 to 66% in CF7.

Telephone Channel • Most expect to wait on hold for no more

than 2 minutes (with a shift toward only 1 minute in CF7). Demand for wait times under 1 minute has doubled since CF6 from 16% to 33%.

• When it comes to expectations for receiving a call-back in response to a message left at a government office, there has been a significant increase in expectations of hearing back within the hour (from 24% to 36%) and the expectation to hear back within the next business day has shifted down from 23% to 14%.

• Canadians are willing to wait less time to be transferred from a voice response system to a live agent–in CF6 35% said they expect to wait up to 2 minutes, in CF7 64% expect it to be under 2 minutes. The number of residents who say only 1 minute or less is reasonable has more than doubled from 13% to 35%. In-Person Channel

• The average number of minutes Canadians are waiting for service at government offices, service counters or kiosks is 21 minutes–which is on target with their expectations (19.5 minutes).

• Most citizens (57%) hold the view that the hours at government offices should be more flexible.

• Citizens who would prefer more flexible hours at government offices are about as likely to prefer weekend hours as they are to prefer later evening hours.

Service Standard Expectations

62

Citizens First 7

Service Expectations – Delivery Timeliness

In-person service experiences are in line with service expectations for that form of contact. Twenty minutes is the average expectation for waiting for service when visiting a government office, service counter or kiosk, while the average actual time spent waiting in those venues is 21 minutes.

Online service expectations and experiences are, however, out of sync. Actual time spent looking for information on government websites is more than double national service expectations (19 minutes average experience vs. 7 minutes average expectation). Telephone wait times are also longer than what is expected.

* Residents who spent more than 120 minutes accessing services through any channel have been identified as outliers and excluded from the mean calculation ** While national service expectation is not available we know that after 15 minutes on the phone CSI falls below the average, therefore 15 minutes should be the aim Arrows indicate statistically significant differences Base for Service Expectation: all those responding to the national survey Base for Actual Experience: an aggregate of participating jurisdictions based on those who have used one of the services identified in Appendix 2 in the past 12 months

Service Category Service Expectation–

National

Actual Experience–Across All Participating

Jurisdictions

Number of Minutes

Mean Median Mean* Median

What is a reasonable amount of time to wait for service when visiting a government office, service counter or kiosk?

19.5 15 21 15

When you visit a government website for a routine service, what is a reasonable amount of time to spend online finding the information you need?

6.5 7 19 15

Total amount of time on the telephone (please include multiple calls).

15** 19 15

SERVICE EXPECTATIONS VS. ACTUAL EXPERIENCE–DELIVERY TIMELINESS

63

Citizens First 7

Online Expectations Eight-in-ten citizens expect to spend less than 10 minutes online at a government site to find the information they need, with 39% prepared to spend just 2-4 minutes (representing a significant increase over CF6 findings), and 36% prepared to spend slightly longer searching (5-9 minutes).

Actual time spent searching significantly exceeds expectations for this service channel, with three-quarters of users spending more than 10 minutes, and 37% spending 20 minutes or longer on the site.

And expectations are rising. An increase in the desire to spend 2-4 minutes looking for information needed is noted.

WAIT TIME FOR IN-PERSON SERVICE AT GOVERNMENT OFFICE

* Residents who spent more than 120 minutes accessing services through any channel have been identified as outliers and excluded from the mean calculation Significantly higher/lower than the previous wave Base for Service Expectation: all those responding to the national survey Base for Actual Experience: an aggregate of participating jurisdictions based on those who have used one of the services identified in Appendix 2 in the past 12 months

64

Citizens First 7

Expectations for finding information online more easily are also rising. A majority continues to be prepared to look at 3-5 pages to find what they are looking for, however, the proportion prepared to look at a maximum of 2 pages has increased significantly between CF6 and the current reporting period.

2%

3%

53%

28%

7%

10 or more

6-9

3-5

2

1

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PAGES BEFORE FINDING INFORMATION ONLINE CF6

4%

23%

65%

7%

1%

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q34. What is the maximum number of web pages you should have to look at in order to find the information you need?

Significantly higher/lower than the previous wave

Online payment confirmation continues to be expected instantaneously, and in fact this expectation is only strengthening over time. Some delay is acceptable to one-third of residents, with most of that proportion wanting confirmation within the hour.

66%

18%

3%

1%

5%

3%

1%

Instantaneously

Within an hour

Within 2 hours

Within 4 hours

The same day

Next business day

Within 2 days or more

EXPECTED WAIT TIME FOR ONLINE PAYMENT CONFIRMATION

CF6

59%

16%

3%

2%

8%

8%

3%

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q49. If you make a payment for a government service online, how quickly do you expect to receive confirmation that your payment has been processed?


65

Citizens First 7

Telephone Expectations Thresholds for waiting for a call to be connected or to receive a call back are also diminishing. While a majority of residents continue to find a wait of 5 minutes or less for a phone call to be connected acceptable, there has been a notable increase over the previous reporting period in the proportion of those who want to remain on hold for just one minute or less. A similar trend is found in expectations for receiving a callback. There has been a significant increase in expectations of hearing back within the hour.

9%

24%

31%

26%

6%

3%

Up to 30 seconds

Up to 1 minute

Up to 2 minutes

Up to 5 minutes

Up to 10 minutes

11 minutes or more

36%

10%

36%

14%

2%

1 hour

4 hours

Same day

Next business day

2 days or more

ACCEPTABLE PHONE LINE HOLD

ACCEPTABLE WAIT TIME FOR A CALL BACK

CF6

3%

13%

27%

40%

14%

3%

CF6

24%

13%

35%

23%

5%

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q39. What is an acceptable length of time to wait for a call back?

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q38. When you call a government office using a direct line (that is a number that should get you directly through to a person, not an automated system) and you get their voice mail greeting, and, if you select the option to connect to a live person, what is an acceptable length of time to wait on hold?



66

Citizens First 7

Most residents find a wait time of 2 minutes or less acceptable when waiting to be connected with another agent. Citizens are more likely to expect this to take less than two minutes than they were in CF6. Within the business day remains the expected timeframe for returning a voicemail, however, the expectation for immediate reply within the hour is growing.

11%

24%

29%

11%

19%

4%

1%

Up to 30 seconds

Up to 1 minute

Up to 2 minutes

Up to 3 minutes

Up to 5 minutes

Up to 10 minutes

11 Minutes or more

34%

12%

35%

15%

2%

1 hour

4 hours

Same day

Next business day

2 days or more

ACCEPTABLE WAIT TIME FOR TRANSFER TO AN AGENT

ACCEPTABLE WAIT TIME FOR A CALL BACK AFTER LEAVING MESSAGE ON VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM

CF6

3%

10%

22%

12%

36%

13%

3%

CF6

25%

13%

36%

21%

5%

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q43. And, If you leave a message on the automated voice response system, what is an acceptable amount of time to wait for a call back?

*Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q42. When you call a government automated voice response system, if you decide you need assistance from a live person what is an acceptable length of time to wait before getting through to an agent?



67

Citizens First 7

In-Person Channel Expectations Nearly three-quarters of residents find a wait time of up to 15 minutes to be acceptable when accessing government services in-person, and a further 22% are prepared to wait up to a half hour.

Actual time spent waiting is consistent with wait times expectations for this service channel, with 63% waiting 15 minutes or less, and 25% up to 30 minutes.

WAIT TIME FOR IN-PERSON SERVICE AT GOVERNMENT OFFICE

*Residents who spent more than 120 minutes accessing services through any channel have been identified as outliers and excluded from the mean calculation Base for Service Expectation: all those responding to the national survey Base for Actual Experience: an aggregate of participating jurisdictions based on those who have used one of the services identified in Appendix 2 in the past 12 months.

68

Citizens First 7

While residents remain essentially divided on whether standard or flexible operating hours should be maintained by government offices and service centres, flexible hours are slightly preferred (57% vs. 42%). Equal preference for opening hours on weekends and weekday evenings is reported by those who would prefer flexible hours of operation.

69

42%

57%

Standard hours of operation areacceptable (i.e. 8:30a.m.to 5:00p.m.

Monday through Friday)

Government hours of operation shouldbe more flexible

23%

38%

39%

They should be open for extended businesshours (i.e., beyond 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)

They should operate during usual businesshours on weekdays, but be open for a

period of time on the weekends

They should be open for evening hours onweekdays

VIEWS ON HOURS OF OPERATION

PREFERENCE OF HOURS OF OPERATION

CF6

46%

54%

CF6 FOR THOSE SAYING “MORE FLEXIBLE”:

32% *

34%

34%

*8:30 am to 5:30 PM

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who feel that Government hours should be more flexible (n=452) Q45. Which ONE of the following reflects your preference for the hours of operation of these offices and service centres?

Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q44. When you visit a government office or service centre that serves the public, which one of the following two statements best reflects your view about the hours of operation for these offices and service centres?


Citizens First 7

Common Services Card Appetite

Most residents are in favour of a common services card, with 78% rating the concept as a good/very good idea. No significant regional variations in interest are noted.

IDEA OF COMMON SERVICES CARD

Q31. Do you think a common services card is a good or bad idea?

30%

48%

14%

6% Very good

Good

Bad

Very bad

IDEA OF COMMON SERVICES CARD

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q31. Do you think a common services card is a good or bad idea?

% Definitely or Probably Would

Total BC/

Terr AB MB/SK ON QC ATL

a b c d e f

n= 819 106 86 55 316 196 58

Very good 30% 28% 29% 22% 33% 30% 33%

Good 48% 52% 51% 54% 44% 49% 45%

Bad 14% 11% 15% 17% 14% 13% 14%

Very bad 6% 7% 4% 5% 7% 5% 4%

70

Citizens First 7

Positive Comments About a Common Services Card Citizens who make positive comments about the common services card concept are likely to see it as being more convenient. They mention having only one card, or fewer cards to carry, and see it as being easier and more economical to renew or replace.

17%

12%

11%

8%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

Less/ fewer cards to carry

Having only one card/ all in one

For convenience

For ease (easier to use/ carry)

For (one stop) renewing/ replacing card

Saves money/ economical

Good idea/ concept

It is streamlined/ one-stop transaction

Less/ fewer cards to lose or worry about

It is simple/ makes life simple

Saves time

Less documentation/ tracking

For managing or keeping up to date

Fast/ quick to use

It is useful, helpful or practical

Note: Mentions <3% not shown. Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q31. Do you think a common services card is a good or bad idea? And why?

“The fewer cards the better!”

“The advantage is carrying one card, and only having to renew one card instead of all

cards.”

“It would simplify and streamline the whole process.”

.

“Less cards to carry, more convenient, cost savings.”

71

Citizens First 7

Negative Comments About a Common Services Card Residents are much less likely to provide negative input about the card than they are to provide positive comments.

Most negative comments concern safety issues–identity theft, risk of losing the card, and safety or privacy in general. As can be seen from the verbatim responses, some of the concerns are based on misunderstanding the concept, since no data would be stored on the card.

5%

4%

4%

4%

3%

2%

2%

2%

Can be used for identity theft/ fraud

Risk of losing card

Dislike all-in-one card/prefer separate cards

Too much available info/ access to info

Not safe/ secured

Bad concept/ idea

Having potential problems/ concerns

Privacy issues

Note: Mentions <2% not shown. Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q31. Do you think a common services card is a good or bad idea? And why?

“I do not like the idea of my personal info being readily available to government

agencies.”

“To date it seems that criminals are way ahead of any government in determining

who accesses information so I do not trust having my information online.”

“Because if the card is lost, all of the information is gone.”

“The 2 cards we have are fine. Why spend all that money to change

something that doesn’t need changing?”

72

6. Moving Services Online

73

Citizens First 7

Awareness and Usage

Virtually all (96%) citizens use the internet. Among users, six-in-ten have used the internet for government services. And, most internet users are likely to use the internet for government services in the future, with 37% stating that they are very likely to do so.

Filing income taxes is the most common usage of online government services in the past 12 months at 68%, with three-in-ten or more renewing a license plate sticker or accessing municipal services. Paying a parking ticket, changing an address or obtaining a certificate are the least utilized services at around two-in-ten.

Usage varies significantly by level of government. Usage is highest for federal websites (50% in past 12 months), followed by municipal websites (42%) and provincial or territorial websites (39%). Usage of regional websites is the lowest, with only two-in-ten having done so in the past 12 months.

The level of usage is likely to be a function of both likelihood to interact with various levels of government, as well as awareness that services are available online. Awareness of the availability of online tax filing is much higher than awareness of services at the provincial/ territorial, municipal or regional levels.

Across all levels of government, aspects of the website that receive the lowest ratings include offering the service or information that citizens are seeking and ease of navigation.

Benefits and Barriers

Speed and convenience are the key benefits associated with accessing government services online, with two-thirds agreeing that online is generally faster and more convenient.

It appears that lack of awareness that services are available online is negatively impacting usage. Security and privacy concerns are also a barrier for some citizens.

Around one-in-ten citizens cite privacy and confidentiality concerns as their reason for not accessing government services online.

Awareness of recent security breaches has not prevented many citizens from continuing to access services online, however lingering concerns impact the majority. About eight-in-ten residents express concern about privacy, identity theft and how their information might be used.

When it comes to the messages that would encourage citizens to access government services online, privacy and data security are among the messages that are the highest-ranked by citizens. At least seven-in-ten agree that they would be more likely to access government services online if the sites were encrypted to protect credit card information, personal data was kept secure during the transaction and then not stored online, and if they would receive a receipt to confirm their transaction.

Moving Services Online

74

Citizens First 7

Online Activities Use of the internet is virtually universal among residents, with a wide range of online activities regularly engaged in. A strong majority conduct transactions online, such as banking business (82%) or shopping (73%). Travel arrangements are also made online, with 51% having booked a hotel or car rental, and 44% having checked in for a flight within the past year.

82%

73%

51%

44%

36%

4

10%

15%

17%

18%

11%

13%

30%

35%

40%

4

4

5

5

7%

Online banking (such as transferringmoney or paying bills)

Online shopping

Booked a hotel or car rental

Checked in for a flight

Purchased movie or theatre tickets

In the past 12 months Yes, but not in past 12 months Never Not Stated

Yes 96%

No 4%

Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q10. Which, if any, of the following activities have you done online?

INTERNET USE

ONLINE ACTIVITIES

Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q9. Do you personally use the internet?

75

Citizens First 7

Conducting their business online makes Canadians feel confident and productive at least some of the time. While only 10% experience feelings of anxiety on a regular basis when accessing services online it should be noted that fully half of citizens do experience this emotion at least some of the time.

10%

45%

45%

51%

44%

43%

37%

10%

10%

Anxious

Productive

Confident

Most of the time Some of the time Never

Yes 60%

No 39%

The majority have accessed government services online, with 77% of those having done so recently, within the past 12 months.

Yes 77%

No 22%

HAVE USED INTERNET FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES

USED FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS

EMOTIONS WHILE ONLINE

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q11. How often do you experience the following feelings or emotions when you are accessing services online?

Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q12. Have you ever used the internet to get services from or transact with government?

Base: Have used internet for government services (n=462) Q13 . Have you used the internet to get services from or transact with government in the past 12 months?

* Note: the total proportion will not add to 100% as some residents did not answer

76

Citizens First 7

Digital Technology Use

Daily use of common digital tools such as text messaging, mobile devices with data, and Facebook is reported by a strong minority of residents, representing a significant increase in the categories of text messaging and mobile devices over the previous survey period. Twitter is the least frequently used, with 68% of respondents saying they never use this tool.

FREQUENCY OF USE

Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819) Q47. Please indicate how frequently you use each of the following.


77

Citizens First 7

Awareness of Online Government Services Awareness of the option to file income taxes online is high at 84%, but less familiarity is evident for other service options available online such as paying a parking ticket, change of address on government documents, or renewing a license plate sticker. Fully one-half do not know whether they have the option to access municipal services or obtain a certificate for a birth/marriage/death online. Residents of Ontario and Quebec tend to be most aware of the government services available to them online. There are some specific exceptions to this–Atlantic residents have the highest awareness of the ability to renew license plate stickers online, and Albertans are the most aware of their online municipal service options.

AWARENESS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES ONLINE

* Letters indicates the region where scores on that measure are statistically lower. For example, 50% in Ontario are aware you can pay a parking ticket online. The scores in MB/SK and ATL are statistically lower than the score in Ontario./ Q26. As far as you know, which of the following services are available online where you live?

% Yes

Total BC/ Terr

AB MB/SK ON QC ATL

a b c d e f n= 775 101 83 49 301 187 52

File your income taxes 84% 81% 85% 91% 85% 81% 89% Pay a parking ticket 46% 41% 48%

f 32% 50%

cf 46%

f 28%

Change your address on provincial government documents

43% 34% 23% 22% 48%abc

57% abcf

35%

Renew your licence plate sticker

39% 9% 27% a

34% a

53% abce

32% a

64% abce

Access municipal information services (such as 3-1-1)

38% 27% 51% acef

27% 44% acf

34% 27%

Obtain a birth, marriage or death certificate

32% 17% 22% 20% 34% abc

44% abcd

36% a

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who use the internet (n=775)

AWARENESS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES ONLINE BY REGION*

78

Citizens First 7

68%

39%

30%

24%

21%

18%

31%

60%

69%

75%

78%

81%

File your income taxes



Pay a parking ticket

Change your address on provincial government documents (e.g., driver’s licence, health card)


Yes No

Past 12 Month Usage

Filing income taxes is the most common usage of online government services in the past 12 months at 68%, with three-in-ten or more renewing a license plate sticker or accessing municipal services. Paying a parking ticket, changing an address or obtaining a certificate are the least utilized services at around two-in-ten.

Usage patterns likely reflect need or applicability as well as awareness levels.

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Varies by service. Those who know this service is available online in their area

ONLINE GOVERNMENT SERVICES USED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

79

Citizens First 7

5% 15% 42% 37%

27%

27%

18%

16%

12%

Prefer direct approach/face to face

No need or interest

Difficult to access and receive a response

Prefer telephone

Privacy/confidentiality concerns

Online Service Preferences

Most internet users are at least somewhat likely to access government services online, with just over one-third reporting they are very likely to do so (37%).

LIKELIHOOD OF USING THE INTERNET FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REASONS FOR NOT ACCESSING GOVERNMENT SERVICES ONLINE

A preference for a different mode of contact (mostly in-person, some telephone–27% and 16% respectively), and a lack of need or interest (27%) are cited as the primary barriers to online usage of government services. Concerns about confidentiality are a low barrier to usage, cited by just 12%.

CF7

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those not likely to use the internet for government services in the future (n=168) Q15. What is the main reason you are unlikely to get services from or transact with government online?

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q14 . What is the likelihood of using the internet to get government services in the near future?

Not Likely At All Very Likely

80

Citizens First 7

Likelihood of Accessing Services Online

Filing income taxes and changing an address are the online services of greatest interest to residents with nearly two-thirds indicating that they probably/definitely would access these services. Paying parking tickets, renewing license plate stickers, obtaining a certificate online are of interest to more than one-half. Residents are least likely to go online to access municipal information services.

8%

5%

9%

9%

7%

4

10%

9%

9%

9%

10%

12%

17%

22%

24%

23%

28%

37%

19%

27%

25%

27%

26%

29%

45%

36%

33%

31%

28%

17%

File your income taxes

Change your address on provincial government documents (e.g., driver’s licence, health card)

Pay a parking ticket




LIKELIHOOD TO ACCESS SERVICES AVAILABLE ONLINE

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who are aware that some government services are available online in their area (n=768) Q28. If each of these services was available online, the next time you need to access one of these services or any government transaction that can be done online, how likely are you to access it online?

Definitely Would Not Definitely Would

81

Citizens First 7

Likelihood of Accessing Services Online by Region

The greatest regional variation is noted for likelihood to obtain a certificate online–Albertans are the least likely to do so. And, Ontarians are the most likely to renew their license plate stickers online.

* Letters indicate the region where scores on that measure are statistically lower Q28. If each of these services was available online, the next time you need to access one of these services or any government transaction that can be done online, how likely are you to access it online?

% Definitely or Probably Would

Total BC/Terr AB MB/SK ON QC ATL

a b c d e f

n= 764 96 80 46 301 187 52

File your income taxes 65% 68% 68% 75%

e 66% 58% 62%

Change your address on

provincial government

documents

63% 64% 56% 67% 66% 61% 60%

Pay a parking ticket 58% 57% 51% 65% 62% 55% 50%

Renew your licence plate

sticker 59% 51% 51% 63%

65%

abe 53% 64%

Obtain a birth, marriage or

death certificate 54%

58%

b 42%

62%

b 53%

58%

b 51%

Access municipal information

services (such as 3-1-1) 46% 39% 43% 52% 48% 48% 40%

LIKELIHOOD TO ACCESS SERVICES AVAILABLE ONLINE BY REGION*

82

Citizens First 7

Preferred Online Modes to Receive Information from the Government While usage of mobile tools and devices is on the rise overall, and a majority remain likely to conduct online payments or send/receive information on mobile devices in a governmental context, the reported likelihood of using these tools for these purposes has declined since the previous reporting cycle. Twitter, while the least frequently used tool generally, is showing an increase in likelihood to be used in this context as compared to CF6.

USER LIKELIHOOD TO SEND OR RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who currently use each mode of communication, regardless of the frequency of use Q48. How likely would you be to use each of the following technologies or tools to either send or receive information from government or, in the case of mobile devices, to transact with government?


83

Citizens First 7

Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q16. How concerned are you about the following?

Online Concerns The strong majority of Canadians have at least some concerns about the security and privacy of the personal information they share online. Nearly nine-in-ten are concerned to some degree about identity theft/website security, how their information is used, and the privacy of their personal information, with nearly one-half very concerned about these issues. Relatively lower concern is expressed about information being shared between government departments and agencies, but three-quarters are concerned to some degree.

Concern with sharing of information between government parties and how your information may be used is up since CF6, with the increase noted in the proportion of those who are very concerned.

ONLINE CONCERNS

Significantly higher/lower than the previous wave * Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer

84

Citizens First 7

Breach of Personal Information Canadians are concerned about a breach of their personal information online, whether or not they have personally experienced such an incident. While very few citizens have experienced a breach of personal information online either from a government website (4%) or any website (12%), over eight-in-ten are at least somewhat concerned, with nearly one-half very concerned that a breach could occur.

12%

4

87%

95%

Any website

A governmentwebsite

Yes No

BREACH OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ONLINE

51%

42%

41%

43%

8%

15%

Had personal informationbreached (ANY WEBSITE)

Not experienced a breach

Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not concerned

* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q25. Has your personal information ever been breached from...?

IMPACT OF ONLINE BREACH ON PRIVACY CONCERNS

Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q16. How concerned are you about the privacy of your personal information?

85

Citizens First 7

Impact of Breaches Awareness of breaches that have occurred is high (78% are aware of the CRA Heartbleed breach, 67% of the eBay Breach) but does not necessarily inflate concern or drive usage patterns. Levels of concern about the privacy of personal information is comparable between those who were and were not aware of either breach, as is overall likelihood to use the internet for government services. In fact, those who report awareness of these incidents are more likely than those who are not to be very likely to use online government services.

AWARENESS AND IMPACT OF CRA HEARTBLEED BREACH

AWARENESS AND IMPACT OF EBAY BREACH

Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819), excluding not applicable Q51.In May, E-commerce giant eBay Inc. asked customers to change their passwords after a recent hack that the company said exposed customer names and passwords, but didn’t manage to steal any financial information. Before today, had you heard about this issue?

Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819), excluding not applicable Q50. In April, the social insurance numbers of roughly 900 people were stolen from Canada Revenue Agency’s systems, which were left vulnerable by the so-called Heartbleed bug. Before today, had you heard about this issue?

86

Citizens First 7

Data privacy feels like a very modern problem. The media are full of stories about government surveillance and what happens to the data we all provide to private companies. But of course it is far from a new concern, and closely related discussions on threats to data privacy go back decades, at least since modern databases were developed.

Yet superlatives abound in current discussions. Various think tanks, consultants and trade groups have told us that the latent demand for privacy has never been greater, that privacy is the next key consumer rights issue, and that our personal data are more valuable than gold or oil.

There is no one public opinion on data privacy.

Ipsos’ 20 country study2 adds more international depth to this picture. It confirms some of what we knew, and in particular that there is no one public opinion on data privacy–in three separate ways.

Data Privacy: International Comparisons

2 The Power and Perils of Data, Ipsos, 2014 http://www.ipsos.com/public-affairs/sites/www.ipsos.com.public-affairs/files/understanding_society_July2014_international.pdf

87

First, there is just variety in how concerned different people are. Indeed there is remarkable consistency in how populations segment across time and in different developed nations: we tend to find around 10% are 'privacy unconcerned', 60% are pragmatists, where concern depends on the circumstances, and 30% are 'privacy fundamentalists'.

But, second, this gives a false sense of certainty in opinion. In practice, it is not just the pragmatists who change their views depending on the circumstances–experiments show that large proportions of the two groups at either end of the spectrum can be shifted, depending on what they are offered or how they are reassured.

And third, stated concern about data privacy and how people actually behave are barely nodding acquaintances.

26

52

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ind

ia

Bra

zil

Ch

ina

Italy

Ru

ss

ia

To

tal

U.S

.

Gre

at

Bri

tain

Sp

ain

Ca

na

da

Au

str

alia

Germ

an

y

Fra

nce

Sw

ed

en

A B

Q: Which comes closest to your own opinion…

A. I am happy sharing information about online activities so that I get personalised services /relevant recommendations.

B. I would rather keep information and online activities private even if iI do not get personalised services and relevant recommendations.

Citizens First 7

We can see the massive disconnect between what people say and how we know they act in this new survey. For example, nearly one-half of people across the 20 countries say they are willing to pay for increased level of privacy for their data. But at same time, in the same survey, only one-quarter of the same people say they have taken basic steps to increase the privacy settings on their browser. This means that three-quarters of those who say they would pay for additional privacy have not changed a simple setting on their computer.

How should government and businesses respond?

Both business and government have decisions to make. How open should they be about what happens to our data, and how far do they chase the benefits of knowing more about us? It seems blindingly obvious that honesty will be the best policy. Many studies (including our own) have shown transparency is key to trust, and trust is related to all sorts of other good outcomes. But things are not so straightforward in this case.

88

Citizens First 7

Benefits of Online Services Speed and convenience are the key benefits associated with accessing government services online, with two-thirds or more agreeing that online is generally faster and more convenient than other channels, either for conducting business or predetermining availability of services. Familiarity and experience with conducting business online is evident among one-half or more citizens, with a similar proportion disagreeing that they do not like doing financial transactions online. Concerns about security, safety and accuracy could be a barrier to online service use. Approximately one-half worry that their information will not be safe if submitted online, like being able to ask questions, and feel that their transaction will be done correctly if they go in person. In-person service is also a habit for about one-third. Online navigation issues can be a barrier for some.

ATTITUDES TOWARD ONLINE GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Note: Responses with values of <4% not labelled Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q29. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about government services?

89

Citizens First 7

Drivers of Promoting Usage of Online Government Services

Belief in the speed and convenience of using online services is a key driver in increasing uptake of this channel, and governments could realize gains by reinforcing these benefits with residents. Overcoming concerns about conducting financial transactions online, which is a broader issue that transcends government websites and online services, could also improve adoption rates.

Note: “Impact” represents squared Pearson’s correlation coefficients (pairwise against the driver of Likelihood to Access Government Services Online and “Level of Agreement” represents the average score (0 to 100) for the attribute (independent variable).

90

Citizens First 7

Messaging Promoting Usage of Online Services

Messages that will be the most effective in driving online service usage will be reinforcing the key benefits of speed and convenience, as well as addressing concerns associated with conducting financial transactions online.

Each of the following messages has a substantial impact on likelihood to use online services–there is little variation between them - which allows jurisdictions to chose the one(s) that fit most closely with their strategic and operational environment. Seventy percent indicate that hearing that only 5 minutes and a few mouse clicks are needed to complete their transaction would make them likely to use this channel to access government services. The same proportion indicate that hearing that government websites are encrypted to ensure protection of credit card information and personal data, and that a receipt is issued to confirm the transaction would make them likely to use an online service.

Effectiveness of Messaging in Driving Online Service Usage

Note: Responses with values of <4% not labelled Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer Base: Those who use the internet (n=775) Q30. Would you be more or less likely to access government services online instead of by telephone or in person at a government office if you knew the following or would it make no difference?

91

Citizens First 7

Municipal Website Ratings Usage of municipal government websites is lower among residents than for other levels of government, with less than half (42%) having visited their municipal site in the past 12 months. User experience dimensions are rated moderately positively among users. Speed gets the highest ratings at 71% positive, while visual appeal and ease of navigation are at the bottom with just over one-half rating these dimensions as 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Yes 42%

No 58%

MUNICIPAL WEBSITE USE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE RATING

Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled Base: Those who have visited their municipal government’s website in the past 12 months (n=305), excluding n/a or not stated Q18. How would you rate your municipal government's website on the following?

Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819), excluding not applicable/not stated (n=726) Q17. Have you visited your municipal government's website in the past 12 months?

92

Overall quality

Speed of website

Security of your information when transacting online

Visual appeal

Offering the service or information that you needed

Ease of navigating the website

Very poor Very good

4

5

5

8%

5

6%

8%

9%

15%

24%

23%

29%

29%

27%

27%

43%

46%

37%

35%

38%

37%

21%

25%

25%

23%

22%

17%

Citizens First 7

Overall quality

Speed of website




Visual appeal

4

4

5

8%

13%

5

8%

14%

15%

8%

23%

32%

31%

23%

27%

34%

37%

36%

36%

38%

34%

31%

24%

23%

21%

20%

20%

20%

Regional Website Ratings Just two-in-ten residents have used a regional government website in the past year. Overall, users rate all tested dimensions of the experience positively, with one-half or more rating each good/very good.

Yes 20%

No 80%

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE USE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE RATING

Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819), excluding not applicable/not stated (n=492) Q19. Have you visited your REGIONAL government's website in the past 12 months?

Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled Base: Those who have visited their regional government’s website in the past 12 months (n=100), excluding n/a or not stated Q20. How would you rate your REGIONAL government's website on the following?

93

Very poor Very good

Citizens First 7

PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE RATING

Provincial/Territorial Website Ratings A strong minority of residents have used a provincial/territorial website in the past year, and key dimensions of that experience are rated highly by users. Overall quality, security and speed are rated positively by two-thirds of users, and the availability of information needed receives a similar rating by more than one-half. Users are least complimentary about the visual appeal of the site and ease of navigation.

Yes 39%

No 61%

PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE USE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled Base: Those who have visited their provincial/territorial government’s website in the past 12 months (n=278), excluding n/a or not stated Q22. How would you rate your PROVINCIAL OR TERRITORIAL government's website on the following?

Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819), excluding not applicable/not stated (n=719) Q21. Have you visited your PROVINCIAL OR TERRITORIAL government's website in the past 12 months?

94

Overall quality


Speed of website


Visual appeal


4

4

6%

6

6

4

8%

9%

13%

23%

25%

25%

28%

35%

31%

52%

44%

48%

39%

40%

37%

17%

23%

21%

20%

12%

12%

Very poor Very good

Citizens First 7

Federal Website Ratings Similar findings are reported at the federal level. Usage is indicated by one-half of citizens, with the dimensions of overall quality, security, speed, and the availability of information needed rated positively by around two-thirds of users. Users are least complimentary about the visual appeal of the site and ease of navigation.

Yes 50%

No 50%

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE USE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WEBSITE RATING

Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled Base: Those who have visited the FEDERAL government website in the past 12 months (n=365), excluding n/a or not stated Q24. How would you rate the FEDERAL government's website (www.gc.ca) on the following?

Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819), excluding not applicable/not stated (n=729) Q23. Have you visited the FEDERAL government's website (www.gc.ca) in the past 12 months?

95

Overall quality


Speed of website


Visual appeal


4

7

5

4

4

7

10%

10%

28%

28%

26%

24%

38%

32%

42%

39%

44%

44%

32%

35%

23%

26%

24%

22%

17%

16%

Very poor Very good

Appendices: 1. National Basket of Services

2. Services by Category

3. International Comparisons

96

Citizens First 7

Appendix 1: The National Basket of Services

Applied for or renewed a building permit

Applied for a birth, marriage, death registration and certificate

Applied for or renewed a health card

Applied for or renewed a hunting or fishing license

Registered for injured workers compensation or program or contacted in-person, by phone or online with a question

Applied for a Canada student loan and/or employment training loan or contacted with a question

Applied for income support, social assistance and/or welfare, including ODSP, OW etc. or contacted with a question

Contacted government about living or staying in public housing, hostel and/or shelter that is owned and operated by a provincial Government (e.g., rent is based on income)

Contacted government about living or staying in public housing, hostel and/or shelter that is owned and operated by your municipal or regional Government (e.g., rent is based on income)

Municipally or regionally-run public transit (bus, streetcar, subway)

Public library services

Registered for counselling and/or family services provided by your provincial or territorial government

Registered for counselling and/or family services provided by your municipal or regional government

Used Custom and Border Services, including crossing the border

RCMP

Applied for or renewed a Canadian passport

Applied for or received Canada Pension Plan (CPP), Old Age Security (OAS), Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS)

Registered for Employment Insurance or contacted EI in-person, by phone or online with a question

Visited one of Canada's national parks or heritage sites

Canada Post Services

Accessed Canadian Citizenship Services (e.g., temporary resident visa, permanent resident card, student study permits)

The National Basket of Services score for CF refers to the 0 to 100 score averaged across the following services:

97

Citizens First 7

Appendix 2: Services by Category

• Government-Provided Financial Aid, Benefits, Compensation, Pensions and Support Programs

• Injured workers compensation or programs

• A provincial or territorial student loan and/or employment training loan

• A retirement pension from la Regie des rentes du Québec (for Québec residents only)

• Income support, social assistance and/or welfare, including ODSP, OW, etc.

• A provincial/territorial housing subsidy

• A municipal or regional housing subsidy


• Living or staying in public housing, hostel and/or shelter that is owned and operated by a provincial/territorial government (e.g., rent is based on income)

• Living or staying in public housing, hostel and/or shelter that is owned and operated by your municipal or regional government (e.g., rent is based on income)

• Living or having a close family member living at a public long-term care facility for seniors

• Living or having a close family member living at a public long-term care facility for individuals with disabilities

• Immigration or settlement services provided by your province/territory (e.g., counselling, family support, housing information, job information, job training, language services)

• Public transportation disability pass or services (e.g., para-transit)

Government-Provided Employment or Professional Training and Support

• Registered for a provincial/territorial government professional training program (e.g., workplace training subsidies, apprenticeship registration)

• Registered for a municipal/regional government professional training program designed to increase your skills in a particular area (e.g., workplace training subsidies, apprenticeship registration)

• Registered for a hiring incentive program provided by your provincial/territorial government

• Registered for employment or career planning services provided by your provincial/territorial government

• Visited a job bank (such as workbc.ca) provided by your provincial/territorial government

Government-Provided Childcare or Daycare Services

• Municipally or regionally-run daycare

• Municipal or regional childcare subsidy

• Provincial/territorial childcare subsidy

• Recreation subsidy

• Service for children with disabilities

98

Citizens First 7

Government-Provided Healthcare or Counselling Services

• Contacted a provincial/territorial online or telephone health Information service (e.g., Telehealth, poison control, quit smoking)

• Registered for counselling and/or family services provided by your provincial or territorial government

• Registered for counselling and/or family services provided by your municipal or regional government

• Obtained a vaccination (e.g., a flu shot)

Permits, Certificates and Licensing Services

• A building permit

• Birth, marriage, death registration and certificate

• Hunting or fishing licence

• Driver's licensing testing or renewal

• Health card application or renewal

• Motor vehicle registration, transfer of ownership

• Automobile insurance (for Québec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia only)

Information or Advisory Government Services

• Information services of your municipality, including telephone, website or in-person offices

• Information services of your regional government, including telephone, website or in-person offices

• 3-1-1 information services by telephone or website

• Information services of your province or territory including telephone, website or in-person office

• Municipal or regional road information (e.g., winter road conditions, closures, restrictions, construction traffic flow)

• Provincial/territorial highway or road information (e.g., winter road conditions, closures, restrictions, construction traffic flow)

• Contacted municipal or regional planning or land development office for information or advice

• Contacted your municipality with a question about or to pay your property taxes

99

Citizens First 7

Appendix 3: International Comparisons

While we can celebrate the improvements and sustained gains at all levels of government in Canada, we know it is no time to rest–continuous improvement is expected. While that may be the case, it is important for service managers to understand that the achievements in Canada in government service provision rank among the best in the world. We have found in previous research3 that residents from a quartet of countries–Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden–are consistently among the most positive about their lot in life. They tend to be most satisfied with the way their country (at all levels of government) is run and have

the highest levels of personal happiness. It is, of course, no coincidence that they also have among the highest levels of GDP per capita. This pattern is continued when considering local public services. As the following chart shows, more than four in five residents in the Netherlands, Canada and Australia are satisfied with their local area (although here Swedes are only in the top half). Overall, residents in Western Europe and Latin American countries tend to be the most satisfied with their local areas as a place to live, while those in the Asia Pacific region are the least (although this tends to be because they are more neutral than actively dissatisfied).

3Source: One World, Many Places, Ipsos, 2010 http://www.ipsos.com/public-affairs/sites/www.ipsos.com.public-affairs/files/ipsos_sri_municipal_final.pdf

100

Satisfaction with Local Area and Government

Citizens First 7 101

areas (as we might expect), but there is a clear relationship between the two measures: if local government wants to be highly rated by its citizens, they should pay close attention to what makes people happy and unhappy about their areas.

However, looking at the results on a continental basis hides some big differences by country (and we expect to find big differences within countries). People are less satisfied with their municipal government than they are with their local

One factor that is often claimed to be important to increasing satisfaction with areas and local government is giving people a sense of empowerment over local decisions. As well as being seen as a good thing in its own right, the rationales for giving people more direct control is that this will result in better decisions and more

sustainable outcomes.

However, as the chart on the following page demonstrates, there is actually little correlation between feeling able to influence decisions and satisfaction with municipal government when we look across all countries.

Impact of Influencing Decisions on Satisfaction with Government

Citizens First 7

Of course we need to be careful in how we interpret a single, relatively simple question on such a complex subject as feelings of influence, as it might mean different things in different countries. But the pattern does seem believable. That said, if we look at only the shaded countries (North America and most European countries), the relationship between

influence and satisfaction with municipal government would be much more convincing. It may be that perceptions of corruption in government inhibit perceptions of the effectiveness of public influence and thus skew the correlation in countries were corruption is presumed. In fact, we have found that satisfaction with government rises as perceptions of corruption fall.

102

The Importance of Communications

Residents’ perceptions of their municipal government will also be affected by its image beyond the direct provision of services and dealing with issues. In dozens of studies across the world, our research points to the central importance of communications in determining how people rate central and local government. This includes both what the government and public services say themselves in direct communication with citizens and service users, and what the media say about them.

Citizens First 7

The impact of good (and bad) communication can be seen in many different public services. The example to follow is taken from Britain, and demonstrates the link between information provision and satisfaction with municipal government (where each point is an individual municipal authority). Public services that are better at keeping people informed are better rated by local citizens.

The fact that communications seem to be more related to satisfaction with local government than are feelings of influence should not be surprising when we consider citizens’ priorities. From a number of studies we have conducted, it is clear that many residents do not actually want to get very involved. Even where active engagement is very well developed, it only reaches a minority of the population. On the other hand, good communications can have an impact on much larger numbers of people. To illustrate this, we have developed a “Christmas Tree’ model, (shown below) using British data. Significant minorities do want to be more actively engaged, but most people would prefer to just receive information about what services are doing. This does not imply that concentrating on capacity building and encouraging involvement among those who want to be engaged will be a waste of time– just that improving communications for the wider majority should also be a priority.

103

Citizens First 7

Core aspects of public services such as crime reduction, affordable housing, health care, clean streets and public transport are all very important in making somewhere a good place to live, and should provide a clear agenda for any local government looking to improve quality of life.

However, it is also useful to look at these priorities compared with what people would most like to see improved, as seen in the chart below. The top right quadrant shows issues that are very important and most need improving – i.e., the most immediate priorities.

Job prospects are the top issue for improving globally, with wage levels and cost of living next. This is not surprising, given the current economic crisis.

Also in the upper right quadrant are government services that residents are most concerned about–traffic management, road repair and public transport. It is important to note that these are some of the local government services that citizens are least satisfied with.

Priorities for Local Quality of Life

104

cf7 national report final

Documents