ico customer satisfaction · customer satisfaction survey 2009 august 7th 2009. 1 ... fraud on...
TRANSCRIPT
Information Commissioner’s Office
Customer Satisfaction Survey 2009
August 7th 2009
1
Agenda
Study Objectives
Approach and Sample Profile
Detailed Findings
– Detail on recent complaints/enquiries
– Performance/satisfaction
Summary and Recommendations
2
Study structured to reflect work conducted in 2006, with sample split to cover three areas of the business
Data reported by the three main groups:
– Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Enquiries (the latter being a new sample for 2009)
SatisfactionComparison with othersImprovementsUnderstandingTimelinessCredibility
Service Delivery
Channels usedUse of websiteProgress reportsClarity of responseTone / grammar
Communications Channels
Ease of access AttitudeKnowledgeEmpathy
Staff
Research required among individuals submitting written enquiries / complaints to assess:
3
A three stage approach taken to ensure full coverage of the issues
QUALITATIVE
All customers asked for permission to recontact (86%
agreed)
30 telephone follow-up interviews conducted by Jigsaw (15-20 minutes)
Cross section of Customers covered
Interviews conducted 8th –17th June 2009
IMMERSION
Full briefing session with ICO teams
Individual interviews with team leaders
Ensure team understanding
Feed into survey design
Influence on timing of survey
QUANTITATIVE
420 telephone interviews
263 DP, 102 FOI, 55 Enquiries
Sample provided by ICO, all closed cases (last 3 months for DP/Enq, last 6 months
FOI)
All pre-notified and TPS applied
146 Customers (6.2%) chose to opt out of the survey
Fieldwork 20th – 30th April 2009
4
Detailed Findings- Profile of Individuals -
- Contact Profile -
5
14% 21% 21% 18% 24% 3%
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA
Key Performance Indicators 2009
Q18a. Overall, how would you rate the quality of service provided to you by the ICO in relation to enquiries or complaints submitted in writing? Base: All - (n=420)
Where figures do not add up exactly, this is due to rounding
Overall rating of quality of service
35%
55%
41%
A Customer Satisfaction Index has also been created using multiple questions within the survey.
For 2009, the index score (out of 100) is: 48
6
Summary of Profile and Contact
For over two-thirds (71%), this was their FIRST CONTACTFor the vast majority (86%) they had only submitted ONE ENQUIRY/ COMPLAINT in the period being assessedThe vast majority (89%) were in contact on their OWN BEHALF– If on behalf of others, it tended to be
for a family member or employer– The majority of contacts were
personal
The vast majority (93%) of cases for DP and FOI were COMPLAINTS
Summary of Contact
Skew towards MALES (73%),
especially for FOI (88%)
Range of ages, but skew is
OLDER (only 28% under 40)
– FOI skew to 50+ (59%)
Skew towards ABC1 (68%)
High proportion WORKING(66%), with many of the rest retired (18%)
Profile Summary
7
Summary of Profile and Contact
Around a third (35%) knew how to make contact– Higher among FOI contacts (50%)– Only a minority (17%) had problems
making contact
Wide variation in number of items of correspondence submitted– 3.5 for FOI contacts– 2.3 (down from 2.8) for DP contacts– 1.7 for enquiries
Contact Specifics
DP customers displayed WIDE VARIETY of contact reasons– Unsolicited contact (30%)
– Personal details released (18%)
– Access to information (15%)
FOI contact MORE FOCUSED– Non release of information (52%)
Organisations complained about are as expected– DP complaints centre on
COMMERCIAL COMPANIES (56%) and FINANCIAL (14%)
– FOI complaints centre on LAs (44%) and GOV. DEPTS (33%)
Reasons for Contact
8
Motivation to contact ICO varies across FOI and DP (Qual)
FOI CUSTOMERS often see themselves as representing themselves and others
“Warrior Citizens” - want to beat the system
Likely to have previous contact / experience
Some believe they have ‘friend’ status (through volume of contact)
Greater awareness of the Act results in greater frustrations with outcomes
– Submitting more specific enquiries in order to reduce failure
For DP CUSTOMERS, concern was with potential identity theft and fraud on credit cards
– Want ammunition/backing to correct wrong entries/classifications
– Enquiries seen as simple to correct, but highly worrying / inconvenient
9
Expectations from ICO generally better than 2006 (Qual)
A clearer expectation/understanding of ICO’s role since 2006
Key expectations = solve problems and be on the side of the customer
DP customers less demanding than FOI
– Expected ICO to identify breaches and to support their cause against the
offending organisation
Some FOI individuals anticipated red tape and delays
Others looking for help to compile their case for the adjudicator
– Ensuring all information was complete
– Questions crystal clear and directional
10
Multiple channel usage often involved, with importance of website highlighted by claimed usage.
Q7/Q10a-b/Q10c-d. Have any of your written complaints/enquiries in the last 3/6 months involved… receiving help or advice from other companies, organisations, employers or Government departments? telephone conversations with staff at the ICO? searching the ICO website?Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55)
67%
38%
65%
42%
31%
76%
33%
22%
33%
Searched ICO website
Phone contact with ICO
Received help/advice fromother companies/organisations
Data Protection
Freedom of Information
Enquiry
Contact in addition to written communication with ICO
Wide variety of organisations contacted.Other govt department/regulatory body most commonly mentioned (by 8% of total)
(+13%)
(-7%)
(+10%)
11
The website is a common start point for customers and is generally well regarded.
Q10e. And was that suggested by someone from the ICO? Q10f. Did you visit the website before contacting the ICO? Q10g. And how would you rate the website, would you say it was …. ?Base: All contacting website - DP (n=175), FOI (n=67), Enquiry (n=42) Where figures do not add up exactly, this is due to rounding
Rating of website
7% 28% 38% 14% 8% 4%
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA
% Exc/Very/Good
73%
84% of website visitors did so before contacting ICO
12
15%
18%
22%
14%
12%
18%
54%
49%
31%
6%
3%
7%
10%
19%
22%
Data Protection
Freedom of Information
Enquiry
Within 48 hours 2-5 days 6+ days Never received DK/NA
Response time for DP improved since 2006 where customers acknowledge case closed, but proportion claiming not resolved has increased from 0% to 21%. High proportion claim FOI cases not resolved.
Q14/Q15a-b/Q15c/Q15e. Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exactly, this is due to rounding
Speed of initial acknowledgement
Total time taken for response
14%
14%
24%
12%
8%
13%
10%
8%
18%
37%
25%
24%
21%
39%
13%
6%
7%
9%
Data Protection
Freedom of Information
Enquiry
1 - 14 days 15 - 28 days 29 - 42 days 43+ days Not resolved yet DK/NA
% 5 or less days
30% 21%
29%
40%
’09 ‘06
84% of unresolved issues were submitted 43+ days ago58% of those waiting 3 mths+ chased progress on their case 52% of those waiting 3 mths+ rec’d some correspondence from ICO
Average # days (2006)
87 (139)
149
48
13
Detailed Findings- Service Delivery -
14
11%
15%
24%
23%
13%
27%
21%
21%
22%
19%
21%
7%
24%
27%
18%
3%
4%
2%
Data Protection
Freedom of Information
Enquiry
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA
% Exc/Very/Good
Overall rating is mixed for DP/FOI, although many feel performance is better than other organisations.
Q18a. Overall, how would you rate the quality of service provided to you by the ICO in relation to enquiries or complaints submitted in writing? Q18b. And how would you compare the quality of service provided by the ICO with that of other organisations you have dealt with generally?Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exactly, this is due to rounding
Overall rating of quality of service
Rating in comparison to others
20%
22%
35%
18%
18%
16%
25%
27%
25%
15%
10%
5%
13%
17%
13%
10%
7%
5%
Data Protection
Freedom of Information
Enquiry
A lot better Little better Same Little worse Lot worse DK/NA
% Better38% 38%
39%
51%
55% 56%
48%
73%
’09 ‘06
15
Comparisons with other organisations tend to be mixed (Qual)
ICO often seen as offering a better overall service than other organisations; namely banks, utilities and local authorities/councils
ICO seen as more responsive and ‘professional’– “They’re very personable and helpful when you deal with them”
Also easier to deal with as no ulterior motive
Some FOI customers were less than enthusiastic on ICO’s behalf
“By no means the worst, but not the best”
Some found ICO too bogged down with procedure
“They’re like a stuffy old solicitor’s office”
“All public sector offices are slow and jobsworth”
16
Overall rating strongly linked with overall outcome and notable many feel unable to rate the outcome (as don’t think enquiry is complete).
% Exc/Very/Good
Q18a. Overall, how would you rate the quality of service provided to you by the ICO in relation to enquiries or complaints submitted in writing? Q19. While we have focused on the service provided by the ICO , how satisfied were you with the actual outcome of your recent enquiries or complaints?Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exactly, this is due to rounding
Overall rating of quality of service
Satisfaction with outcome
17%
13%
33%
24%
13%
24%
13%
10%
9%
27%
33%
25%
19%
31%
9%
Data Protection
Freedom of Information
Enquiry
Very satisfied Fairly Not very Not at all satisfied DK/NA
55% 56%
48%
73%
41% 44%
25%
56%
’09 ‘06
% Very/Fairly
11%
15%
24%
23%
13%
27%
21%
21%
22%
19%
21%
7%
24%
27%
18%
3%
4%
2%
Data Protection
Freedom of Information
Enquiry
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA
17
Satisfaction with Service and Outcome (Qual)
Respondents this year better able to divorce outcome from service
ICO appears to be doing a better job of referring outcomes to the
appropriate Act
– but many respondents struggled to be 100% sure of what the outcome was
FOI customers were more likely to be dissatisfied than DP
More delays in receiving information
Having a more complex submission procedure?
– Need to be very specific about what information is to be released
18
Perceived powers of ICO cause some frustration (Qual)
ICO felt to lack ‘some teeth’ when dealing with organisations
Often expected that ICO could ‘punish’ the organisation or force it to
make certain reparations
– “They should be able to fine the company if it’s broken the law” (DP)
For FOI, the complaint often centred on ICO’s perceived lack of
authority in ‘forcing’ local councils to part with
– “By the time I got it, the story was old and I couldn’t do anything with it –
the did it on purpose and ICO stood by and let them”
19
Overall Ratings x Contact Profile
% Excellent/ Very good Good
No previous contact with ICO 79% 69% 63%
Not resolved yet 14% 17% 34%
70%
32%
47%
Acknowledgement rec’d within 5 days 46% 30% 18%
No acknowledgement rec’d (perceived) 2% 0% 10%
27%
72%
36%
41%
43%
Fair/Poor
First organisation contacted 60%
Communication involved phone contact 44%
Multiple written contact required 59%
Final response rec’d within 28 days 12%
Q18a. Overall, how would you rate the quality of service provided to you by the ICO in relation to enquiries or complaints submitted in writing? Base: Those rating overall QofS as - Excellent/Very good (n=145), Good (n=88), Fair/Poor (n=175)
20
Individual Ratings – Overview
85%
85%
70%
65%
64%
55%
47%
44%
40%
75%
Quality of spelling/grammar
Tone/politeness of reply
Ease of understanding response
Clarity of response
Degree of understanding
complaint/enquiry
Apparent knowledge of responder
Helpfulness of reply
Degree of answering complaint/enquiry
Time taken to respond
Being kept informed of progress
Q16a. I’d now like you to think about the emails and letters you have received back from the ICO in relation to your complaints/enquiries in the last 3/6 months. I’d like you to tell me whether you think the performance of the ICO has generally been… Base: All (n=421)
Rating of ICO’s performance in relation to…(% rating Excellent/Very good/Good)
Delivery issuesContent/understandingTimeliness
21
Individual Ratings – By Customer Group
85%
85%
70%
65%
64%
55%
47%
44%
40%
75%
Quality of spelling/grammar
Tone/politeness of reply
Ease of understanding response
Clarity of response
Degree of understanding
complaint/enquiry
Apparent knowledge of responder
Helpfulness of reply
Degree of answering complaint/enquiry
Time taken to respond
Being kept informed of progress
Rating of ICO’s performance in relation to…(% rating Excellent/Very good/Good)
DP FOI Enquiry
88% 78% 85%
86% 78% 91%
76% 66% 84%
72% 61% 73%
62% 63% 80%
64% 59% 75%
54% 48% 71%
48% 37% 60%
46% 35% 49%
42% 34% 36%
80+ 70+ 50+ 30+40+
22
Customers not overly convinced in relation to ‘trust’ and doing a good job, with concerns evident in relation to explaining role of ICO and timeframes.
70%
70%
60%
55%
53%
51%
49%
60%
Made it clear what can / can't do
Response was fair/impartial
Have high level of trust in theiradvice
Response clearly explained outcome
Gave appropriate attention to myissue
Do a good job aiding access to info(FOI**)
Do a good job protecting privacy(DP*)
Clearly explained timeframes
Agreement with ICO’s performance in relation to…(% rating Strongly agree/Agree)
Overall issuesIssues specific to complaint/enquiry
23
DP FOI Enquiry
73 63 75
73 57 82
62% 48 76
61 50 75
56 46 67
53
51
49 48 47
Customers not overly convinced in relation to ‘trust’ and doing a good job, with concerns evident in relation to explaining role of ICO and timeframes.
70%
70%
60%
55%
53%
51%
49%
60%
Made it clear what can / can't do
Response was fair/impartial
Have high level of trust in theiradvice
Response clearly explained outcome
Gave appropriate attention to myissue
Do a good job aiding access to info(FOI**)
Do a good job protecting privacy(DP*)
Clearly explained timeframes
Agreement with ICO’s performance in relation to…(% rating Strongly agree/Agree)
80+ 70+ 50+ 30+40+
24
Qualitative interviews revealed some issues in relation to complexity of FOI responses (Qual)
Delivery / Content / Understanding
Delivery felt to be good in relation to tone, spelling, grammar but some experienced difficulty in understanding the response
“I’ve got a degree but I struggled to understand it – I had to translate it
on the web” (FOI)
As seen in 2006, there was an appreciation of having personalised
(rather than standard) letters
And they felt ICO staff generally made an effort to be fully informed
and to understand their complaint or enquiry fully
25
The poor quantitative scores for timeliness are reflected in the qualitative feedback (Qual)
Backlogs caused some frustration
Not enough staff to deal with the volume of work
Concern that public sector works to more “fluid” deadlines
On the one hand, good that cases were dealt with by individual case
workers
– But suggestion there could be value in grouping similar enquiries
Key concern in relation to FOI is that by the time a response is
received, it may be of no use
FOI enquirers, perhaps because of the nature of some respondents, read
something more sinister in delays
26
The efforts of staff are generally appreciated (Qual)
As in 2006, staff well regarded within ICO
– Generally seen as helpful and knowledgeable
– Evidence of greater proactivity than 2006
Some subjects willing to ‘cut them some slack’, appreciating how busy
the ICO has become
Some staff make an effort to offer a personal touch and it is
appreciated
For more complex enquiries, subjects would like staff to engage more
and to confirm they have all they need
However, a major perceived weakness is they are seen as powerless
with regard to “enforcing the law”
27
Analysis shows strong links between attributes rated and overall rating –regression identifies six attributes that are key to driving satisfaction
46
49
54
54
58
65
66
66
66
66
70
72
72
78
79
Quality spell/gram
Clearly explained time
Clearly explained outcome
Made it clear what can do
Tone/politeness of reply
Ease of understanding
Clarity of response
Response was fair/impartial
Time taken to respond
Being kept informed
Degree of understanding
Apparent knowledge
Degree answered complaint
Gave appropriate attention
Helpfulness of reply
10
18
9
12
35
17
Key Drivers
Scale = % contribution
Helpfulness of replyGave appropriate
attention
Being kept informed
Time taken to respondResponse was fair /
impartial
Made it clear what can do
28
Summary and Implications
At an overall level, the ratings given are broadly in line with 2006, with the figures for FOI being a little lower than those seen for DP
– Scores for ‘enquiries’ tended to be higher, but there was invariably less riding on the outcome
Key areas highlighted for ‘improvement’ fell the following areas:
– The perceived “authority” of ICO
– Timelines (acknowledging that ‘appropriate’ time should be spent)
– The legal terminology used in some responses
– Ensuring ‘closure’ is as clear as possible
Although many of the ratings were low, staff are highly regarded as being helpful and knowledgeable
– A number of qual interviews revealed levels of helpfulness and proactivity that were not seen in 2006
29
Customer Satisfaction Index
Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exactly, this is due to rounding
Index Distribution
17%
13%
27%
30%
28%
36%
30%
26%
18%
22%
33%
18%
Data Protection
Freedom of Information
Enquiry
76-100 51-75 26-50 0-25
Data from performance related questions combined to produce an INDEX. Weightings of categories shown below:
Overall rating – 30%
Quality of response (answering query, helpfulness, etc) – 25%
Timeliness of response – 25%
Overall impression (trust, fairness, doing a good job) – 10%
Ease of contact – 5%
How well kept informed – 5%
Produces a score out of 100
Mean2009
48
44
56
(47)
(2006)