Information Commissioners Office Customer Satisfaction Survey 2009 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Information Commissioner’s Office Customer Satisfaction Survey 2009

August 7th 2009

1

Agenda

S

tudy Obj ectives

Approach and S

ample Profile

Detailed Findings

–

Detail on recent complaints/ enquiries

–

Performance/ satisfaction

S

ummary and Recommendations

2

S tudy 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)

S

at isfaction

Comparison with others Improvements Understanding Timeliness Credibility

Service Delivery

Channels used Use of website Progress reports Clarity of response Tone / grammar

Communications Channels

Ease of access Attitude Knowledge Empathy

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

IMMERS ION

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 rat e t he qualit y of service provided t o you by t he ICO in relat ion t o enquiries or complaint s submit t ed in writ ing?

Base: All - (n=420) Where figures do not add up exact ly, 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

S ummary of Profile and Contact

For over two-thirds (71%

), this was their FIRST CONTACT

For the vast maj ority (86%

) they had only submitted ONE ENQUIRY/ COMPLAINT in the period being assessed

The vast maj ority (89%

) were in contact on their OWN BEHALF

– If on behalf of others, it tended to be

for a family member or employer

– The maj ority of contacts were

personal The vast maj ority (93%

) of cases for DP and FOI were COMPLAINTS Summary of Contact

S

kew towards MALES (73% ), especially for FOI (88% )

Range of ages, but skew is

OLDER (only 28%

under 40)

– FOI skew to 50+ (59%

) S

kew towards ABC1 (68% )

High proportion WORKING

(66% ), with many of the rest retired (18% ) Profile Summary

7

S ummary 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

• f correspondence submit ted

– 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

• thers
• “ Warrior Citizens”
• want to beat the system
• Likely to have previous contact / experience
• S
• me believe they have ‘ friend’ st atus (t hrough volume of contact)

Greater awareness of the Act results in greater frustrations with

• utcomes

–

S ubmitting 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

• ffending organisation

S

• me FOI individuals anticipated red tape and delays

Others looking for help to compile their case for the adj udicator

–

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 writ t en complaint s/ enquiries in t he last 3/ 6 mont hs involved… receiving help or advice from ot her companies,

• rganisat ions, employers or Government depart ment s?

t elephone conversat ions wit h st aff at t he ICO? searching t he ICO websit e? Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55)

67% 38% 65% 42% 31% 76% 33% 22% 33% Searched ICO w ebsite Phone contact w ith ICO Received help/ advice from

• ther 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%

• f total)

(+13% ) (-7% ) (+10% )

11

The website is a common start point for customers and is generally well regarded.

• Q10e. And was t hat suggest ed by someone from t he ICO?
• Q10f. Did you visit t he websit e before cont act ing t he ICO?
• Q10g. And how would you rat e t he websit e, would you say it was …

. ? Base: All cont act ing websit e - DP (n=175), FOI (n=67), Enquiry (n=42) Where figures do not add up exact ly, 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%

• f 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 exact ly, 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%

• f unresolved issues were submitted 43+ days ago

58%

• f those waiting 3 mths+ chased progress on their case

52%

• f 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 rat e t he qualit y of service provided t o you by t he ICO in relat ion t o enquiries or complaint s submit t ed in writ ing?
• Q18b. And how would you compare t he qualit y of service provided by t he ICO wit h t hat of ot her organisat ions you have dealt wit h generally?

Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exact ly, 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

% Better 38% 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

• rganisations; namely banks, utilities and local authorities/councils

ICO seen as more responsive and ‘ professional’

–

“ They’ re very personable and helpful when you deal wit h t hem”

Also easier to deal with as no ulterior motive

Some FOI customers were less than enthusiastic on ICO’s behalf

“ By no means t he worst , but not t he best ”

Some found ICO too bogged down with procedure

“ They’ re like a st uffy old solicit or’ s office” “ All public sect or offices are slow and j obswort h”

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 rat e t he qualit y of service provided t o you by t he ICO in relat ion t o enquiries or complaint s submit t ed in writ ing?
• Q19. While we have focused on t he service provided by t he ICO , how sat isfied were you wit h t he act ual out come of your recent enquiries or complaint s?

Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exact ly, 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

S atisfaction with S ervice and Outcome (Qual)

Respondents this year better able to divorce outcome from service

ICO appears to be doing a better j ob 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 t o fine t he company if it ’ s broken t he law” (DP)

For FOI, the complaint often centred on ICO’ s perceived lack of

authority in ‘ forcing’ local councils to part with

–

“ By t he t ime I got it , t he st ory was old and I couldn’ t do anyt hing wit h it – t he did it on purpose and ICO st ood by and let t hem”

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 rat e t he qualit y of service provided t o you by t he ICO in relat ion t o enquiries or complaint s submit t ed in writ ing?

Base: Those rat ing 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 t o t hink about t he emails and let t ers you have received back from t he ICO in relat ion t o your complaint s/ enquiries in t he last 3/ 6

mont hs. I’ d like you t o t ell me whet her you t hink t he performance of t he ICO has generally been…Base: All (n=421)

Rating of ICO’s performance in relation to…

(% rating Excellent/Very good/Good) Delivery issues Content/ understanding Timeliness

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 j ob, 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 f air/ impartial Have high level of t rust in t heir advice Response clearly explained outcome Gave appropriate attent ion to my issue Do a good j ob aiding access t o info (FOI**) Do a good j ob protect ing privacy (DP*) Clearly explained t imef rames

Agreement with ICO’s performance in relation to…

(% rating Strongly agree/Agree) Overall issues Issues 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 j ob, 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 f air/ impartial Have high level of t rust in t heir advice Response clearly explained outcome Gave appropriate attent ion to my issue Do a good j ob aiding access t o info (FOI**) Do a good j ob protect ing privacy (DP*) Clearly explained t imef rames

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 st ruggled t o underst and it – I had t o t ranslat e it
• n t he 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

S

• me subj ects willing to ‘ cut them some slack’ , appreciating how busy

the ICO has become

S

• me staff make an effort to offer a personal touch and it is

appreciated

For more complex enquiries, subj ects would like staff to engage more

and to confirm they have all they need

However, a maj or 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 reply Gave appropriate attention Being kept informed Time taken to respond Response was fair / impartial Made it clear what can do

28

S ummary 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

–

S cores 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’ t ime 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 S atisfaction Index

Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exact ly, 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 j ob) – 10% Ease of contact – 5% How well kept informed – 5% Produces a score out of 100 Mean

2009

48 44 56 (47)

(2006)