Information Commissioner s Office. Customer Satisfaction Survey August 7th 2009

Transcription

1 Information Commissioner s Office Customer Satisfaction Survey 2009 August 7th 2009

2 1 Agenda Study Objectives Approach and Sample Profile Detailed Findings Detail on recent complaints/enquiries Performance/satisfaction Summary and Recommendations

3 Study structured to reflect work conducted in 2006, with sample split to cover three areas of the business Research required among individuals submitting written enquiries / complaints to assess: Service Delivery Satisfaction Comparison with others Improvements Understanding Timeliness Credibility Communications Channels Channels used Use of website Progress reports Clarity of response Tone / grammar Staff Ease of access Attitude Knowledge Empathy Data reported by the three main groups: Data Protection, Freedom of Information, Enquiries (the latter being a new sample for 2009) 2

4 3 A three stage approach taken to ensure full coverage of the issues IMMERSION QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE Full briefing session with ICO teams Individual interviews with team leaders Ensure team understanding Feed into survey design Influence on timing of survey 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 20 th 30 th April 2009 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 8 th 17 th June 2009

5 Detailed Findings - Profile of Individuals - - Contact Profile - 4

6 Key Performance Indicators 2009 Overall rating of quality of service 14% 21% 21% 18% 24% 3% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA 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 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 5

7 Summary of Profile and Contact Profile Summary 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%) For over two-thirds (71%), this was their FIRST CONTACT For the vast majority (86%) they had only submitted ONE ENQUIRY/ COMPLAINT in the period being assessed The 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 6

8 Summary of Profile and Contact Reasons for Contact 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%) 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 7

9 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

10 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

11 Multiple channel usage often involved, with importance of website highlighted by claimed usage. Contact in addition to written communication with ICO Searched ICO website 65% 67% (+13%) 76% 38% (-7%) Data Protection Phone contact with ICO 42% Freedom of Information 33% Enquiry Received help/advice from other companies/organisations 22% 31% 33% (+10%) Wide variety of organisations contacted. Other govt department/regulatory body most commonly mentioned (by 8% of total) 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) 10

12 The website is a common start point for customers and is generally well regarded. 84% of website visitors did so before contacting ICO Rating of website % Exc/Very/Good 7% 28% 38% 14% 8% 4% 73% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA 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 11

13 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. Speed of initial acknowledgement Data Protection 15% 14% 54% 6% 10% % 5 or less days 30% 21% Freedom of Information 18% 12% 49% 3% 19% 29% Enquiry 22% 18% 31% 7% 22% 40% Within 48 hours 2-5 days 6+ days Never received DK/NA Total time taken for response Average # days (2006) Data Protection 14% 12% 10% 37% 21% 6% 87 (139) Freedom of Information 14% 8% 8% 25% 39% 7% 149 Enquiry 24% 13% 18% 24% 13% 9% days days days 43+ days Not resolved yet DK/NA 84% of unresolved issues were submitted 43+ days ago 58% of those waiting 3 mths+ chased progress on their case 52% of those waiting 3 mths+ rec d some correspondence from ICO 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 12

14 Detailed Findings -Service Delivery - 13

15 Overall rating is mixed for DP/FOI, although many feel performance is better than other organisations. Overall rating of quality of service % Exc/Very/Good Data Protection 11% 23% 21% 19% 24% 3% 55% 56% Freedom of Information 15% 13% 21% 21% 27% 4% 48% Enquiry 24% 27% 22% 7% 18% 2% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA 73% Rating in comparison to others Data Protection 20% 18% 25% 15% 13% 10% % Better 38% 38% Freedom of Information 22% 18% 27% 10% 17% 7% 39% Enquiry 35% 16% 25% 5% 13% 5% A lot better Little better Same Little worse Lot worse DK/NA 51% 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 14

16 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 15

17 Overall rating strongly linked with overall outcome and notable many feel unable to rate the outcome (as don t think enquiry is complete). Overall rating of quality of service % Exc/Very/Good Data Protection 11% 23% 21% 19% 24% 3% 55% 56% Freedom of Information 15% 13% 21% 21% 27% 4% 48% Enquiry 24% 27% 22% 7% 18% 2% Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor DK/NA 73% Satisfaction with outcome Data Protection 17% 24% 13% 27% 19% % Very/Fairly 41% 44% Freedom of Information 13% 13% 10% 33% 31% 25% Enquiry 33% 24% 9% 25% 9% Very satisfied Fairly Not very Not at all satisfied DK/NA 56% 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 16

18 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

19 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

20 Overall Ratings x Contact Profile % Excellent/ Very good Good Fair/ Poor No previous contact with ICO 79% 69% 63% First organisation contacted Communication involved phone contact Multiple written contact required 72% 36% 41% 70% 32% 47% 60% 44% 59% Acknowledgement rec d within 5 days 46% 30% 18% No acknowledgement rec d (perceived) 2% 0% 10% Final response rec d within 28 days 43% 27% 12% Not resolved yet 14% 17% 34% 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) 19

21 Individual Ratings Overview Rating of ICO s performance in relation to (% rating Excellent/Very good/good) Quality of spelling/grammar 85% Tone/politeness of reply 85% Ease of understanding response 75% Clarity of response Degree of understanding complaint/enquiry Apparent knowledge of responder 70% 65% 64% Delivery issues Content/understanding Timeliness Helpfulness of reply 55% Degree of answering complaint/enquiry 47% Time taken to respond 44% Being kept informed of progress 40% Q16a. I d now like you to think about the s 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) 20

22 Individual Ratings By Customer Group Rating of ICO s performance in relation to (% rating Excellent/Very good/good) DP FOI Enquiry Quality of spelling/grammar 85% 88% 78% 85% Tone/politeness of reply 85% 86% 78% 91% Ease of understanding response 75% 76% 66% 84% Clarity of response Degree of understanding complaint/enquiry Apparent knowledge of responder 70% 65% 64% 72% 61% 73% 62% 63% 80% 64% 59% 75% Helpfulness of reply 55% 54% 48% 71% Degree of answering complaint/enquiry 47% 48% 37% 60% Time taken to respond 44% 46% 35% 49% Being kept informed of progress 40% 42% 34% 36%

23 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. Agreement with ICO s performance in relation to (% rating Strongly agree/agree) Made it clear what can / can't do 70% Response was fair/impartial 70% Have high level of trust in their advice Response clearly explained outcome Gave appropriate attention to my issue Do a good job aiding access to info (FOI**) Do a good job protecting privacy (DP*) Clearly explained timeframes 60% 60% 55% 53% 51% 49% Overall issues Issues specific to complaint/enquiry

24 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. Agreement with ICO s performance in relation to (% rating Strongly agree/agree) DP FOI Enquiry Made it clear what can / can't do 70% Response was fair/impartial 70% Have high level of trust in their advice Response clearly explained outcome Gave appropriate attention to my issue Do a good job aiding access to info (FOI**) Do a good job protecting privacy (DP*) Clearly explained timeframes 60% 60% 55% 53% 51% 49% 62%

25 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 24

26 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

27 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

28 Analysis shows strong links between attributes rated and overall rating regression identifies six attributes that are key to driving satisfaction Helpfulness of reply Gave appropriate attention Helpfulness of reply Gave appropriate attention Degree answered complaint 72 Apparent knowledge 72 Degree of understanding 70 Being kept informed Time taken to respond Being kept informed Time taken to respond 9 12 Key Drivers Response was fair/impartial 66 Response was fair / impartial 18 Clarity of response 66 Ease of understanding 65 Tone/politeness of reply 58 Made it clear what can do 54 Made it clear what can do 10 Clearly explained outcome 54 Clearly explained time 49 Quality spell/gram 46 Scale = % contribution 27

29 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

30 Customer Satisfaction Index 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% Index Distribution Produces a score out of 100 Mean 2009 (2006) Data Protection 17% 30% 30% 22% 48 (47) Freedom of Information 13% 28% 26% 33% 44 Enquiry 27% 36% 18% 18% Base: All - DP (n=263), FOI (n=102), Enquiry (n=55) Where figures do not add up exactly, this is due to rounding 29