ICO Customer Satisfaction · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2009 August 7th 2009. 1 ... fraud on...

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%


% 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


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


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


Enquiry


% 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


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


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


Satisfaction with outcome

17%

13%

33%

24%

13%

24%

13%

10%

9%

27%

33%

25%

19%

31%

9%

Data Protection


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


Enquiry


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


Ease of understanding response

Clarity of response


complaint/enquiry

Apparent knowledge of responder


Degree of answering complaint/enquiry


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


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


Ease of understanding

Clarity of response



Being kept informed


Apparent knowledge

Degree answered complaint

Gave appropriate attention


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


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)

Date post:	05-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ICO Customer Satisfaction · Customer Satisfaction Survey 2009 August 7th 2009. 1 ... fraud on...

Documents