Client Experience Survey 2019-20

Client Experience Survey 2019-20

This publication was available for download at canada.ca/publicentre-ESDC . It was available upon request in multiple formats (large print, MP3, braille, audio CD, e-text CD, DAISY or accessible PDF), by contacting 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). By teletypewriter (TTY), call 1-800-926-9105.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2020

For information regarding reproduction rights: droitdauteur.copyright@HRSDC-RHDCC.gc.ca.

PDF

Cat. No. : Em4-23/2020E-PDF

ISBN: 978-0-660-30160-0

ESDC

Cat. No. : POR-106-08-20E

Sondage sur l'expérience client 2019-2020

Vous pouvez télécharger cette publication en ligne sur le site canada.ca/publicentre-EDSC. Ce document offert sur demande en médias substituts (gros caractères, MP3, braille, audio sur DC, fichiers de texte sur DC, DAISY, ou accessible PDF) auprès du 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). Si vous utilisez un téléscripteur (ATS), composez le 1-800-926-9105.

© Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, 2020

Pour des renseignements sur les droits de reproduction : droitdauteur.copyright@HRSDC-RHDCC.gc.ca

PDF

Nº de cat. : Em4-23/2020F-PDF

ISBN : 978-0-660-30161-7

EDSC

Nº de cat. : POR-106-08-20F

Political Neutrality Statement

I hereby certify as Senior Officer of Ipsos that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

President
Ipsos Public Affairs

Additional information

Supplier Name: Ipsos Limited Partnership

PSPC Contract Number: g9292-203572/001/cy

Contract Award Date: 2019-09-05

Executive Summary

Service Canada CX Survey 2019-20 — Results at a Glance

Methodology: Telephone survey

Fieldwork: Feb 25 to March 16 2020

Client experiences that reached initial decision Aug--Oct 2019

Methodology: Telephone survey

Fieldwork: Feb 25 to March 16 2020

Client experiences that reached initial decision Aug--Oct 2020

Background and Objectives

• The annual Service Canada Client Experience (CX) Survey tracks the impact of service delivery change on clients’ ability to access federal programs, particularly as delivery was increasingly e-enabled over time.
• The 2019-20 survey was the third wave of the survey established by the Citizen Service Branch in 2017-18. It tracks client experience performance measures associated with the ease, effectiveness, confidence and satisfaction with the service experience by program, client group and service channels used.
• It also tracks reported self-service and use of assistance among Service Canada clients to inform Service Transformation over time.
• Due to Covid-19, fieldwork for the 2019-20 CX Survey was ended midway through execution. As such, the original sample size target could not be reached. The Client Experience Measurement Project was also intended to include a second phase of qualitative research, however this phase was cancelled due to concerns around contacting clients during the health crisis.

Methodology

• A telephone survey was conducted with a sample of 2,431 Service Canada clients across the six major programs.
  • Employment Insurance (EI): (n=701) +/- 3.7 percentage points
  • Canada Pension Plan (CPP): (n=389) +/- 5.0 percentage points
  • Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit (CPP-D): (n=417) +/- 4.8 percentage points
  • Old Age Security (OAS)/ Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS): (n=562) +/- 4.1 percentage points;  and
  • Social Insurance Number (SIN): (n=362) +/- 5.1 percentage points
• Oversamples were collected with two client groups: those living in remote areas and Indigenous clients.
• The interviews were conducted between Feb 25 and March 16, 2020 (Fieldwork was ended early due to COVID-19).
• Clients who completed a client journey, that was received an initial decision, benefit or Social Insurance Number, in August, September or October 2019 were sampled. 
• The survey sample size has a margin of error of +/-2.0%.
• Results were weighted by age, gender, region, program and benefit receipt (approved/ denied) using administrative data on clients who completed a client journey from August to October 2019. Program weights were held constant with 2017-18 to allow the results to highlight any change due to the service experience.
• Comparisons to 2018-19 results reflect service delivery changes made after October 2018, and comparisons to 2017-18 results reflect changes relative to roughly April/May/June 2017.
• Due to Covid-19, fieldwork for the 2019-20 CX Survey was ended midway through execution. As such, the original sample size target of n=4000 could not be reached.
• The 2019-20 Client Experience Survey Detailed Methodology document was available under separate cover.

Executive Summary: Change in Channel Use

• The proportion of clients who self-served online with no assistance was slightly lower in the August-October 2019 period relative to April-June 2017. Self-service online without assistance increased among CPP clients at the aware and apply stages, and among OAS/GIS clients applying and following up on an expected benefit.  At the same time, fewer EI clients self-served online without assistance at both the aware and apply stages; more applied in-person and more followed up on an application to check the status (41%) or provide missing information (21%), most often turning to the in-person and phone channels rather than My Service Canada Account alone.
  • The majority of clients continued to utilize in-person service (62%) at some point during the client journey, while nearly two in ten (17%) self-served online only, one in ten (10%) self-served online with assistance, four percent (4%) were auto-enrolled and did not contact Service Canada, and one percent accessed service by mail only.
  • Overall, clients were more likely to use in-person service during the apply stage and less likely during the aware stage compared to the baseline wave of the survey.  They were also more likely to self-serve with assistance at the follow-up stage.
    • EI clients less likely to self-serve with no assistance at the aware or apply stages compared to 2017-18 and more likely to get help through the in-person service when applying. They were also less likely to utilize assisted self-service during the apply stage and more likely during the follow-up stage.
    • CPP clients were more likely to self-serve and less likely to rely on in-person service at the aware or apply stages compared to the baseline wave.  They were also less likely to only receive mail service at the apply stage.
    • OAS/GIS clients were more likely to self-serve at the apply or follow-up stages than they were in the baseline wave. They were also less likely to rely on in-person service at the awareness stage.
    • CPP-D clients show no significant increases or decreases since the baseline wave.

Executive Summary: Number of Contacts with Service Canada

• Clients had a higher number of contacts with Service Canada than in previous years, due primarily to an increase in the number of times clients contacted specialized call centres.  Satisfaction with the service experience declines with the number of times the client contacted Service Canada and was lower than last year among those with contact 3 or more times.
  • As in previous years, the level of satisfaction with the service experience declined by the number of times the client contacted Service Canada. Satisfaction was notably lower among those who had five or more contacts with Service Canada through any channel during the client journey.
  • Compared to 2018-19, satisfaction improved among those who had contact once or twice and declined among those who had a greater number of contacts during their experience.
• EI and CPP-D clients continued to have more contact with Service Canada during the client journey compared to all clients.  Year over year, EI and CPP clients were in contact with Service Canada more times during their experience.
  • Number of contacts continued to differ by program with EI and CPP-D clients being most likely to have contacted Service Canada 5+ times, while SIN and OAS/GIS were most likely to have contacted Service Canada 1 or 2 times.
  • Compared to 2018-19, EI and CPP clients were more likely to have been in contact with Service Canada 5+ times, while CPP-D clients were less likely to have had contact twice.

Executive Summary: Channel Use By Stage

• Online and in-person channels continued to be used by clients most often for the aware and apply stages, while telephone and online were more common for follow up.  Use of online increased during the aware stage and decreased for apply, while in-person use increased across both the aware and apply stages.
  • During the aware stage, clients continued to be most likely to use online government sources (58%), followed by in-person service (47%) while around one in ten used either telephone (15%) or mail (10%). Use of online and in-person channels increased compared to the baseline wave, while telephone and mail have decreased.
  • During the apply stage, clients were most likely to use in-person service (59%), followed by online (48%) while around one in ten used either telephone (13%) or mail (10%).  Use of in-person service increased compared to the baseline wave, while online, telephone and mail have decreased.
  • Among those clients who followed-up, they continued to be most likely to use the telephone channel (68%), followed by online (56%) and in-person (40%) service while around one in ten used mail (15%). Use of online and mail increased compared to the baseline wave.
• Being able to complete steps online made the process easier for the vast majority of clients and progress was made improving ease of use among CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients.
  • Consistent with last year, three quarters (75%) of clients agreed that being able to complete steps online made the process easier. EI clients (82%) were more likely to agree compared to all clients and while CPP (60%), CPP-D (37%) and OAS/GIS  (48%) clients were less likely to agree, their ratings of ease have improved year over year.

Executive Summary: Multi-Channel Use By Stage

• The vast majority of clients used only one channel during each stage of the client journey. Clients continued to rely more heavily on online and in-person as their first point of contact for all stages except follow-up where telephone was the most used primary channel.
  • Clients most often used the online channel first at the aware and follow-up stage of the client journey and most used in-person first for the apply stage (followed closely by online). Telephone continued to be the least used channel for the first point of contact at the aware and apply stages and was the second most used at the follow-up stage.
  • Clients who used in-person first were less likely to use a second channel compared to clients who used online first. Clients were generally more likely to go in-person or online after beginning over the phone at the aware and apply stages, but were no more likely at the follow-up stage.
  • Year over year, clients were more likely to have used in-person first during the apply stage and less likely for the aware or follow-up stages. They were more likely to have used online first at the follow-up stage and less likely at the apply stage. Clients were also less likely to have used the telephone channel first at the apply stage.
• Vulnerable clients varied in their channel preferences. Certain groups relied more heavily on in-person while others relied more heavily on mail service during the client journey.
  • Youth and newcomers were both significantly more likely to choose an in-person channel at both the aware and apply stages.
  • Seniors were significantly less likely to use in-person service and more likely to choose the mail channel at both aware and apply while clients with disabilities and those who were e-vulnerable were less likely to use in-person at the apply stage and more likely to use mail.
  • All other vulnerable groups showed no statistically significant variance in their channel preference compared to all clients.

Executive Summary: Overall Satisfaction

• Satisfaction with the overall service experience was consistent with 2018-19 but has declined compared to 2017-18. Satisfaction continues to be lower for EI and CPP-D clients. Satisfaction among EI clients has declined compared to the baseline wave.
  • The vast majority of Service Canada’s clientele continue to be satisfied with the service experience (84%) and found it easy (84%) and effective (82%). Year over year, effectiveness has declined (82% vs. 84%), while overall satisfaction was lower than in the baseline wave in 2017-18 (86%).
  • Clients expressed a high degree of trust (83%) in Service Canada to deliver services effectively to Canadians, confidence in the issue resolution process (78%) and felt the timeliness of service was reasonable (77%).
  • Over nine in ten (94%) SIN clients expressed satisfaction with the service experience, the highest of any program and consistent with previous waves. Close to eight in ten EI clients (77%) and six in ten CPP-D clients (60%) were satisfied overall, lower than other programs, and EI clients were less satisfied than they were in 2017-18 (83%).
  • SIN clients were more likely to feel the process was effective (91%) and to have confidence in issue resolution (87%), while OAS/GIS clients were more likely to feel the process was easy (92%) and effective (88%). SIN, OAS/GIS and CPP clients were the most likely to rate the timeliness of service as reasonable (89%, 85%, 83% respectively).
  • EI and CPP-D clients were less likely to find the process was effective (76%, 57%), to have confidence in issue resolution (72%, 51%) or agree the timeliness of service was reasonable (68%, 49%). CPP-D clients were also less likely to feel the process was easy (55%).
  • Compared to 2018-19, OAS/GIS clients were more likely to feel the process was effective (88% vs. 84%) and to feel the timeliness of service was reasonable (85% vs. 80%).  EI clients were less likely to feel the process was effective (76% vs. 81%), while CPP clients were more likely to have confidence in the issue resolution process (81% vs. 76%) and express trust in Service Canada (86% vs. 81%).

Executive Summary: Problems Encountered

• More clients experienced a problem this year due to an increase among EI and SIN clients, however the ease of resolution among those who experienced an issue improved.
  • Two in ten (20%) clients reported having experienced a problem in 2019-20, higher than in 2018-19 (16%). Among those who experienced a problem, nearly half (45%) of clients felt the issue was easily resolved; this was higher than in the previous wave (33%), but stable with levels in the baseline wave.
  • The most common problems/issues experienced were that it took too long to provide benefits/ decision, long/ complicated applications and that online information was confusing. Fewer clients mentioned that the application form was long/ complicated compared to last year.
  • CPP-D and EI clients were most likely to have experienced a problem (33% and 29% respectively), while OAS/GIS and SIN were least likely (9% and 8%).  A greater number of EI (29% vs. 24%) and SIN (8% vs. 5%) clients experienced a problem compared to last year.
  • Ease of problem/issue resolution was highest for SIN clients (57%) and lowest for CPP-D (25%) and OAS/GIS clients (33%). Ease of resolution increased significantly for EI (45% vs. 32%) and SIN clients (57% vs. 32%) this year.

Executive Summary: Service Attribute Performance

• Overall, Service Canada clients provided the highest ratings for the helpfulness of in-person staff, confidence in information security, the process being easy and effective.
  • The vast majority found Service Canada in-person staff helpful (92%), were confident their personal information was protected (87%), found it easy to apply (84%) and were able to move smoothly through all steps (82%).
• Service attributes with lower ratings were ease of follow-up, confidence the application would be processed in a reasonable amount of time, ease of figuring out eligibility, clarity of the process and helpfulness of call centre phone staff.
  • Fewer than three quarters provided high ratings for the ease of following-up on their application (61%), confidence the application would be processed in a reasonable amount of time (64%), ease of figuring out eligibility (71%) or the best time to start your pension (72%), that it was clear through the process what would happen next and when (73%) and the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre staff (73%).
• Certain aspects of service were rated consistently high, while lower rated areas differed considerably by program.
  • The helpfulness of Service Canada in-person staff and confidence their personal information was protected were consistently the highest rated areas.
• Overall, there have been a number of negative shifts for service attributes related to ease and effectiveness year over year.
  • Clients were less likely to agree that it was clear through the process what would happen next and when, that they were able to move smoothly through all steps, received consistent information, found it easy to figure out eligibility, were able to find the information they needed during the aware stage in a reasonable time and found it easy to follow-up.

Executive Summary: Service Attribute Performance By Program

• SIN clients continue to provide the highest ratings across all service attributes.
  • The vast majority of SIN clients provided positive ratings for all attributes and found the service experience easy and effective. Lower scoring areas include the reasonableness of distance travelled to access service and the helpfulness of call centre staff.
• CPP and OAS/GIS clients continued to provide similar ratings across several service attributes and strong majorities rate most areas highly.
  • The strongest performing areas included the helpfulness of Service Canada in-person staff, ease of applying, moving smoothly through all steps and the timeliness of service. The consistently lowest rated areas were the ease of getting assistance when needed and being able to complete steps online made it easier. CPP clients also experienced more difficulty with clarity of the issue resolution process and helpfulness of Service Canada call centre staff. OAS/GIS clients provided lower ratings for confidence in the issue resolution process.
• EI clients provided positive ratings across most areas of service, however ratings were lower than other programs particularly for aspects of effectiveness.
  • The EI service experience performed most strongly for confidence in protection of personal information, ease of applying, and the helpfulness of Service Canada in-person staff. Lower performing areas included the timeliness of service, explaining situation only once, ease of getting assistance, clarity of process, confidence in issue resolution, completed the application in a reasonable time and distance travelled to access service was reasonable.

Key Findings: Service Attribute Performance By Program

• Consistent with previous years, CPP-D clients continued to experience the most difficulty during the service experience.
  • CPP-D clients provided considerably poorer ratings across nearly all service attributes. The CPP-D service experience was rated highest for confidence in protection of personal information and helpfulness of Service Canada in-person staff. Lowest rated service attributes included timeliness of service, clarity of process, effectiveness, confidence in issue resolution, completing application in a reasonable amount of time, understanding information about the program, ease of figuring out eligibility and ease of completing the form.
• Non Auto-Enroll clients were more likely to be satisfied with their experience compared to all clients while satisfaction among Auto-Enroll clients was comparable with the aggregate. 
  • Similar trends were observed when comparing clients receiving both OAS and GIS and those receiving only OAS. Clients receiving both OAS and GIS were more likely to be satisfied with their experience, while satisfaction among those receiving only OAS was consistent with all clients. 
  • OAS/GIS clients were predominantly non auto-enroll while the vast majority of OAS clients were auto-enrolled.

Key Findings: Change in Service Experience By Program

• EI clients were less satisfied with a number of aspects of service year over year.
  • Compared to 2018-19, EI clients were less likely to be satisfied with the effectiveness (76% vs. 81%) and clarity of the process (65% vs. 75%) and compared to the baseline wave had more difficulty figuring out eligibility (66% vs. 72%) and being able to complete the application in reasonable time (59% vs. 66%).
• CPP clients expressed higher trust in Service Canada and rated aspects of ease and confidence higher than previous years.
  • Compared to 2018-19, CPP clients were more likely to express trust in Service Canada (86% vs. 81%) and to agree that being able to complete steps online made it easer (60% vs. 52%). Compared to the baseline wave, CPP clients found it easier to understand information about the program and to be confident their application would be processed in a reasonable time (79% vs. 70%).
• OAS/GIS clients were more satisfied with a number of aspects of service year over year and considerable progress was made across several areas since the baseline wave.
  • Compared to 2018-19, OAS/GIS clients were more likely to agree they only had to explain their situation only once (80% vs. 75%), completing steps online made it easier (48% vs. 36%) and the amount of time from start to finish was reasonable (85% vs. 80%).
  • Compared to 2017-18, OAS/GIS clients were more likely to feel the process was easy (92% vs. 84%) and effective (88% vs. 79%). They also found it easier to understand information about the program (82% vs. 69%), figure out eligibility (84% vs. 72%), understand the requirements of application (83% vs. 75%) and to be confident the application would be processed in reasonable time (82% vs. 72%). They were also less likely to have experienced a problem (9% vs. 15%).
  • Improvement has been made among clients receiving OAS and GIS on overall satisfaction with their experience, timeliness of service and trust in Service Canada. We saw similar shifts among the subgroup of non-auto enroll clients due to the high proportion of overlap between the two groups- 69% of the OAS/GIS clients were non-auto-enrolled.

Key Findings: Change in Service Experience By Program

• Key pain points identified by CPP-D clients in the baseline survey have changed little.
  • Compared to the 2018-19, CPP-D clients were more likely to agree that being able to complete steps online made it easier (37% vs. 31%, but were less confident the application would be processed in a reasonable time (34% vs. 42%) when compared to the baseline wave.
  • Little progress was made on improving satisfaction around key pain points identified in the baseline study. There has been no statistically significant shifts since the 2017-18, and notably several measures have softened including ease of issue resolution, ease of figuring out eligibility, ease of finding steps to apply and overall satisfaction.
• No significant movement among SIN clients.

Key Findings: Overall Drivers of Satisfaction

• The most important drivers of satisfaction were: the amount of time it took from start and to finish was reasonable, the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre phone representatives and ease of getting assistance when needed. 
  • To improve the service experience for Service Canada clientele as a whole, focus should be placed primarily on improving the timeliness of service, ease of getting assistance, and the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre phone representatives. These represent service attributes most strongly related to overall satisfaction where performance was lower relative to other areas.
  • This year the impact of whether the application was approved or denied took on increased importance in driving satisfaction. Results indicate that satisfaction among those denied the benefit for which they applied has declined, particularly for CPP and EI clients, and has a bigger impact on their impressions of their experience than in previous years. While there were select drivers that have a stronger impact on satisfaction, improving the experience for those denied a benefit will also be important to helping improve overall satisfaction.
• Drivers of satisfaction differ significantly by program. The most common top drivers were consistent with Service Canada clientele as a whole and include the helpfulness of call centre representatives for EI, CPP and CPP-D clients, the timeliness of service for EI and CPP-D clients and the ease of getting assistance for EI and SIN clients.
  • Current areas that were performing strongly and were correlated to satisfaction include service in choice of official language, completing application in a reasonable amount of time, and confident personal information was protected. These attributes should be maintained moving forward to protect these strengths.
  • The greatest opportunities to improve service across programs which represent areas strongly correlated to satisfaction where performance was lower to other areas include improving the helpfulness of call centre representatives (for EI, CPP and CPP-D), the timelessness of services (for EI and CPP-D), the ease of getting assistance (for EI and OAS/GIS) and the amount of travel required to access service (for EI and SIN).
  • For CPP-D clients, it will also be important to improve the clarity of requirements for the application.
  • For OAS/GIS clients, it will also be important to focus on improving the ease of finding information about the program, the ease of following up and confidence in issue resolution.

Key Findings: Service Channel Assessment

• Clients continued to be most satisfied with the in-person experience, while satisfaction remained lowest for specialized call centres. Satisfaction with the specialized call centres and Government of Canada websites declined for the second consecutive year.
  • As in previous years, the large majority of clients remained satisfied with each service channel.  Satisfaction with in-person service continued to be the highest (86%), followed by MSCA (75%), online (73%), 1 800 O-Canada (68%) and specialized call centres (60%).
  • For the second consecutive year, satisfaction among those who used specialized call centres declined with fewer clients providing the highest ratings. Fewer clients also expressed satisfaction with online compared to the previous year due to a reduction in those providing a rating of 4 out of 5.
• Satisfaction with service channels differed by program. CPP-D clients rated their satisfaction with in-person service and online lower compared to all clients.
  • Compared to 2018-19, EI clients provided lower ratings for online (71% vs. 79%) and specialized call centres (59% vs. 74%).
  • CPP (67% vs. 80%) and OAS/GIS (64% vs. 79%) clients also provided lower ratings for specialized call centres, while SIN clients provided lower ratings for in-person service (90% vs. 94%).
• Nearly all clients agreed they were provided service in their choice of English or French, and that it was easy to access service in a language they could speak and understand well. 
• Self-service clients continued to be well served by the online application process however EI clients experienced more difficulty understanding requirements of the application than in 2017-18.
  • The vast majority of self-service clients found it easy to understand the requirements of the application, put together the information needed and to complete the application in a reasonable amount of time.  EI clients who self-served were less likely to find it easy to understand the requirements of the application than in the baseline wave.
• MSCA was utilized by the vast majority of EI clients and half of CPP clients, while CPP-D or OAS/GIS clients were much less likely.  Notably, three in ten CPP-D clients (31%) and four in ten OAS/GIS clients (40%) had followed-up through MSCA. EI clients found the registration process easy, while clients from other programs had more difficulty.
  • Over three-quarters of EI clients (77%) and half of CPP clients (50%) used MSCA during their experience. Four in ten CPP-D clients (39%) and one-third OAS/GIS (32%) clients also did so. The vast majority of those registered for MSCA for the first time felt the process was easy (69%).  EI clients were more likely to have found the process easy, while CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients felt it was more difficult.
  • Overall, three-quarters (75%) of clients who utilized MSCA were satisfied. Satisfaction in Quebec (87%) was higher compared to all clients, while ratings were lowest in the West (70%).
• 1 800 O-Canada was utilized by a limited proportion of clients at the awareness stage and usage did not differ significantly across most vulnerable client groups. Satisfaction was lower among Indigenous clients and those with restrictions.
  • Fewer than one in ten (8%) clients used 1 800 O-Canada at the aware stage. Usage was consistent among most vulnerable groups but was higher among clients with disabilities and those with no devices (no computer, smartphone or tablet).  At seven in ten (69%), a strong majority of clients were satisfied with their experience with 1 800 O-Canada. Satisfaction with the channel was lower among Indigenous clients (52%) and clients with restrictions (55%).

Key Findings: Barriers to Accessing Service

• Clients with restrictions that make it more difficult to access service, and clients with disabilities continued to have lower satisfaction than other clients. Use of the online channel remained particularly challenging for both client groups.
  • Clients who experienced a restriction to accessing service (35% of the sample population) were more likely to have experienced a problem and have lower satisfaction with service provided in-person, through 1 800 O-Canada or MSCA. They were also less satisfied with several service attributes with the largest gaps for ease of registering for MSCA, ease of completing the application form, overall ease of applying, being able to complete steps online made the process easier for you and confidence in issue resolution.
  • Restrictions to accessing service were more prevalent among several vulnerable client groups, in particular clients with disabilities, those with a language barrier, non-English for French speaking clients. Incidence of restrictions were also higher among Indigenous clients, mobile-only clients, clients with no devices and e-vulnerable clients.
  • Clients who self identify as having a disability (7% of the sample population) were significantly more likely to have experienced a problem and rate channel satisfaction lower for in-person service. They were also less satisfied with several service attributes with the largest gaps for being able to complete steps online made the process easier for you, ease of finding the information needed to provide when applying, ease of understanding the requirements of the application and ease of putting together the information needed.
  • Compared to 2018-19, there were improvements across a number of service attributes including needing to explain your situation only once, being able to complete steps online made the process easier for you and confidence your personal information was protected.

Key Findings: Vulnerable Groups

• Among the 16 vulnerable client groupings, most provided high ratings of the service experience. Satisfaction among Indigenous clients and those living in remote areas declined year over year.
  • Satisfaction with the service experience remained strong and the vast majority of clients in vulnerable groups rated it positively. Notably, satisfaction among Newcomers was higher than compared to all clients.
  • Overall satisfaction among Indigenous clients (specifically those in remote areas) and clients living in remote (in general) declined compared to 2018-19. Satisfaction among Indigenous clients was also lower this year compared to all clients.
  • Compared to 2018-19, Indigenous clients were more likely to have experienced a problem and have lower satisfaction with service provided online, through the specialized call centre or 1 800 O-Canada. Satisfaction also declined for ease of applying, ease of getting help when needed, moving smoothly through all steps and clarity of the issue resolution process.
  • Indigenous clients were less likely to feel it was easy to figure out if they were eligible for benefits, finding the steps to apply, understanding the requirements of the application, completing the form and moving smoothly through all steps compared to all clients.
  • Among clients living in remote areas, satisfaction declined overall but remained consistent with all clients. Ratings declined for being able to move smoothly through all steps, clarity of process, easy to get help when needed and receiving consistent information. Notably, remote clients were more likely however to feel confident their application would be processed in a reasonable amount of time compared to all clients.

Background and Objectives

Research Background and Objectives

• In line with both the Treasury Board Policy on Service and Digital, which outlines the key principles to achieve better and more efficient design and delivery of Government of Canada services, and ESDC’s Service Strategy and Service Transformation Plan, the Department required data on its service experience from the client’s perspective to assist in effectively managing service delivery.
• In 2017, the Citizen Service Branch launched the annual Client Experience (CX) Survey as part of a structured approach to collecting feedback from clients to track how well Service Canada was delivering federal programs through its service channels. The CX Survey was conducted again in 2018-19.
• The survey assessed the extent to which the service design worked for clients as they went through the process of accessing programs through Service Canada’s service delivery system.
• The Client Experience Survey was originally intended to be conducted in two phases. The first phase involved executing the Client Experience (CX) Survey while the second phase was to have included a series of online focus groups and in-depth interviews. Due to the on-going situation with COVID-19, the second phase was cancelled.
• Having fielded the survey in 2017-18 and 2018-19, the CX Survey in 2019-20 collected trend data to contribute to monitoring the service delivery performance of Service Canada, and to report annual satisfaction to meet service standards on the client experience. The survey also tracked take-up of self-service and assisted self-service among Service Canada clients to inform Service Transformation over time.
• The research objectives for the quantitative phase were to:
  • Provide tracking on key service performance measures, primarily overall satisfaction and ease, effectiveness and confidence with the service experience by program, client group, and service channels used.
  • Track take-up of self-service and assisted self-service among Service Canada clients to inform Service Transformation over time.
  • Assess ease, effectiveness, confidence, and satisfaction using the Client Experience Measurement Model as clients use the service channels to access programs.

Service Canada Client Experience Survey Model

Service Canada Client Experience (CX) Survey Measurement Model

• Service Canada developed the survey model below as a consistent framework for assessing the service experience of its clients.
• The methodology for the Client Experience Survey was initially implemented in 2017-18. In the 2018-19 wave of the survey, the questionnaire was limited to the overall experience to allow for measures to gather data to inform service transformation. In the 2019-20 wave, the questionnaire once again took the approach utilized in 2017-18 to allow for assessment of tracking of each stage of the client journey

Note: The Model was drawn from a combination of existing models to suit Service Canada context, and validated through consultation with internal stakeholders. The existing models include: The Common Measurements Tool (CMT), owned and licensed by the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service (ICCS), the client survey model used by the Government of Quebec, and Forrester’s approach to client experience measurement.

Service Canada CX Survey Measurement Model: Service Attributes

• The following was the full set of detailed service attributes in the model that guided the development of the baseline questionnaire.

Client Perception

• Satisfaction with overall service experience
• Trust in SC delivering services effectively

Research Approach

Overview- Quantitative Approach

• A telephone survey was conducted with a sample of 2,431 Service Canada clients across the six major programs, with between 360 and 700 respondents interviewed about their experience with each program. The interviews were conducted from February 25 to March 16, 2020 (Fieldwork ended early due to COVID-19).
• In order to examine the overall service experience, including how clients used the various channels to complete the steps of their client journeys, the clientele was defined as clients who had recently completed a client journey, up to initial decision.
• The sample of clients who had received a service outcome during August, September, or October 2019 were randomly selected from program administrative databases. Comparisons of findings to the baseline data must take into account that the 2017-18 survey wave largely sampled clients who received a service outcome in April, May, or June 2017.
• The sample was stratified by program. Weighting adjustments were made to bring the sample into proportion with the universe by age, gender, and region within each program, and to bring the over-sampled groups back to their proportion among clients.
• Data based on the total population have a margin of error of +/-2.0% at the 95% confidence interval, while data based on sub-groups have a larger margin of error. For example, the margin of error for data for each program was between +/-3.7% to +/-5.1%.
• The data was weighted in proportion to age, gender, region, and program volume.

Data Collection- Quantitative Approach

• The questionnaire was developed based on the Service Canada Client Experience Measurement Model. The 2017-18 CX Survey and 2018-19 CX Survey were used as the basis for developing the questionnaire design. Modifications were made to align with elements of the baseline 2017-18 survey to allow for assessment of each stage of the client journey as well as tracking service levels over that time.
• The questionnaire was pretested on February 25-26 and fieldwork took place between February 27 and March 16, 2020.
• Experienced, trained interviewers were specifically briefed on the requirements of this study. A minimum of 10% of each interviewer’s calls were monitored by a team leader.
• Respondents were interviewed in their choice of English or French. For those who could not respond in either language, a proxy respondent (who had assisted them in contacting Service Canada) could respond on their behalf. In addition, respondents who could not speak either official language were provided an option of using an on-demand translation service.  No respondents utilized the service this wave. Interviews using the live translation service were scheduled, however they could not be honoured due to fieldwork ending early as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• To better reach Deaf or Hard of Hearing clients, those clients utilizing the SVR Canada VRS telephone service were also able to complete the survey.
• Oversamples were conducted with two vulnerable client groups: those living in remote areas and Indigenous clients (See Appendix A for the definitions of vulnerable client groups). This was done to provide a minimum of 400 completed interviews with each group.  However, due to fieldwork ending early, fewer completed interviews were achieved (n=320 among Indigenous clients, n=271 among Remote clients).

Calibration of the Data- Quantitative Approach

• A multi-tiered approach has been used to weight the data from the sample for the Client Experience survey into proportion with the universe of ESDC clients. Steps in the weighting comprised:
  •  Adjust to the universe proportions of age, gender, and region for each program.
  •  Weight over-sampled populations back into proportion to their presence in the universe.
  •  Weight the number of respondents in each program in proportion to the total number of clients.
  •  Weight the number respondents by each region in proportion to the total number of clients.
  •  Adjust to the universe proportions of benefits received for each program.
• OAS and GIS have been combined into one client group and weighted according to age, gender, region, and benefit receipt were applied based on combined program figures. The proportion of clients in each program were weighted separately.
• The universe proportions used to develop the targets were based on data extracts provided by the client.
• Additional details on the methodology were provided in Appendix A. A description of the sampling strategy, weighting and limitations were provided under separate cover, together with the survey questionnaire and the focus group discussion guide.
• To ensure comparability of results between 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 the proportions of clients by program were held consistent and based on composition of the clientele in May of 2017-18.

Detailed Findings

Transformation: Impact on Multi-Channel Use

CPP and OAS/GIS clients’ use of in-person and/ or phone channels declined with the introduction of new online services.

Nearly four in ten CPP or OAS/GIS clients continued to use in-person to apply or follow-up.

• Satisfaction levels were maintained with the increased digitization.
  • CPP: 88% vs. 87% in 2018-19, 87% in 2017-18
  • OAS/ GIS: 87% vs. 87% in 2018-19, 86% in 2017-18

Overall, in-person use at some point in the client journey went up to 62% of all clients (vs. 60% in 2017-18)

• The proportion of certain vulnerable client groups was higher among in-person clientele.
• Youth and Newcomers were more prevalent at either the aware or apply stages. OLMC and Mobile only clients at the aware stage, Urban and Non English or French speaking clients at the apply stage and Rural clients at the follow-up stage.  The proportion of clients with no devices was higher at all stages.

Satisfaction continued to drop after four contacts with Service Canada (74% satisfied with 5+ contacts vs. 84% overall)

The proportion of clients with 5+ contacts increased among EI (60% vs. 51%) and CPP (45% vs. 30%) clients compared to last year

Change in Uptake of Self-Service

Change in Multiple Channel Use Over Time

• Overall, clients were more likely to use assisted self-service at some point across the entire client journey compared to baseline wave in 2017-18.
• The majority of clients continued to utilize in-person service at some point during the client journey, while nearly two in ten self-served only, one in ten self-served with assistance, four percent were auto-enrolled only and one percent only received service by mail (n=60).  
• The balance of clients, around one in ten (6%), either indicated using no channels throughout their experience or did not fit a defined level of service.  This figure was lower than the proportion in 2017-18 (10%).

NOTE ON MULTIPLE CHANNEL USE: There was a select number of clients who either did not indicate a channel at all stage or do not fit into any of the defined service levels. The proportion of these respondents as a part of the total sample was:

• 2019-20- 6%
• 2017-18- 10%

Multiple Channel Use definitions were mutually exclusive paths that track the client journey. The Multiple Channel Use variables were used to assess whether there has been an increase or decrease in a particular method of contact with Service Canada.

• In Person: If a respondent goes into a Service Canada centre at any stage of their journey, they were considered to have used the “in person” service level
• Self Service Only: These respondents use online offerings including the Government of Canada website and their My Service Canada Account. They engage online at all stages.
• Assisted Self Service: These respondents use an online or mail, but also contact Service Canada by phone, or a combination of phone and online or mail throughout their journey.
• Auto-Enroll Only: These respondents were auto-enrolled in their program/benefit and made no additional contact with Service Canada.
• Mail Only: These were respondents who only contact Service Canada by mail at every stage, making no use of the online, in person, or telephone services.  

Service Levels by Stage in the Client Journey: Overall

Clients were more likely to use in-person service during the apply stage and less likely during the awareness stage compared to the baseline wave. They were also more likely to use self-service with phone assistance for follow-up.

• Proportion who completed the client journey using only self-service (without assistance by phone or in-person): 17%
• Proportion who used high-touch service (in-person and may have used other channels) at some point in the client journey: 62%

Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding and not all clients choosing to follow-up

* It should be noted that there was missing data for contact by auto-enrolled clients in the baseline survey

Note: In 2018-19 the channel use question was asked once at the beginning of the survey and pertaining to the apply stage. Caution should be used in making comparisons between years at the apply stage.

Service Levels by Stage in the Client Journey: CPP

CPP clients were more likely to self-serve and less likely to rely on in-person service at the aware or apply stage compared to the baseline wave, they were also less likely to only receive mail service at the apply stage compared to the baseline wave.

• Proportion who completed the client journey using only self-service (without assistance by phone or in-person):  31%
• Proportion who used high-touch service (in-person and may have used other channels) at some point in the client journey: 45%

Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding and not all clients choosing to follow-up

Note: In 2018-19 the channel use question was asked once at the beginning of the survey and pertaining to the apply stage. Caution should be used in making comparisons between years at the apply stage.

Service Levels by Stage in the Client Journey: OAS/GIS

• OAS/GIS clients were more likely to self-serve at the apply or follow-up stage than they were in the baseline wave. They were also less likely to rely on in-person service at the awareness stage compared to 2017-18.
• There was a small proportion (8%) of OAS/GIS clients who said they applied online, although this was not an option for this program. We can consider that these clients may have applied for a separate program online, including their CPP, and may be conflating the two programs when responding to the question.

• Proportion who completed the client journey using only self-service (without assistance by phone or in-person): 6%
• Proportion who used high-touch service (in-person and may have used other channels) at some point in the client journey: 29%

Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding and not all clients choosing to follow-up

* It should be noted that there was missing data for contact by auto-enrolled clients in the baseline survey

Note: In 2018-19 the channel use question was asked once at the beginning of the survey and pertaining to the apply stage. Caution should be used in making comparisons between years at the apply stage.

Service Levels by Stage in the Client Journey: EI

EI clients were less likely to self-serve at the aware or apply stages compared to 2017-18 and were more likely to rely on in-person service when applying. They were also less likely to utilize self-service with phone assistance during the apply stage and more likely during the follow-up stage when contrasted with the baseline wave.

• Proportion who completed the client journey using only self-service (without assistance by phone or in-person): 26%
• Proportion who used high-touch service (in-person and may have used other channels) at some point in the client journey: 55%

Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding and not all clients choosing to follow-up

Note: In 2018-19 the channel use question was asked once at the beginning of the survey and pertaining to the apply stage. Caution should be used in making comparisons between years at the apply stage.

Service Levels by Stage in the Client Journey: CPP-D

This wave, CPP-D clients were less likely to utilize self-service with phone assistance during the apply stage than they were in 2017-18.

• Proportion who completed the client journey using only self-service (without assistance by phone or in-person): 8%
• Proportion who used high-touch service (in-person and may have used other channels) at some point in the client journey: 49%

Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding and not all clients choosing to follow-up

Note: In 2018-19 the channel use question was asked once at the beginning of the survey and pertaining to the apply stage. Caution should be used in making comparisons between years at the apply stage.

Prevalence of Receiving EI E-mail or CPP-D Proactive Call (Reported)

• Two-thirds of EI clients received a letter or email from Service Canada about their application status prior to receiving a decision, of which more than half received a letter and one-third an email.
• More than half of CPP-D clients received a call from Service Canada to discuss their application status and next steps prior to receiving a decision.

Q20bx. Before you received a decision about your application to [ABBREV], did…Base: CPP-D or EI Clients (n= varies).

Impact of Receiving EI E-mail or CPP-D Proactive Call on Satisfaction

• Satisfaction was significantly higher among clients who were contacted by Service Canada before receiving a decision, compared to those who were not.
• Satisfaction was consistent among EI clients who received either an email or a letter.

Q20bx. Before you received a decision about your application to [ABBREV], did…Base: CPP-D or EI Clients (n= varies).

Number of Contacts with Service Canada

Number of Times Contacted Service Canada By Channel

• Clients were more likely to have been in contact with Service Canada five or more times than in 2018-19, due primarily to an increase in the number of times clients have contacted specialized call centres and to a lesser extent utilized in-person service.
• Number of contacts during the client journey continued to differ significantly by channel. Clients who used the in person or mail channels were more likely to have been in contact with Service Canada once during their experience, while those used the online channel or called a specialized call centre were much more likely to have been in contact 5 times or more.

Q1c. Thinking back over your experience during the process of learning about, and applying for [INSERT ABBREV], how many times did you… [IF MULTIPLE SOURCES SELCTED AT Q1a ‘use each of the following’ IF ONLY ONE SOURCE SELECTED AT Q1a ‘INSERT SINGLE ITEM FROM LIST BELOW’] during your experience with [INSERT ABBREV]? Base: All respondents (n=varies)

*Question wording and attributes changed slightly from 2018-19

Number of Times Contacted Service Canada by Program

• Number of contacts continued to differ by program with EI and CPP-D clients being most likely to have contacted Service Canada 5+ times, while SIN and OAS/GIS were most likely to have contacted Service Canada 1 or 2 times.
• EI and CPP clients were more likely to have been in contact with Service Canada 5+ times compared to 2018-19, while CPP-D clients were less likely to have had contact twice and SIN clients were directionally more likely to have had contact only once.

Level of Satisfaction by Number of Contacts

• As in previous years, the level of satisfaction with the service experience declined by the number of times the client contacted Service Canada. Satisfaction was notably lower among those who had five or more contacts with Service Canada through any channel during the client journey.
• Compared to 2018-19, satisfaction improved among those who had contact once or twice and declined among those who had a greater number of contacts during their experience.

Q38a. Again thinking about the overall service from getting information about [INSERT ABBREV] to receiving a decision. How satisfied were you with the service you received from Service Canada? Please use a 5-point scale, where 1 means very dissatisfied, and 5 means very satisfied. Base: All respondents (n=2431)

Channel Use by Stage and Program

Channel Use at Aware Stage- Overall and by Program

• Clients continued to be most likely to use online government sources to find out about the program they applied for, followed by in-person service while around one in ten used either telephone or mail. Use of online and in-person channels increased compared to the baseline wave, while telephone and mail decreased.
• Compared to 2017-18, EI, CPP and OAS/GIS clients were more likely to use the online channel during the aware stage. EI clients were also more likely to use in-person service. while CPP, CPP-D and SIN clients were less likely to use telephone. CPP-D and SIN were also less likely to use mail and OAS/GIS clients were more likely.

Q1a. Which of the following did you use to find out about or before you applied? Did you… Base: All Answering (n=1759)

Channel Use at Apply Stage- Overall and by Program

• Clients were most likely to use in-person service when applying, followed by online while around one in ten used either telephone or mail. Use of in-person service increased compared to the baseline wave, while online, telephone and mail decreased.
• Compared to 2017-18, CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients were more likely to use the online channel, while EI clients were less likely. EI and SIN clients were more likely to use in-person service and less likely to use telephone, while CPP clients were less likely to use in-person. EI and CPP were also less likely to use mail service.

Q9bx Thinking back to when you actually applied for [IF NOT SIN INSERT [INSERT ABBREV] benefits], [IF SIN INSERT: a SIN number], which of the following methods did you use when completing and submitting your application? Did you ...

Base: All Answering (n=1989)

Channel Use at Follow Up Stage- Overall and by Program

• Clients continued to be most likely to use the telephone channel when following up on their application, followed by online and in-person service while around one in ten used mail. Use of online and mail increased compared to the baseline wave.
• Compared to 2017-18, EI, CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients were more likely to use the online channel, while EI and CPP-D clients were also more likely to use the telephone channel. OAS/GIS clients were less likely to use the telephone channel, while CPP-D clients were less likely to use mail.

Q18 How did you contact the government before you were notified of a decision on your [INSERT ABBREV] application? Was it...

Base: All Answering (n=842).

Reported Increased Ease Provided by Digital Services

• Consistent with last year, three quarters of clients agreed that being able to complete steps online made the process easier. EI clients were more likely to agree compared to all clients.
• While CPP, OAS/GIS, and CPP-D clients were less likely to agree, the proportion of each of these programs’ clients who find that completing steps online makes the process easier significantly increased since 2018-19.

Q36b. Thinking about the overall service you received, from getting information about to receiving a decision, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements, using a 5-point scale (where 1 means strongly disagree, and 5 means strongly agree.) Base: All Answering (n=1741)

Multi-Channel Use By Stage

Multi-Channel Use: Online Channel Usage In-Depth

• Clients most often used the online channel first at the aware and follow-up stage of the client journey and most used in-person first for the apply stage (followed closely by online).
• Year over year, clients were more likely to have used online first at the follow-up stage and less likely at the apply stage. There was also a decline among those who used in-person as a second point of contact at the aware stage and who used the telephone channel as a third contact.

Base: All respondents, base may vary by statement Questions 1a, 2, 3, 9bx, 10x, 11x, 18, 19a, 19b

Multi-Channel Use: In Person Channel Usage In-Depth

• In-person was the most used channel as a first point of contact at the apply stage and second most used at the aware and follow-up stage (behind online). Clients who began in-person continued to be less likely to have utilized a second channel compared to those who began online.
• Year over year, clients were less likely to have used in-person first at the aware or follow-up stage and more likely at the apply stage. Among those who used in-person first, more clients used telephone as a second channel at follow-up and fewer at the aware or apply stages. Those who used in-person first at the aware stage were more likely to have used online as a second channel (however a greater proportion of that group used telephone as a third channel).

Base: All respondents, base may vary by statement Questions 1a, 2, 3, 9bx, 10x, 11x, 18, 19a, 19b

Multi-Channel Use: Telephone Channel Usage In-Depth

• Telephone continued to be the least used channel for the first point of contact at the aware and apply stages and was the second most used at the follow-up stage. Clients were generally more likely to go in-person or online after beginning over the phone at the apply and aware stage, but were more likely to use only the phone if they begin with this channel at the follow-up stage.
• Year over year, clients were less likely to have used the telephone channel at the apply stage. Among those who used telephone first, more clients used in-person as a second channel at aware or follow-up. Clients were also more likely to have used online at the follow-up stage as a second channel.

Base: All respondents, base may vary by statement Questions 1a, 2, 3, 9bx, 10x, 11x, 18, 19a, 19b

Reason for Follow-up

• Clients who followed-up were most often checking the status of their application or payment, and, to a lesser extent providing additional information.
• EI or CPP-D clients were more likely to follow-up than clients of other programs.

Q17. Before you received a decision, did you contact Service Canada to… Base: Completed an application. (n=2148)

Use of In-Person Channel by Vulnerable Clients 

Proportion of Vulnerable Client Groups

Presence of vulnerable client groups differed significantly by program due in large part to program design.

Profile of In Person Clientele- Proportion of Vulnerable Client Groups

• The proportion of vulnerable groups among in person clientele varied with certain groups having relied more on in person service.
• Youth and Newcomers were more prevalent among those who used in person at either the aware or apply stages. The proportion of OLMC and Mobile only clients were higher at the aware stage, Urban and Non English or French speaking clients at the apply stage and Rural clients at the follow-up stage. The proportion of clients with no devices was higher at all stages.

Impact of Service Changes on Individual Channel Service Experience

Satisfaction remained the highest with in person service, followed by MSCA, the online channel overall, 1 800 O-Canada and specialized call centres.

CPP-D clients rated in-person or online lower compared to all clients, while SIN clients provided higher ratings for online.

Elevated inventory of EI resulted in lower satisfaction with specialized call centres. EI clients also provided lower ratings for online, SIN clients for in-person and CPP and OAS/GIS clients for specialized call centres.

The vast majority of EI clients used MSCA during their experience and found the registration process easy. CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients had more difficulty registering and were less likely to have used MSCA.

With numerous changes planned to the online information available about programs, data was obtained to provide a baseline measure so impact can be assessed once the changes have been implemented. While most clients felt it was easy to find information about the program on the Government of Canada website, the steps to apply, and what information they needed to provide, it was more difficult to figure out eligibility and find needed information within a reasonable amount of time.

Satisfaction by Service Channel

• Satisfaction with in person service remained the highest, followed by MSCA, online, 1 800 O-Canada and specialized call centres.
• Compared to 2018-19, there was a decline in satisfaction among those who used the government website or specialized call centres.

Q27. How satisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from…? Base: All Answering (n=varies)

*Excludes SIN clients ** New attribute added in 2019-20

Satisfaction with Service Channels by Program

• Satisfaction with service channels differed by program: CPP-D clients rated their satisfaction with in-person service and online lower compared to all clients.
• Compared to 2018-19, EI clients provided lower ratings for online and specialized call centres, SIN clients provided lower ratings for in-person service, while CPP and OAS/GIS clients provided lower ratings for specialized call centres.
• Sample sizes for SIN clients use of specialized call centre and 1 800 O-Canada were too low for reporting.

Q27. How satisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from…?

*Excludes SIN clients ** New attribute added in 2019-20

Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Ease of Using the Government of Canada Website

• Clients were most likely to feel it  was easy to find out the steps to apply, find out what information they need to provide and find information about the program they were applying. 
• Figuring out eligibility and finding needed information within a reasonable amount of time both saw significant decreases this year.

Q6. When you were looking for information about on the Government of Canada website, how easy or difficult was it to…? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was very difficult and 5 was very easy, how would you rate…? Base: All Answering (n=varies)  Q7. How much do you agree or disagree that you were able to find the information you needed (online, in person or by phone) within a reasonable amount of time? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was disagree strongly and 5 was agree strongly. Base= All Respondents (n=2431).

Ease of Application Process among Self-Service Clients

• The vast majority of self-service clients found it easy to understand the requirements of the application, put together the information needed and to complete the application in a reasonable amount of time. Year over year, EI clients who self-served were less likely to find it easy to understand the requirements of the application.
• Self-service clients were more likely to find it easy to put together the information needed compared to all clients, particularly CPP-RTR clients, and to be able to complete the application in a reasonable time.

Q13. How would you rate the following when you were applying for [insert abbrev]? Base: Self Service Clients (Overall n=350, EI n=174, n CPP-RTR n=116).

Use of My Service Canada Account (MSCA)

• The vast majority of those who had to register for MSCA for the first time felt the process was easy.  EI clients were more likely to find the process easy, while CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients felt it was more difficult.
• Over three-quarters of EI clients and half of CPP clients used MSCA during their experience. Four in ten CPP-D clients and one-third OAS/GIS clients also did so.
• EI clients were equally as likely to have registered for MSCA for the first time as they were to have used their MSCA account that they registered for in the past. CPP-D were somewhat more likely to have registered for the first time, while OAS/GIS clients were more likely to have registered in the past.

Q34aa. At any point in your recent experience with did you….Base: All answering excluding SIN (n=2069)

Q34ab. Using a 5-point scale where 1 was very difficult and 5 was very easy, how easy or difficult was it to register for your My Service Canada Account? Base: Registered or attempted to register for MSCA (n=604)

In-Person and Telephone Experience

• Clients who used in-person services were nearly unanimous in their agreement that in-person Service Canada representatives were helpful, with 92% providing a rating of 4/5. Three quarters of respondents agreed that they travelled a reasonable distance to access the service.
• Just under three quarters of respondents who used telephone services agreed that Service Canada specialized call centre phone representatives were helpful.

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Base: All Answering (n=varies) ** New attribute added in 2019-20

Use of 1 800 O-Canada at Aware Stage and Channel Satisfaction - Overall and by Vulnerable Group

• Overall, just under one in ten clients used 1 800 O-Canada at the aware stage to learn about the program they applied for. Usage at the aware stage was higher among clients with disabilities and those with no devices (no computer, smartphone or tablet).
• At seven in ten, a strong majority of clients were satisfied with their experience with 1 800 O-Canada. Satisfaction with the channel was lower among indigenous clients and clients with restrictions.

Q1a. Which of the following did you use to find out about [INSERT PROGRAM] or [INSERT ABBREV] before you applied? Did you ... Q1bx. You indicated you contacted a government office by telephone. There were two types of call centres, and we'd like to know which one you called. Did you call..?

Base: Used 1 800 O-Canada at awareness stage n=152 **Base size too small to t-test

Impact of Service Changes on the Client Experience

Overall satisfaction with the service experienced declined since 2017-18 due to lower satisfaction among EI clients (and the high proportion of Service Canada clientele they represented*).

While there was an increase in up-take of online services among CPP and OAS/GIS clients, satisfaction remained the same.

Changes to CPP-D service delivery resulted in:

• More clients reported that being able to complete steps online made the process easier (from 31% to 37%)
• Much greater satisfaction among clients who reported receiving a proactive call to explain the process (69% compared to 49%)
• Stable satisfaction with service despite lower grant rate (53% vs. 61%)

*the proportion of clients by program was held consistent vs. the baseline wave to ensure comparability of results and that any changes observed over time were not as a result of client distribution.

Overall Satisfaction

Satisfaction, Ease and Effectiveness Over Time

• The vast majority of clients were satisfied with their experience and found it easy and effective.
• Year over year, effectiveness declined, while overall satisfaction was lower than in the baseline wave in 2017-18. Ease remained stable over time.

Satisfaction with Service Experience

• Overall, the vast majority of clients remained satisfied with the service experience, consistent with 2018-19 but lower than in 2017-18.  For the second year in a row, ratings continued to soften with fewer clients providing a rating of 5 for their overall experience and a greater proportion providing ratings of 3 or 2.
• This finding reflects the composition of the clientele, half of which were EI clients, and nearly a third of which were SIN clients.

Q38a. How satisfied were you with the service you received from Service Canada related to your application? please use a 5-point scale, where 1 means very dissatisfied, and 5 means very satisfied. Base: All Respondents (n=2431).

Satisfaction by Region

Q27. How satisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from Your My Service Canada Account?

Base: used the MSCA (n=576).**New attribute added in 2019-20

Satisfaction with Service Experience by Program

• Satisfaction by program was stable compared to 2018-19, while satisfaction among EI clients declined since 2017-18. 
• Consistent with previous years, satisfaction remained higher for SIN clients and lower for EI and CPP-D clients.

Q38a. How satisfied were you with the service you received from Service Canada related to your application? please use a 5-point scale, where 1 means very dissatisfied, and 5 means very satisfied. Base: All Respondents (n=2431).

Ease, Effectiveness and Confidence

• A strong majority of clients found the process effective, easy and had confidence in the issue resolution process. EI and CPP-D clients were less likely to feel the process was effective or to have confidence in issue resolution compared to all clients. CPP-D clients also were less likely to feel it was easy to apply. SIN clients were more likely to feel the process was effective and were more likely to have confidence in issue resolution, while OAS/GIS clients were more likely to feel the process was easy and effective.
• Compared to 2018-19, EI clients were less likely to feel the process was effective, while OAS/GIS clients were more likely to consider it effective. CPP clients were more likely to have confidence in the issue resolution process in 2019-20 than the previous year.

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements… You were confident that any issues or problems would have been easily resolved? Base: All Respondents (n=2431). You were able to move smoothly through all of the steps related to your claim/ application? Base: All Answering (n=2103). Overall, it was easy for you to apply for [ABBREV]? Base: All Answering (n=1741)

Trust in Service Canada

• The vast majority of clients continued to trust Service Canada to deliver services effectively to Canadians and ratings have improved among CPP clients year over year. EI and CPP-D were less likely to express trust compared to all clients, while SIN clients were more likely.
• This measure remained strongly correlated to overall satisfaction

Q38b. How much would you say you trust Service Canada to deliver services effectively to Canadians? Please use a 5-point scale, where 1 means do not trust at all, and 5 means trust a great deal. Base: All Respondents (n=2431)

Effectiveness of Issue Resolution

• The incidence of problem experience increased since 2018-19 and returned to levels observed in 2017-18. However, among those who experienced a problem ease of resolution has increased.
• The most common problems/issues experienced were that it took too long to provide benefits, decision, long/complicated applications, and that online information was confusing. Compared to 2018-19, fewer clients mention that the application form was long or complicated.

Q36a. Thinking about your overall experience getting information about and applying for [INSERT ABBREV], did you experience any problems or issues during this process? Base: All respondents (n=2431)

Q36BX. Would you agree or disagree that the problem or issue was easily resolved, where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree? Base: Encountered a Problem (n=470).

Q36b. Thinking about the overall service you received, from getting information about to receiving a decision, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements, using a 5-point scale (where 1 means strongly disagree, and 5 means strongly agree.) Base: All respondents (n=2431)

Effectiveness of Issue Resolution- By Program

• CPP-D and EI clients were most likely to have experienced a problem, while OAS/GIS and SIN were least likely.  A greater number of EI and SIN clients experienced a problem this year compared to last year.
• Ease of problem/issue resolution was highest for SIN clients and lowest for CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients.  Ease of resolution increased significantly for EI and SIN clients this year compared to last year.

Q36a. Thinking about your overall experience getting information about and applying for [INSERT ABBREV], did you experience any problems or issues during this process? Base: All Respondents (n=2431).

Assessment of Duration of End-to-End Journey

More than three-quarters of all clients said the timeliness of service was reasonable, consistent with previous waves. SIN, CPP and OAS/GIS clients were the most likely to rate the timeliness of service as reasonable, while EI and CPP-D provide lower ratings. OAS/GIS were more likely to agree this year that the timeliness of service was reasonable, the second consecutive increase year over year.

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements…The amount of time it took, from when you started gathering information to when you got a decision on your application, was reasonable. Base: All respondents (n=2431)

Highlights By Program

Satisfaction Drivers – EI

Base: EI-clients, n=701. Margin of Error +/- 3.7 percentage points. Within this, sample size varies by statement.

Note: 2019-20 sample size was reduced due to the need to stop the survey when the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Satisfaction Drivers – CPP

Base: CPP-clients, n=389. Margin of Error +/- 5.0 percentage points.  Within this, sample size varies by statement.

Note: 2019-20 sample size was reduced due to the need to stop the survey when the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Satisfaction Drivers – CPP-D

Base: CPP-D-clients n= 417. Margin of Error +/- 4.8 percentage points. Within this, sample size varies by statement.

Note: 2019-20 sample size was reduced due to the need to stop the survey when the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Satisfaction Drivers – SIN

Base: SIN-clients, n=362. Margin of Error +/- 5.1 percentage points Within this, sample size varies by statement.

Note: 2019-20 sample size was reduced due to the need to stop the survey when the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Satisfaction Drivers – OAS/GIS

Base: OAS/GIS-clients, n=562. Margin of Error +/- 4.1 percentage points Within this, sample size varies by statement.

Note: 2019-20 sample size was reduced due to the need to stop the survey when the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Key Differences Between OAS and OAS/GIS Clients

• Overall satisfaction was higher among OAS/GIS compared to all clients and has improved compared to 2018-19. Satisfaction among OAS clients was consistent and unchanged.
• OAS/GIS clients were also more likely than OAS clients to trust Service Canada and more likely to do so than in 2018-19. OAS clients have lower trust compared to all clients.
• Both OAS and OAS/GIS clients were less likely to have experienced a problem compared to all clients.
• OAS/GIS clients had higher satisfaction with specialized call centres compared to all clients, while satisfaction among OAS clients declined compared to 2018-19.
• Notably, the vast majority of OAS clients were auto-enrolled (65%), while the opposite was true for OAS/GIS clients (69% non-auto-enrolled). Due to the significant difference in composition by program, findings from comparisons between these client groups were heavily influenced by whether the client was auto-enrolled or not.

• Compared to 2018-19, there was improvement across several measures for OAS/GIS clients of which ratings have risen the most for only needing to explain your situation once, that being able to complete steps online made it easier, and that the amount of time was reasonable. OAS clients were more likely to feel being able to complete steps online made it easier and were less likely to feel confident their personal information was protected.
• Both OAS and OAS/GIS clients provided higher ratings compared to all clients that the amount of time was reasonable and that the process was clear compared to all clients. Both OAS and OAS/GIS gave lower ratings of agreement that completing steps online made it easier.
• OAS clients also provided lower ratings for being confident their personal information was protected and that it was easy to get help when needed.

Key Differences Between Auto-Enroll and Non Auto-Enroll Clients

• Overall satisfaction was higher among Non Auto-Enroll clients compared to all clients, while satisfaction among auto-enroll clients was consistent with all clients.
• Compared to 2018-19, Non Auto-Enroll clients were less satisfied with specialized call centres.
• Year over year, there was improvement across several service attributes for Non Auto Enroll clients of which the largest shifts were in agreement that completing steps online made it easier, that you needed to explain your situation only once, and on clarity of process.  Auto-enroll clients provided lower ratings in confidence that their personal information was protected.

• Both Auto-enroll and Non Auto-enroll clients provided higher ratings compared to all clients for the amount of time was reasonable. Non Auto-enroll clients also provided higher ratings across several other attributes.
• Auto-enroll clients provided lower ratings compared to all clients for confidence their personal information was protected, confidence in issue resolution, and it was easy to get help when needed.

Ease of Navigating Government of Canada Website

Q6. When you were looking for information about on the Government of Canada website, how easy or difficult was it to…? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was very difficult and 5 was very easy, how would you rate…? Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Q7. How much do you agree or disagree that you were able to find the information you needed (online, in person or by phone) within a reasonable amount of time? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was disagree strongly and 5 was agree strongly. Base= All Respondents (n=2431).

Ease, Timeliness and Confidence of Application Stage

Q12. How much do you agree or disagree that you were able to complete the application in a reasonable amount of time? (Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was disagree strongly and 5 was agree strongly.) Base: All respondents (n=2431)

Q13. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was very difficult and 5 was very easy, how would you rate the following when you were applying for [INSERT ABBREV]? Base: All answering (n=varies)

Q14c. After you submitted your application for [INSERT ABBREV], how confident were you that your application would be processed in a reasonable amount of time. Please use a 5-point scale, where 1 was very worried and 5 was very confident.  Base= Non-SIN clients and those who did not apply in person (n=1798).

Ease of Follow-Up with Service Canada

Q20a. Using a 5-point scale where 1 was very difficult and 5 was very easy, how easy or difficult was it to follow up with Service Canada about your application? Base= All Respondents (n=842).

Ease Service Attributes- Overall and By Program

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Effectiveness Service Attributes- Overall and By Program

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Confidence Service Attributes- Overall and By Program

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Base: All Answering (n=varies) ** New attribute added in 2019-20

How to Further Improve Service/ Drivers of Satisfaction

Summary: Drivers of Satisfaction- Overall

• The top three (3) most prominent drivers of satisfaction in the service experience remain consistent year over year*. 
  • The primary drivers of satisfaction in the service experience are: the amount of time it took from start and to finish was reasonable, the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre phone representatives, and ease of getting assistance when needed. 
  • Other prominent drivers included whether the application was approved or denied, completing the application in a reasonable time, provision of service in both official languages, and ease of follow-up.
  • The impact of whether the application was approved or denied has taken on increased importance in driving satisfaction.
• The greatest opportunities for potential improvement for Service Canada clientele as a whole are improving the timeliness of service, the helpfulness of call centre representatives, and the ease of getting assistance when needed. 
  • In order to summarize what potential changes could result in an increase in overall satisfaction, the service attributes that most strongly drive satisfaction for Service Canada clients are determined and compared to Service Canada’s performance against these attributes.
  • The resulting analysis found that common areas for potential improvement include improving the timeliness of service, the helpfulness of call centre representatives, and the ease of getting assistance when needed.
  • Provision of service in official language of choice, access to service in a language clients could understand well, and the helpfulness of Service Canada in-person representatives remain prominent strengths for the organization and an area that should be maintained.
• Of the potential process improvements presented to clients, most indicated that receiving quicker assistance by phone would have improved their experience the most (across all programs). 

*Note: additional aspects of the aware, apply and follow-up stages are included in drivers analysis that could not be included in 2018-19

Summary: Drivers of Satisfaction- By Program

• EI Clients
  • The top drivers include: the amount of time it took from start to finish was reasonable, the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre representatives, ease of getting assistance when needed, travelling a reasonable distance to access service, and being providing service in the official language of choice.
  • The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience are improving the timeliness of service, the helpfulness of call centre representatives, the ease of getting assistance when needed, and the distance clients must travel to access service.
  • Provision of service in official language of choice represents a prominent strength, access to service in a language clients could understand well and the helpfulness of Service Canada in-person representatives are areas that should be maintained.
• CPP Clients
  • The top drivers include: the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre representatives, the ease of finding what information you need to provide when applying, receiving consistent information, and confidence in issues resolution.
  • The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience are improving the helpfulness of call centre representatives and, to a lesser extent, confidence the application would be processed in a reasonable time, clarity of the process, and ease of understanding the requirements of the application.
  • The ease of finding the information they need to provide when applying was a prominent strength and an area that should be protected. Provision of service in official language of choice and access to service in a language clients could understand well represent secondary strengths and areas that should be maintained.
• CPP-D Clients
  • The top drivers include: the helpfulness of call centre representatives, ease of understanding the requirements of the application, the amount of time it took from start to finish was reasonable, receiving consistent information, and whether the application for benefits was approved or denied.
  • The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for CPP-D clients are improving the timeliness of service, the ease of understanding the requirements of the application, and the helpfulness of call centre representatives.
  • Confidence that personal information was protected was a prominent strength and an area that should be protected. Provision of service in an official language of choice and access to service in a language clients could understand well represent secondary strengths and areas that should be maintained.
• OAS & GIS Clients
  • The top drivers include: the helpfulness of Service Canada in-person representatives, the ease of finding information about the program, the ease of finding what information they need to apply, the overall ease of applying and the clarity of the issue resolution process.
  • The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for OAS & GIS clients are improving the ease of finding information about the program, the ease of getting assistance when needed, the ease of following up, and confidence in issue resolution.
  • The helpfulness of Service Canada in-person representatives was a prominent strength and an area that should be protected. The overall ease of applying, completing the application in a reasonable amount of time and being able to move smoothly through the steps represent secondary strengths and areas that should be maintained.
• SIN Clients
  • The top drivers include: the ease of getting assistance when needed followed by being able to complete the application in a reasonable amount of time, ease of accessing service in a language you can speak and understand well, confidence in issue resolution, and ease of finding out the steps to apply.
  • The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for SIN clients are reducing the amount of travel required to receive service.
  • The ease of getting help when needed, access to service in a language you can understand well, completing the application in a reasonable time, and confidence in issue resolution are prominent strengths and areas that should be protected to maintain high satisfaction scores.

Drivers of Satisfaction- Overall

• The primary drivers of satisfaction in the service experience are: the amount of time it took from start and to finish was reasonable, the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre phone representatives, ease of getting assistance when needed, whether the application was approved or denied.
• Compared to 2018-19, the top three most important drivers remained consistent, while the impact of whether the application was approved or denied has taken on increased importance in driving satisfaction.
• The strength of the model has improved year over year with the inclusion of new variables that couldn’t be included in 2018-19 (aspects of the aware, apply and follow-up stages) increasing the R2 from 0.66 to 0.72.

Priority Matrix - Overview

READER’S NOTE:  This slide was intended to assist the reader in interpreting data shown in a priority matrix.  A priority matrix has been used to identify priority improvement areas with respect to service interactions with clients.

A priority matrix allows for decision makers to identify priorities for improvement by comparing how well clients feel you have performed in an area with how much impact that area has on clients’ overall satisfaction. It helps to answer the question ‘what can we do to improve satisfaction’. Each driver or 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).

Overall Priority Matrix - Impact vs. Performance

• The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for Service Canada clientele as a whole are improving the timeliness of service, the helpfulness of call centre representatives and the ease of getting assistance when needed. Results also indicate, attention should also be placed on delivering better service to those clients denied the benefit they were applying for.
• Provision of service in official language of choice, access to service in a language clients could understand well, and the helpfulness of Service Canada in-person representatives remain prominent strengths for the organization and an area that should be maintained.

Drivers of Satisfaction- EI Clients

The primary drivers of satisfaction in the service experience for EI clients are: the amount of time it took from start to finish was reasonable, the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre representatives, ease of getting assistance when needed, travelling a reasonable distance to access service, and being providing service in the official language of choice.

Priority Matrix - Impact vs. Performance- EI Clients

• The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for EI clients are improving the timeliness of service, the helpfulness of call centre representatives, the ease of getting assistance when needed, and the distance clients must travel to access service. Results also indicate, attention should also be placed on delivering better service to those clients denied the benefit they were applying for.
• Provision of service in official language of choice represents a prominent strength, followed by access to service in a language clients could understand well, and the helpfulness of Service Canada in-person representatives are areas that should be maintained.

Drivers of Satisfaction- CPP Clients

The primary drivers of satisfaction in the service experience for CPP clients are: the helpfulness of Service Canada call centre representatives, the ease of finding what information you need to provide when applying, receiving consistent information, and confidence in issues resolution.

Priority Matrix - Impact vs. Performance- CPP Clients

• The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for CPP clients are improving the helpfulness of call centre representatives and, to a lesser extent, confidence the application would be processed in a reasonable time, clarity of the process, and ease of understanding the requirements of the application.
• The ease of finding the information they need to provide when applying was a prominent strength and an area that should be protected. Provision of service in official language of choice, and access to service in a language clients could understand well represent secondary strengths and areas that should be maintained.

Drivers of Satisfaction- CPP-D Clients

The primary drivers of satisfaction in the service experience are: the helpfulness of call centre representatives, ease of understanding the requirements of the application, the amount of time it took from start to finish was reasonable, receiving consistent information, and whether the application for benefits was approved or denied.

Priority Matrix - Impact vs. Performance- CPP-D Clients

• The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for CPP-D clients are improving the timeliness of service, the ease of understanding the requirements of the application and the helpfulness of call centre representatives. Results also indicate, attention should also be placed on delivering better service to those clients denied the benefit they were applying for.
• Confidence that personal information was protected was a prominent strength and an area that should be protected. Provision of service in official language of choice and access to service in a language clients could understand well represent secondary strengths and areas that should be maintained.

Drivers of Satisfaction- OAS/GIS Clients

The primary drivers of satisfaction in the service experience are: the helpfulness of Service Canada in-person representatives, the ease of finding information about the program, the ease of finding what information they need to apply, the overall ease of applying, and the clarity of the issue resolution process.

Priority Matrix - Impact vs. Performance- OAS/GIS Clients

• The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for OAS & GIS clients are improving the ease of finding information about the program, the ease of getting assistance when needed, the ease of following up, and confidence in issue resolution.
• The helpfulness of Service Canada in-person representative was a prominent strength and an area that should be protected. The overall ease of applying, completing the application in a reasonable amount of time, and being able to move smoothly through steps represent secondary strengths and areas that should be maintained.

Drivers of Satisfaction- SIN Clients

The primary drivers of satisfaction in the service experience for SIN clients are: the ease of getting assistance when needed followed by being able to complete the application in a reasonable amount of time, ease of accessing service in a language you could speak and understand well, confidence in issue resolution, and ease of finding out the steps to apply.

Priority Matrix - Impact vs. Performance- SIN Clients

• The greatest opportunities to improve the service experience for SIN clients are reducing the amount of travel required to receive service.
• The ease of getting help when needed, access to service in a language you could understand well, completing the application in a reasonable time, and confidence in issue resolution are prominent strengths and areas that should be protected to maintain high satisfaction scores.

Preferred Service Improvements

• Of the potential process improvements, most clients across all programs felt quicker assistance by phone would have improved their experience the most. CPP-D clients felt quicker assistance by phone during the aware stage in particular would have helped the most.
• Around one-quarter of clients felt that having online information that was easier to understand or access to real-time support through online chat would have helped the most. 

Q7a.Thinking about the process of getting information about [INSERT PROGRAM], which of the following changes would have improved your experience the most?

Q15a. Thinking about the process of completing the application for [INSERT PROGRAM], which of the following changes would have improved your experience the most? [SINGLE PUNCH] (READ LIST)

Impact of Outcome on Satisfaction

• The service outcome, that is being granted or denied benefits, became a more prominent driver of satisfaction with the service delivery this year, but remainrf below the top three satisfaction drivers of the client journey taking a reasonable amount of time, helpfulness of call centre representatives, and ease of getting help when needed. 
• Satisfaction among CPP or EI clients who were denied a benefit declined year over year.  And while a majority of CPP clients who were denied benefits remain satisfied, only four in ten EI or CPP-D were satisfied with their experience.

Note: Clients who were denied benefit were present in the administrative databases of EI, CPP and CPP-D, but not other programs.

Note: Clients are asked specifically to assess the service delivery, not whether the application was approved or denied. While granted/denied is a driver of satisfaction, it must be remembered that approval is based on legislation.

Q38a. How satisfied were you with the service you received from Service Canada related to your [insert abbrev] application? please use a 5-point scale, where 1 means very dissatisfied, and 5 means very satisfied.

Vulnerable Groups and Accessibility

Vulnerable Groups With Lower Satisfaction

Satisfaction was lower among Indigenous clients, clients with disabilities and those with restrictions to accessing service compared to all clients.  After rising significantly in 2018-19, satisfaction among Indigenous clients declined this year.

Barriers to Accessing Service

Clients with Restrictions that Affect Accessing Service by Program

• More than one-third of clients felt they had restrictions that made it more difficult to access services, highest among CPP-D clients.
• The most common type of restriction experienced included being unable to visit SC offices during business hours, do not live in close proximity to a Service Canada Office or needing assistance from someone other than SC staff. CPP-D clients were more likely to have all restrictions, while SIN clients were more likely to say they do not live in close proximity to a SC office or were unable to visit SC offices during business hours. OAS/GIS were more likely to say they do not have access to the internet.

Q45a. Some people experience difficulties applying for [INSERT ABBREV] because of barriers to accessing service. Did you experience difficulties applying for [ABBREV] because of any of the following reasons...? [INSERT FOR OAS 'AUTO-ENROLLED' AND OAS/GIS 'AUTO-ENROLLED'] Some people experience difficulties because of barriers to accessing service. Do you experience difficulties because of any of the following reasons? Base: All respondents (n=2431)

Clients with Restrictions that Affect Accessing Service

• Clients with restrictions had lower overall satisfaction compared to all clients.
• They were more likely to have experienced a problem and had lower satisfaction with service provided in-person, through 1 800 O-Canada or MSCA.
• There were also many significant gaps on service attributes between clients with restrictions and clients overall. The largest gaps were for ease of registering for MSCA, ease of completing the application form, overall ease of applying, being able to complete steps online made the process easier for you and confidence in issue resolution.

Proportion of Vulnerable client groups with restrictions

Restrictions to accessing service were more prevalent among several vulnerable client groups, in particular clients with disabilities, those with a language barrier, non-English for French speaking clients. Incidence of restrictions were also higher among Indigenous clients, those who were mobile only, have no devices or were e-vulnerable.

Q45a. Some people experience difficulties applying for [INSERT ABBREV] because of barriers to accessing service. Did you experience difficulties applying for [ABBREV] because of any of the following reasons...? [INSERT FOR OAS 'AUTO-ENROLLED' AND OAS/GIS 'AUTO-ENROLLED'] Some people experience difficulties because of barriers to accessing service. Do you experience difficulties because of any of the following reasons? Base: All respondents (n=2431)

Proportion of Clients with Disabilities Overall and by Program

• Fewer than one in ten clients reported they have a disability, lower than last year.  CPP-D clients remain by far most likely, while OAS/GIS clients have a higher presence of disability compared to the proportion among all clients while SIN clients have a lower proportion.
• The most common disability is a mobility restriction, followed by mental health, pain or flexibility.  CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients are more likely to have a mobility disability, while CPP-D clients are also more likely to have a pain or memory disability and CPP clients to have a seeing disability.

Q44A. Do you identify as a person with a disability? Base: All respondents

Q46A. What type of disability do you have? Base: Have a disability

** Types of disabilities expanded in 2019-20

Clients with Disabilities

• Clients who identified as a person with a disability had lower overall satisfaction compared to all clients.
• They were no more likely to have experienced a problem but had lower satisfaction with service provided in-person.
• There were also many significant gaps on service attributes between clients with disabilities and clients overall. The largest gaps were for being able to complete steps online made the process easier for you, ease of finding the information needed to provide for applying, ease of understanding the requirements of the application, and ease of putting together the information needed.

Note: Q44A wording was revised in 2019-20 to the following: “Do you identify as a person with a disability?” Types of disabilities listed were also expanded in 2019-20

• Compared to 2018-19, there were improvements across a number of service attributes.
• The largest positive shifts were for needing to explain your situation only once, being able to complete steps online made the process easier for you, and confidence your personal information was protected.

Vulnerable Client Groups

Vulnerable Client Groups- Introduction

*This calculation considers all clients who were a part of at least one vulnerable group, excluding residents of urban areas. If we were to consider residents of urban areas, 100% of the sample falls into at least one vulnerable category.

Q45a. Some people experience difficulties applying for because of barriers to accessing service. Did you experience difficulties applying for [ABBREV] because of any of the following reasons…?” Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Vulnerable Client Groups- Summary

Q45a. Some people experience difficulties applying for because of barriers to accessing service. Did you experience difficulties applying for [ABBREV] because of any of the following reasons…?” Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Vulnerable Client Groups: Indigenous Clients

• Overall satisfaction among Indigenous clients declined compared to 2018-19 and was lower compared to all clients. Satisfaction declined among Indigenous clients in remote areas specifically.
• Compared to 2018-19, Indigenous clients were more likely to have experienced a problem, and have lower satisfaction with service provided online, through the specialized call centre, or 1 800 O-Canada.
• Satisfaction also declined for ease of applying, ease of getting help when needed, moving smoothly through all steps, and clarity of the issue resolution process. 

Vulnerable Client Groups: Indigenous Clients

Indigenous clients were less likely to feel it was easy to figure out if they were eligible for benefits, finding the steps to apply, understanding the requirements of the application, completing the form and moving smoothly through all steps.

Vulnerable Client Groups: Urban, Rural and Remote

• Overall satisfaction was consistent among urban, rural or remote clients compared to all clients.
• Compared to 2018-19, satisfaction declined overall among remote clients.
• Rural clients were more likely to have experienced a problem and were less satisfied with service received online, through specialized call centres or 1 800 O-Canada. 
• Urban clients were also less satisfied with service received online or through specialized call centres.

Urban clients n=1151; Rural clients n=1005; Remote clients n=271

• Compared to 2018-19, satisfaction declined among remote clients for being able to move smoothly through all steps, clarity of process, easy to get help when needed, and receiving consistent information. Rural clients also expressed lower satisfaction for being able to move smoothly through all steps and clarity of process, while Urban clients were more likely to agree they only had to explain their situation once.
• Remote clients were more likely to feel confident their application would be processed in a reasonable amount of time compared to all clients.

Urban clients n=1151; Rural clients n=1005; Remote clients n=271

Vulnerable Client Groups: Youth and Seniors

• Overall satisfaction was consistent among youth, adults and seniors.
• Compared to 2018-19, seniors were less satisfied with service provided in-person, online or through specialized call centres.
• Youth were less satisfied with service provided in-person, while Adults were less satisfied with online or specialized call centres

Youth clients n=425; Senior clients n=1201

Vulnerable Client Groups: Youth and Seniors

• Seniors were more likely to agree the process was clear, the client journey was reasonable, and be confident their application would be processed in a reasonable time compared to all clients. They were less likely to agree that being able to complete steps online made the process easier, be confident their personal information was protected, agree that it was easy to register for MSCA.
• Youth were less likely to be confident their application would be processed in a reasonable amount of time.
• Compared to 2018-19, Seniors were more likely to agree that being able to complete steps online made the process easier, while Adults were less likely to agree the process was clear.

Youth clients n=425; Senior clients n=1201

Vulnerable Client Groups: E-Vulnerable

• Satisfaction among e-vulnerable clients was consistent with all clients, with a few exceptions.
• E-vulnerable clients were less likely to agree that being able to complete steps online made the process easier, to feel registering for MSCA was easy, to be confident their personal information was protected and that the application form was easy to complete.
• They were more likely to agree they were confident their application would be processed in a reasonable time and that the client journey was reasonable.
• Compared to 2018-19, e-vulnerable clients were more likely to agree that they needed to explain their situation only once.

E-vulnerable was defined as respondents who rarely/never use online services such as online banking, shopping and bill payments. E-vulnerable clients n=569.

Vulnerable Client Groups: Clients with No devices or Mobile only

• Overall satisfaction was consistent among clients with no devices or those with mobile only compared to all clients.
• Clients who no devices were less satisfied with online service, while mobile only clients were more satisfied with MSCA.
• Compared to 2018-19, mobile only clients were more likely to be satisfied with the online channel.

No device clients n=151; Mobile only clients n=205.

Vulnerable Client Groups: Clients with No devices or Mobile only

• Clients with no devices were more likely to agree that timeliness of service was reasonable, the issue resolution process was clear, it was easy to get help, SC call centre staff were helpful and it was easy to follow up compared to all clients.  They were less likely however to agree being able to complete steps online made it easier, to be confident their personal information was protected, SC in-person staff were helpful, it was easy to understand the requirements of the application or put together the information needed.
• Mobile only clients were more likely to agree that timeliness of service was reasonable and less likely to agree it was easy to understand information about the program, find out the steps to apply or complete the form.

No device clients n=151; Mobile only clients n=205.

Vulnerable Client Groups: Non English and French Speakers

• Satisfaction among Non English or French speaking clients was consistent with all clients.
• They were less likely to agree it was easy to access service in a language they could speak and understand well, however a strong majority still agree.
• There were no other statistically significant differences compared to all clients.

Non English and French  speaking clients n=51

*Note that no surveys were completed using a translation service this wave, indicating that satisfaction has increased even without the use of live translation

Note: Simultaneous translation services were offered during the telephone interview process via LanguageLine. LanguageLine provides the opportunity for non English and French speakers to take the survey by connecting them with an interpreter who translates the survey live during the telephone interview. No survey respondents used this service this wave.

Provision of Language Services

• Nearly all clients agreed they were provided service in their choice of English or French, and that it was easy to access service in a language they could speak and understand well. 
• Compared to 2018-19, CPP clients were more likely to agree to both statements.

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Vulnerable Client Groups: Newcomers (Arrived in Past 3 Years)

• Overall satisfaction among Newcomers was higher than all clients.
• Newcomers were less likely to agree it was easy to apply compared to all clients, but were more likely to think the client journey was reasonable, it was easy to get help when needed, it was easy to understand information about the program, that they were able to move smoothly through all steps, and that the process was clear.
• Compared to 2018-19, they were more likely to feel the client journey was reasonable.

Newcomers n=225.

Vulnerable Client Groups: Official Language Minority Community

• Overall satisfaction among OLMC clients was consistent with all clients and virtually all were provided were in their choice of English or French.
• OLMC clients were more likely to be satisfied with the specialized call centre compared to all clients. They were also more likely to be confident in the issue resolution process, agree they were able to move smoothly through all steps, that they needed to explain their situation only once, and that the client journey was reasonable.

OLMC clients n=95.

Conclusions

• The vast majority of Service Canada’s clientele continued to have a high level of satisfaction with the service experience (84%) just before the service delivery changes of the COVID-19 pandemic, found the process easy (84%) and effective (82%) and expressed a high degree of trust (83%).
  • Effectiveness declined marginally year over year (82% vs. 84%), while satisfaction was lower than in the baseline wave in 2017-18 (86%).
  • Improving the ability of call centre staff to be helpful, timeliness of client journey and ease of getting assistance would help to maintain or improve satisfaction with the client journey.
• Overall satisfaction remained high, but was lower than in the baseline wave (86%) due to a decline among EI clients and continued challenges with specialized call centres.
  • In-person service was rated as providing the highest quality service, while specialized call centres was rated lowest for the second year. 
  • Clients had had an increased number of contacts with call centres during the client journey.
  • SIN program delivery continued to receive the highest ratings, while CPP-D received the lowest.
• Service Canada clients provided the highest ratings for the helpfulness of in-person staff, confidence in information security, and the process being easy and effective. The greatest opportunities to improve satisfaction include:
  • Reducing the duration of the client journey for EI and CPP-D
  • Providing quicker assistance by phone
  • Improving the ability of call centre staff to address client needs with a reduced number of contacts.
• Findings show that most vulnerable client groups continued to provide high ratings of the service experience.
  • Many were overrepresented among the in-person service channel clientele.
  • Satisfaction among Indigenous clients and those living in remote areas declined compared to 2018-19.
  • Clients with a disability and clients with restrictions to accessing service continued to have lower satisfaction with the client experience than all clients.
• Addressing the performance issues identified among all clientele will also help to improve access and satisfaction among vulnerable client groups. 
  • Improving the ease of getting assistance when needed, the duration of client journey and ability of specialized call centres to provide help will help to improve the client experience among these groups.
  • Notably, use of online will continue to pose a challenge for clients with disabilities and those with restrictions who relied more heavily on in-person and mail service during the client journey.
  • Notably, ease of use of online continued to be lower amongst clients with disabilities and those with restrictions.
• Changes to CPP-D service delivery appear to have had an impact on some aspects of the client experience.
  • More clients reported that being able to complete steps online made the process easier.
  • There was much greater satisfaction with the end-to-end experience among clients who reported receiving a proactive call to explain the process.
  • The satisfaction with CPP-D service delivery was stable despite a grant rate that was lower among the clients sampled than in the survey sample the previous year.
• Uptake of digital self-service among Service Canada clients overall declined marginally prior to the pandemic compared to 2017-18. While CPP and OAS/GIS clients used or received digital self-service or proactive enrollment at higher rates, EI clients were less likely, which resulted in slightly fewer clients overall using self-service.
  • EI clients relied less on self-service and more heavily on in-person service when applying than in the baseline wave. They also used self-service with phone assistance more often at the follow-up stage.
  • Fewer EI clients understood the requirements of the application and more experienced challenges with the ease and effectiveness of the client journey, including ease of following up on their application.
  • Notably, self-service online increased among CPP and OAS/GIS clients.
• Most clients continued to feel completing steps online made the process easier. Satisfaction with MSCA continued to represent a strength. Ease of registration for MSCA was fairly high for EI clients, while CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients had more difficulty registering and were also less likely to use MSCA during their experience.
  • The vast majority of those who used MSCA were satisfied with their experience (including both clients who registered and those who tried to registered but were unsuccessful).
  • CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients were less likely to use MSCA and experienced more difficulty registering.
  • Progress was made among CPP, CPP-D and OAS/GIS clients improving the ease of being able to complete steps online.
• Digitization improved some aspects of the CX, but did not influence satisfaction with the overall experience.
  • Increased digitization of service to CPP clients and to increasingly auto-enrolled OAS clients, appeared to improve certain aspects of the service experience, though they neither improved nor reduced satisfaction with the overall service experience.

Demographics

Appendix 1 - Details on Methodology

Call Disposition

Up to seven calls were placed in an effort to reach a selected respondent. The overall response rate achieved was 12% which was consistent with the industry average. The response rate was lower than previous years due to fieldwork ending early which resulted in many a higher proportion of unresolved appointments midway through survey execution compared to previous years. The final call outcomes were as follows.

Drivers of Satisfaction – Background on Analysis

• The key drivers analysis was conducted by regression overall among all clients and by each of the five programs. All key service attributes were included in the analysis in addition to benefit approval/denial. All specific statements included were outlined below.
• Not all variables were included in regression by program due to an insignificant relationship to overall satisfaction or strong inter-collinearity with another variable (in the latter instance, the variable more strongly related to overall satisfaction was kept).
• Compared to 2018-19, the strength of the drivers analysis has improved from an R2 of 0.66 to 0.72.

Definition of Vulnerable Client Groups

Newcomers

Not born in Canada (Q47c) and arrived within the previous 3 years ((Q47d)

Non English or French speakers

Identify “other” as preferred language of service (Q41b)

Lower Education

High school or less (Q41)

Youth

Aged 18 to 30 (sample variable)

Seniors

Aged 60 and over (sample variable)

Clients with disabilities

Self-identified (Q44a)

Clients with restrictions

Self-identified (Q45- At least one restriction)

Indigenous people

Self-identified as First Nations, Inuit, or Métis (Q44)

E-vulnerable

Clients who rarely or never use online services (Q40)

Mobile only

Self-reported as clients with only a smartphone, no computer or tablet (Q39d)

No devices

Self-reported as clients with no devices (mobile, tablet, computer) (Q39d)

Remote clients

Sample variable

Official language minorities (OLMC)

Clients in Quebec who prefer service in English, and clients outside Quebec who prefer service in French (sample variable and (Q41b)

Language barrier

It was easy to access service in a language I could speak and understand well (Q36 rated 1 OR 2)

Appendix 2 - Detailed Findings by Service Attribute

Ease of Using Government of Canada Website

Q6. When you were looking for information about on the Government of Canada website, how easy or difficult was it to…? Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was very difficult and 5 was very easy, how would you rate…? Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Online Application Completion

Q13. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 was very difficult and 5 was very easy, how would you rate the following when you were applying for [INSERT ABBREV]? Base: Completed an application (n=varies, Completing form excludes SIN clients)

Q12. How much do you agree or disagree that you were able to complete the application in a reasonable amount of time? (Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 was disagree strongly and 5 was agree strongly.) Base: All respondents (n=2431)

Q14c. After you submitted your application for [PROGRAM], how confident were you that your application would be processed in a reasonable amount of time. Please use a 5-point scale, where 1 was very worried and 5 was very confident. Base: Excludes SIN who went in person (n=1798)

Ease of Follow-Up

Q20a. Using a 5-point scale where 1 was very difficult and 5 was very easy, how easy or difficult was it to follow up with Service Canada about your application? Base: Clients who followed-up (n=842)

Ease of End-to-end Client Journey

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Effectiveness of End-to-end Client Journey

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Base: All Answering (n=varies)

Confidence in End-to-end Client Journey

Q36b. Thinking about the service you received, how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Base: All Answering (n=varies) ** New attribute added in 2019-20