Grants and Contributions Applicants Client Experience Research (Year 3)

Employment and Social Development Canada [ESDC]

October 25, 2023

POR# 099-22
CONTRACT AWARD DATE: 2022-12-19
CONTRACT #: CW2266044 (G9292-24-2550)
Contract value: $149,885.85 (tax included)

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

For more information on this report, please contact nc-por-rop-gd@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca

Grants and Contributions Applicants Client Experience Research (Year 3)

It is available upon request in multiple formats (large print, MP3, braille, e-text, DAISY), by contacting 1-800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232).
By teletypewriter (TTY), call 1-800-926-9105.

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, 2023
https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/services/copyPageTemplate.html
For information regarding reproduction rights: droitdauteur.copyright@HRSDC-RHDCC.gc.ca.

PDF
Cat. No.: Em20-148/2024E-PDF
ISBN: 978-0-660-67643-2

Recherche sur l’expérience client des subventions et contributions (Année 3)

Ce document offert sur demande en médias substituts (gros caractères, MP3, braille, fichiers de texte, DAISY) auprès du 1-800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232).
Si vous utilisez un téléscripteur (ATS), composez le 1-800-926-9105.

© Sa Majesté le Roi du Chef du Canada, représenté par le ministre de la Famille, des Enfants et du Développement social, 2022
https://publications.gc.ca/site/fra/services/modeleDroitsAuteur.html
Pour des renseignements sur les droits de reproduction: droitdauteur.copyright@HRSDC-RHDCC.gc.ca.

PDF
Nº de cat. : Em20-148/2024F-PDF
ISBN : 978-0-660-67644-9

List of Acronyms

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.

Mike Colledge
President
Ipsos Public Affairs

Additional information

Supplier Name: Ipsos Limited Partnership
PSPC Contract Number: CW2266044 (G9292-24-2550)
Contract Award Date: 2022-12-19

Executive Summary

Grants & Contributions CX Survey – Results At a Glance (Year 3)

• 3,041 SURVEYS CONDUCTED
• METHODOLOGY: ONLINE SURVEY
• FIELDWORK: April 19 to June 9, 2023

Overall Service Experience

Figure 1: Overall Service Experience

This horizontal bar chart shows responses to three questions about the overall service experience and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  All 3041 respondents in Year 3 answered as follows:

• Overall Satisfaction: Year 3 68%. Year 2 77%. Year 1 70%.
• Ease: Year 3 78%. Year 2 79%. Year 1 74%.
• Effectiveness: Year 3 75%. Year 2 78%. Year 1 70%.

Satisfaction with Service Channels

Figure 2: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This horizontal bar chart shows responses to a question about satisfaction with the overall quality of service provided by the service channels used during the applicant process and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Email support from Program Officer (842 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 77%. Year 2 79%. Year 1 80%.
• GCOS Web Portal (881 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 72%. Year 2 76%. Year 1 67%.
• Email support from SC (2442 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 68%. Year 2 70%. Year 1 65%.
• Online (1871 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 66%. Year 2 71%. Year 1 66%.
• Mail (154 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 65%. Year 2 58%. Year 1 63%.
• Phone support from SC (573 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 62%. Year 2 61%. Year 1 61%.
• In-Person (44 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 52%. Year 2 62%. Year 1 66%.
• 1 800 O Canada (94 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 42%. Year 2 48%. Year 1 49%.

Satisfaction with Client Experience by Program

Figure 3: Satisfaction with Client Experience by Program

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about satisfaction with overall service experience by program and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by program.

• EAF (300 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 72%. Year 2 78%. Year 1 77%.
• NHSP (1296 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 82%. Year 2 83%. Year 1 73%.
• CSJ (1004 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 68%. Year 2 79%. Year 1 69%.
• SDPP (214 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 42%. Year 2 72%. Year 1 53%.
• AS (11 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 36%.
• WORBE (22 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 59%.
• SSLP (24 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 50%.
• WER (51 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 35%.
• STAR (3 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 33%.
• SIP (116 respondents answered this question in Year 3): Year 3 28%.

Funding approval

Figure description: Funding approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 79%. Denied 20%.
• Year 2: Approved 93%. Denied 7%.
• Year 1: Approved 90%. Denied 10%.

Strengths

Figure description: Strengths

• Service in choice of official language 91%
• Completing steps online made the process easier 84%
• Ease of finding general information on the program 82%
• Confident personal information protected 81%
• Ease of determining steps to apply 81%

Areas for Improvement

Figure description: Areas for Improvement

• Ease of follow-up before receiving a decision 52%
• Ease of determining the amount of time each phase is anticipated to take 56%
• Client journey took reasonable time 58%
• It was easy to get help when needed 63%
• It was clear what would happen next and when 64%

* referred to as [program] web portal in Year 1

Note: Program types, intakes, and streams in grants and contributions vary widely, meaning that some year-to-year or program comparisons should be done with caution.

Year 3   Year 2   Year 1

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Key Findings

Overall Satisfaction and Applicants Experiencing an Issue

Overall satisfaction with the service experience among applicants to Grants and Contributions programs declined compared to Year 2, returning to levels observed in Year 1.

• Nearly seven in ten (68%) applicants were satisfied with their overall experience, a decrease of nine points from Year 2 (77%) and consistent with results in Year 1 (70%). The proportion of applicants who were very satisfied has declined (33%, -9 pts), while those who were very dissatisfied has increased (7%, +4 pts). 
• Satisfaction was highest among applicants to New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP) (82%), followed by Enabling Accessibility Fund (EAF) (72%), Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) (68%) and Workplace Opportunities: Removing Barriers to Equity (WORBE) (59%). Half of Supports for Student Learning Program (SSLP) applicants were satisfied (50%), while ratings were considerably lower for applicants of Social Development Partnerships Program (SDPP) (42%), Apprenticeship Service (AS) (36%), Women’s Employment Readiness (WER) (35%), Skilled Trades Awareness and Readiness Program (STAR) (33%) and Sectoral Initiatives Program (SIP) (28%). Among programs included in Year 2, overall satisfaction has decreased among CSJ and SDPP applicants.
• The overall ease (79%) and effectiveness (78%) of the application process continued to be rated high by the vast majority of applicants. However, those who applied to higher complexity programs and most notably SDPP, SIP and WER experienced more difficultly with nearly all aspects of the ease and effectiveness.
• Trust in Service Canada to deliver services effectively to Canadians has also declined compared to Year 2 (76%, -8 pt). This measure continued to be highly correlated to overall satisfaction and ratings have declined among CSJ and SDPP applicants.

Applicants to CSJ and SDPP experienced more issues related to the timeliness of service and had more difficulty following up or getting assistance during the application process than in Year 2 which negatively impacted their satisfaction.

• The overall decrease in satisfaction was due primarily to lower ratings among applicants to CSJ, who represent the vast majority of Grants and Contributions applicants, and to a lesser extent SDPP applicants.
• CSJ applicants provided lower ratings for the timeliness of service, clarity of the application process and what to do if they had a problem or question. They experienced more challenges getting assistance during the application process and were more likely to feel it took too long to receive an update on their application or to receive a decision.
• SDPP applicants provided lower ratings across all aspects of the ease and effectiveness of the application process and in particular for the timeliness of service, clarity of process and ease of getting assistance. They were more likely to have experienced a problem compared to all clients and to have encountered problems. The most prominent problems were that it took too long to receive an update or decision on their application and that the application form was too long or confusing.

Satisfaction Drivers and Awareness of Service Standards

The timeliness of service had the largest impact on satisfaction with service experience, followed by the ease of follow-up before receiving a decision, and confidence in the issue resolution process. In Year 3, all these aspects of service have increased in importance in driving overall satisfaction. Ratings in each of these aspects of service have declined compared to Year 2. 

• The greatest opportunity to increase overall satisfaction is in reducing the amount of time the application process takes to complete and improving the ability of applicants to follow-up more easily before receiving a decision.
• Reducing the amount of time from the start of the application process to receiving a decision also aligned with the change applicants felt would have improved their experience the most. Timeliness is notably the most common suggested change across all programs.

Awareness of service standards remained relatively low and fewer knew of the time to acknowledge the submission and issue a funding decision than in Year 2. Applicants who were aware of each service standard continued to have a more positive experience. Notably, impressions have weakened year over year across several aspects of service among those who were not aware.

• More than four in ten applicants (44%, -4 pts) were aware of the stated service standards regarding issuing payment once a payment claim has been submitted, followed by fewer than four in ten (37%, -6 pts) for acknowledging the submission of a funding application and one third (33%, -6 pts) for issuing a funding decision notification. Compared to Year 2, awareness of the service standard for time to acknowledge submission and issue a funding decision declined.
• NHSP applicants were more likely to be aware of all service standards and EAF applicants of the time to issue a decision, while applicants to SDPP program were less likely to be aware of all service and SIP applicants of the time to issue payment.

Selected Applicant Profiles and the online experience

Those not approved for funding continued to be much less satisfied and fewer applicants were approved for funding compared to Year 2, which has contributed to the decline in overall results. Applicants who were not approved had much more difficulty getting help with their application, were less likely to feel the process was clear and timeliness of service reasonable and few reported having received a debrief on the outcome or being satisfied with the explanation provided.

• Eight in ten applicants received approval for funding (79%, -14 pts), statistically lower than the figure reported in Year 2. Applicants to EAF, SDPP, WER and SIP were less likely to have received funding approval compared to all clients, while NHSP and CSJ applicants were more likely to have received funding.
• Among those who did not receive approval, only one in ten (13%, -29 pts) were provided with an explanation why, statistically lower than in Year 2 (42%), and among those who were provided with an explanation, three in ten (29%, +6 pts) were satisfied with the outcome. EAF, NHSP and SDPP applicants were more likely to have received an explanation, while CSJ applicants were less likely.

Virtually all applicants reported submitting their application online and ratings for the ease and timeliness of the process remained strong and consistent with Year 2. Applicants to higher complexity programs continued to find all steps of the process more difficult.

• Six in ten applicants (59%) submitted their application using the online fillable form, followed by one third (34%) who used the GCOS web portal. Fewer downloaded the application documents and submitted by email (5%) or mail (3%). Applicants to EAF, NHSP, SDPP, WER and SIP were more likely to have downloaded the application documents and submitted them by email, however the vast majority submitted online. Compared to Year 2, NHSP and CSJ applicants were more likely to have submitted using the online fillable form, while SDPP applicants were more likely to have used the GCOS web portal.
• Impression of the ease of completing the application process remained consistent compared to Year 2. Applicants to CSJ continued to provide higher ratings for nearly all aspects of the application process, while applicants to SDPP, SIP, WER and to a lesser extent EAF and NHSP experienced more difficulty with all elements of the application process.

Satisfaction with Service Channels

Satisfaction with the service provided through most service channels was largely consistent and remained highest for support provided by email from a program officer, followed by the online channels. Fewer were satisfied with the Government of Canada website compared to Year 2 due to lower ratings among SDPP applicants who also had weaker impressions of the service provided by email.

• Eight in ten (77%) were satisfied with email support from a program officer, followed by the GCOS web portal (72%), email support from a Service Canada office (68%), the Government of Canada website (66%) and mail service (65%). Fewer were satisfied with telephone support from a Service Canada office (62%), service at a Service Canada Office (52%), and 1 800 O-Canada phone line (42%).
• The highest rated aspects of service were the provision of service in choice of official language, completing steps online made the process easier, confidence in security of their personal information and ease of finding general information about the program or determining the steps to apply. 
• Aspects of service with lower ratings included the ease of follow-up, ease of determining how long each phase of the process was anticipated to take, the timeliness of service, ease of getting help when needed and that it was clear what would happen next and when. Ratings across nearly all these service attributes declined compared to Year 2.

Learning about the program

Email outreach from Service Canada or the program, the Government of Canada website and program applicant guides were the primary ways applicants learnt about the program they applied for. The vast majority who relied on the Government of Canada website continued to find it easy to navigate, however applicants to higher complexity programs had more difficulty. Further, more could be done to improve the ease of determining how long each phase of the process is anticipated to take. 

• When learning about the program, applicants were most likely to have received an email from the GoC, ESDC, or the program they applied to directly (52%), followed by the Government of Canada website for the program (48%), the applicant guide (45%), talked to peers/community networks (27%) and the general Government of Canada website (20%). More applicants talked to peers/community networks than in Year 2, while fewer received an email directly from the program they applied, went to the general GoC website, participated in a GoC information session or talked to their local MP.
• NHSP applicants relied more heavily on the applicant guide, peers/ community networks, GoC info sessions and their local MP, while applicants to EAF and other  higher complexity programs like SDPP, WER and SIP, were more likely to have used the GoC website and to have participated in a GoC information session. Those who applied to higher complexity programs and in particular SDPP, while more reliant on the GoC website, also had more difficulty finding the information they needed.
• The vast majority who used the GoC website continued to feel it was easy to find most types of information. Ratings were highest for the ease of finding general information about the program (82%), determining the steps to apply (81%) and if their organization was eligible for funding (80%). Applicants felt it was more difficult to determine the amount of time each phase of the process was anticipated to take and improving the ease of finding this information was the change identified by applicants that would have improved their experienced the most.

Populations served by funding and project close-out

Funding sought by applicant organizations continued to be targeted largely at supporting diverse communities, however slightly less so than in Year 2. 

• Nine in ten applicants (90%) reported that the funding they applied for would support diverse (GBA+) communities, clients or people. Seven in ten (71%) said the funding would support those who identify as youth, followed by women (56%), those belonging to a minority racial or ethnic background (49%), low socio-economic status (45%), Black Canadians (40%) and those who identify as Indigenous (39%).
• Satisfaction remained consistent among applicants who assist GBA+ communities and those who do not but has declined among those who assist GBA+ communities compared to Year 2 mirroring the trend observed overall.

The vast majority of funding recipients found it easy to complete the tasks associated with funding agreement close-out. Recipients of EAF and higher complexity programs had more difficulty and fewer recipients of CSJ felt the tasks were easy compared to Year 2. 

• Among applicants approved for funding, seven in ten felt that it was easy to submit the final budget (70%, unchanged), complete the final project report (70%, -1 pt), submit the final project report (70%, -1 pts), and complete the final budget/final claim (68%, -1 pt). Fewer felt it was easy to resolve any outstanding issues with funding (49%, -2 pts).
• NHSP applicants were more likely to find it easy to complete most aspects of the funding agreement close-out. EAF applicants and those who applied to higher complexity programs were less likely and ratings have declined for recipients of CSJ for the ease of submitting and completing the final report and completing the final budget/claim.

Qualitative Research

Organizational Capacity to Complete the Application Process

• Many applicants felt well-equipped to complete the Gs&Cs application process and much of this was underpinned by past experiences of completing funding applications.
• Applicants from larger organizations tended to agree that the application process favours organizations such as their own, which have more resources and the necessary staff expertise at their disposal. Some applicants from smaller organizations shared this perspective based on their experiences, but this view was not universal. In contrast, other applicants from smaller organizations felt that the process of applying was “straightforward” and stressed that it was their responsibility to “educate” themselves about the process.
• When asked about inclusivity and catering to the diverse backgrounds of applicants, applicants reported few inclusivity or accessibility barriers.

Top-of-mind Associations with the Application Process

• When asked to reflect on the entire application process, applicants highlighted a number of aspects of the process which impressed them. This included:
  • Reminder notifications and outreach from programs about upcoming funding opportunities.
  • Smooth and straightforward application process.
  • The existence of grants and contributions for important projects.
  • Shift to digital application channels.
  • Shorter forms.
  • Helpfulness of Service Canada agents.
• Applicants tended to be more vocal around the negative than the positive experiences. This was especially true among applicants who recorded lower overall satisfaction scores in the quantitative survey. The common frustrations were:
  • Extensive delays in notification of funding decisions, particularly in the case of Sectoral Initiative Program and the Skilled Trades Awareness and Readiness Program.
  • Lack of success in receiving funding, underscored by a few Social Development Partnerships Program and Sectoral Initiative Program applicants specifically.
  • Too much detail required of applicants, notably in the case of Social Development Partnerships Program and Women's Employment Readiness Pilot Program
  • Often-tight project turnaround times after receiving a funding decision.
• Detailed Findings on the Application Journey
  • Overall, regardless of whether an organization received funding or not, ESDC was seen by many as doing an excellent job of raising awareness about the various funding programs that are available. Past applicants heavily relied on alerts from each program about upcoming rounds of funding.
  • Program websites were the main source of support used by applicants and their feedback on the websites and supporting documents was predominantly positive.
  • Program information sessions were appreciated but opinions were mixed on their perceived value. The main criticism was that the sessions mainly shared information already listed on the website. Still, many applicants appreciated the opportunity to learn more about programs and take part in the Q&A (if offered).
  • Past experiences of funding application writing resulted in high levels of comfort with the application forms. The application forms were described as “standard” or “typical” to what applicants were used to filling out. Further, the clarity of instructions was appreciated. Perceived repetitiveness of questions and complexity of filling out budget forms were the main issues experienced by some applicants.
  • The majority of applicants opted to fill out the applications online – via GCOS or program websites. The main pain points found were the perceived complicated multi-step process of creating a GCOS account and logging into GCOS, and the linking of personal and organizational accounts within GCOS. The latter did not make intuitive sense to some applicants. Experiences of using GCOS once within the site were largely positive.
  • The research suggests that greater use of GCOS in future could be achieved through: raising awareness of GCOS and potential benefits and simplifying the steps for creating an account and logging into the system.
  • Many were satisfied with the level of guidance offered in the applicant guide and did not have to turn to any additional resources.
  • Delays in receiving a funding decision were a common and major pain point among applicants. Some reported waiting for 6-12 months, in some cases even longer, to receive a funding decision. The lack of communication on when decisions will be made and the provision of very vague timelines exacerbated negative perceptions. Having to wait for an extended period forced many organizations into limbo and created feelings of uncertainty.
  • Using GCOS to submit their reports tended to be a positive experience for funded applicants, because the portal provided a centralized place to submit feedback and upload documents.

Future Improvements and the Ideal Experience
Applicants offered numerous improvement suggestions. Highlights include:

• Raising Awareness. Offer an option to subscribe to funding opportunities, across federal departments and agencies, based on topic or population served.
• Application Supports. Add more examples in the applicant guide of what an optimal response looks like. For lower capacity organizations, offer coaching, mentors and provide one-on-one support especially in relation to the budget forms.
• Application Form. Consider rationalizing the number of questions, including more closed-ended questions and simplifying budget forms.
• Channels for Completing and Submitting an Application. More awareness and education on the benefits of a GCOS account while maintaining other channels for submitting an application. Opportunities also exist in simplifying the process for creating a GCOS account, offering the option to download application in a Word document for editing, and the option to upload completed applications on GCOS.
• Receiving a Decision. 2 to 3 months was considered a reasonable timeframe for receiving a decision. When delays occur, proactive outreach with revised timelines should be sent.
• Reporting and Managing Funded Organizations. More education and support on collecting GBA+ data and more flexibility in adjusting projects based on changing context.

The Impact of Funding

• The most positive and most significant impact of receiving funding was on communities served by the organizations, as members of those communities were able to access services and supports they needed. In contrast, unfunded applications meant that programs or activities did not move forward or did so but in a reduced capacity.

Interest in future ESDC funding opportunities

• Most organizations, whether they have been successful or unsuccessful in their application, shared that they would certainly be applying for ESDC grants and contributions again in the future.
• The main consideration for determining whether to apply for funding in future were identifying if there is a need for a program, and whether organizations have the capacity to execute it.

Objectives and Methodology

Background: Gs&Cs Client Experience Research

The Program Operations Branch (POB) within Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) handles the operation and coordination of most Grants and Contributions (Gs&Cs) programs across the Department. The Branch actively works to improve the design, administration and delivery of Grants and Contributions programs. This notably includes making the process of applying for funding accessible, efficient and effective through quick and easy online services and standardized forms and agreements.
To comply with the Treasury Board Policy on Service and Digital and the Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Service Strategy, POB requires the gathering of data on the client experience to assist in effectively managing service delivery. To meet these requirements, POB uses the Client Experience (CX) Performance Measurement Framework to guide the research on the Gs&Cs business line of client service delivery experience. The data collected with the framework, which includes qualitative and quantitative dimensions, will provide key insights and diagnostics on client experience to help:

• Better understand the needs and expectations of organizations, including organizations of different types and serving different client groups;
• Identify obstacles and challenges from the perspective of the organization;
• Identify strengths and opportunities to improve CX, including opportunities to implement changes and test new approaches related to program design and delivery; 
• Assess the extent to which clients’ expectations are being met; 
• Identify and prioritize resources and opportunities tied to CX improvements; 
• Assess the impact of improvements made to the CX over time; and 
• Explore how ESDC’s leadership at all levels can play an important role in creating a positive CX.

This is the third year of POB’s Client Experience Research Program (FY 2022/23 into 2023/24). Year 3 will build on previous years of research to support the systematic and integrated approach to measure and improve CX in Gs&Cs service delivery which also allows the department to track process on consistent and comparable CX indicators over time. 
The detailed methodology and research instruments for all aspects of the research are available under a separate cover. 
Note: Program intakes in grants and contributions vary widely, meaning that some year-to-year or program comparisons should be done with caution. 

Research Objectives

The Client Experience Research Project is carried out in two phases, a quantitative phase and a qualitative phase.
The overarching objectives of the Year 3 quantitative research are to:

• Focus on monitoring selected POB Gs&Cs programs that were previously studied in Year 1 and Year 2;
• Capture CX insights from additional programs that have not previously been studied; and
• Increase awareness of organizational characteristics and diversity considerations in the CX space.

The research objectives for the quantitative research were to:

• Measure service satisfaction, ease, and effectiveness of the end-to-end client experience, taking into account the CX with various service channels and the CX of different client groups;
• Assess year-over-year changes for programs included in previous years;
• Provide diagnostic insights regarding the strengths and opportunities for improvement; and
• Assess how potential changes in service delivery might affect the CX.

The qualitative research explored the lived experiences of Gs&Cs applicants through focus group discussions and individual interviews. Building on the quantitative research, the qualitative phase of this project was structured around the following:

• Organizational capacity to effectively and efficiently complete the application process and the extent to which the process is inclusive;
• What impressed and what frustrated applicants when it came to their overall experience with Gs&Cs;
• A deep dive into all aspects of the application journey, including GCOS;
• The ideal application journey and opportunities for future improvements;
• The impact of funding and non-funding decisions; and
• The future interest in funding opportunities.

Methodology – Quantitative Research

An online survey was conducted with 3,041 Service Canada applicants across 11 programs. The survey was fielded from April 19 to June 9, 2023, and took on average approximately 16 minutes to complete. The survey sample size has a margin of error of +/-1.75%.

Applicants were defined as organizations that applied for grants and contributions funding (including both funded and unfunded) within the last two intake years (FY 2020/21 and 2021/22). A random sampling of organizations that applied to CSJ or NHSP were included, while all organizations that applied for the remaining programs were invited to complete the survey. ESDC distributed the survey links to participating organizations.

The exact intake periods referred to in this study are as follows:

Fiscal Year 2021-22:

• Enabling Accessibility Fund (EAF) 
• Enabling Accessibility Fund: Mid-sized (Contribution) – June 4, 2021 to August 3, 2021
• Enabling Accessibility Fund: Early Learning and Child Care (Grant) – December 3, 2021 to January 28, 2022
• Enabling Accessibility Fund: Youth Innovation (Grant) – June 4, 2021 to October 29 2021
• New Horizons for Seniors Program (NHSP)
• Community Based stream – November 23, 2021 to December 21, 2021
• Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) – December 16, 2021 to January 25, 2022 
• Apprenticeship Service (AS) – August 3, 2021 to September 14, 2021
• Workplace Opportunities: Removing Barriers to Equity (WORBE) – January 18, 2022 to February 15, 2022
• Social Development Partnerships Program – Children and Families (SDPP-C&F) – May 25, 2021 to July 6, 2021
• Financial Empowerment of Low-Income People
• Social Inclusion of Vulnerable Children and Youth
• Social Development Partnerships Program – Disability (SDPP-D) – Disability Inclusion – August 4, 2022 to September 17, 2022
• National AccessAbility Week (Grant)
• Phase 1 – Partnerships (Contribution)
• Supports for Student Learning Program (SSLP) – August 6, 2021 to September 2, 2021
• Women’s Employment Readiness (WER) Pilot Program – June 1, 2021 to June 25, 2021
• Skilled Trades Awareness and Readiness Program (STAR) – May 13, 2021 to June 28, 2021

Fiscal Year 2020-21:

• Sectoral Initiatives Program (SIP*) – January 22, 2021 to March 4, 2021

*SIP has been replaced by The Sectoral Workforce Solutions Program (SWSP). The SWSP builds on and replaces the SIP.

Three (3) of the programs included in the survey have different streams that applicants can apply for.
The relevant streams referred to in this study are as follows:

• Enabling Accessibility Fund (EAF): 
• Enabling Accessibility Fund: Mid-Sized (Contribution)
• Enabling Accessibility Fund: Early Learning and Child Care (Grant) 
• Enabling Accessibility Fund: Youth Innovation (Grant)
• Social Development Partnerships Program – Children and Families (SDPP-C&F): 
• Financial Empowerment of Low-Income People
• Social Inclusion of Vulnerable Children and Youth
• Social Development Partnerships Program – Disability (SDPP-D) – Disability Inclusion:
• Accessible Canada - Phase 1 Partnerships (Contribution)
• National AccessAbility Week (NAAW) (Grant)

Of the 9,862 organizations that were invited to participate, a total of 3,041 organizations completed the survey. The response rate for the survey was 31% which is considered strong compared to industry standards for a survey of this nature.

Note: “n=” represents the number of respondents to a question, it is known in statistical language as the size of the sample. Sample sizes below n=30 are considered small and below n=10 considered very small. Results of small and very small sample sizes should be interpreted with caution and findings viewed as directional in nature.

The quantitative survey also served as a recruitment tool for the qualitative research, by asking if organizations would be interested in voluntarily participating in focus groups or in-depth interviews at a later date.

Only those organizations with email contact information on file were invited to participate, which does not represent the total volume of applicants.

Calibration of the Data – Quantitative Approach

Weighting adjustments were made to bring the sample into proportion with the universe by program volume (depending on the most recent intake for the particular program).

The final data was weighted by the number of respondents in each program in proportion to the total number of applicants as detailed below. The universe proportions used to develop the targets were based on figures provided by ESDC.

Note Regarding Program Complexity

For the purpose of this study, program complexity has been defined as low, moderate, and high as outlined in the following table. These service standard clusters are informed by departmental reporting in the Performance Measurement and Management Framework.

Note: Canada Summer Jobs does not fit into these distinct clusters and has been analyzed as a separate group.

Note on Reporting Conventions – Quantitative Data

Throughout the report, subgroup results have been compared to average of all applicants (i.e., total) and statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level noted using green and red boxes.

Where subgroup results are statistically higher than the total a green box has been used and where results are statistically lower than the total a red box has been used.

Additionally, where results in Year 3 were statistically higher than Year 2, a green arrow has been used and where results in Year 3 were statistically lower than Year 2, a red arrow has been used.

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

For the purposes of legibility, values of less than 3% have not been labelled in charts throughout the report.

Bases marked with a * indicate a small sample size and with ** indicate very small sample size, so results should be interpreted with caution and findings viewed as directional in nature.

As part of the analysis, a key drivers’ analysis was conducted to identify the factors which have the greatest impact on overall satisfaction. Throughout the report, the top 5 drivers have been identified using a yellow box.

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Methodology – Qualitative Research

Respondents from the Gs&Cs client experience survey were asked a question whether they would be interested in taking part in follow-up qualitative research. After conducting an analysis of the sample that opted-in to ensure a mix of programs, regions, and to ensure inclusion of applicants in both official languages, potential applicants were contacted randomly and asked if they would like to be taken through the screening questionnaire to confirm their eligibility for an in-depth interview or online focus group.

As shown in the tables below, 4 focus groups and 26 in-depth interviews were conducted.

Methodology – Qualitative Research Data Collection, Analysis

Data Collection 

With applicants’ consent, all qualitative research sessions are both audio and video taped. Verbatim transcripts from each and every focus group and interview is created; however, names or personal identifying details are not captured and/or scrubbed or redacted by the moderator to ensure applicants’ privacy.

Moderators also capture high level findings on each topic of their own observations – what the overall reaction was, any nuances, and any non-verbal cues on body language or tone. Because our transcripts are anonymous, it is not possible to comment on any variations by group or audience, if they have not been placed in separate groups – for example, moderators cannot provide a sense of different opinions by older vs. younger applicants, or males vs. females, depending on the topic.

Data Analysis

We identify the following elements in the qualitative analysis:

• Universal agreement where applicants all agree, or there is agreement across different groups of stakeholders
• Consensus perspectives that reflect the view of most applicants; areas of wide agreement without much counter point (Many, most, several)
• Conflicting or polarized perspectives where views are much more divided, or if there is a spectrum or variety of views (Some vs others)
• Minority perspectives, often expressed by one or two applicants as a counterpoint to a consensus viewpoint, or if they have an individual take or example/story (a few, a couple, mention)
• Verbatim commentary, providing examples of what applicants actually said during a discussion (direct unattributed quotes)
• External context, for this project it is the results of quantitative research that provided a foundation for the qualitative research conducted and the discussion questions posed.

Note on Interpretation of Qualitative Findings

The value of qualitative research is in exploring the issues and experiences of research participants in depth, free from the constraints of a structured quantitative questionnaire. Qualitative evidence is rich and allows researchers to hear first-hand the underlying factors shaping experiences and opinions, as well as the interplay between factors.

Qualitative findings should not be extrapolated to the broader population, as they are not statistically projectable. Notable nuances that emerged in the interviews have been highlighted where relevant and these should be treated as strictly directional.

The qualitative findings should thus be viewed as complementary to the quantitative survey findings in terms of building a more complete understanding of the Gs&Cs client experience.

Detailed Quantitative findings

Program Level Highlights

Enabling Accessibility Fund (EAF)

Program level-highlights

Figure 10: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5. Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: Year 3 75%. Year 2 78%. Year 1 77%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: Year 3 74%. Year 2 80%. Year 1 83%.
• SC Office: Year 3 67%.
• GoC Website: Year 3 66%. Year 2 72%. Year 1 76%.
• Phone Support from SC: Year 3 61%. Year 2 65%. Year 1 65%.
• Email Support from SC: Year 3 61%. Year 2 64%. Year 1 68%.
• Mail: Year 3 56%. Year 2 47%. Year 1 100%.
• 1-800-OCanada: Year 3 43%. Year 2 67%.

Figure 11: Funding approval:

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 60%. Denied 31%. TBD 9%.

Base: EAF applicants – Year 3 (n=300); Year 2 (n=207); Year 1 (n=56) Analysis was also conducted by program stream and results have been presented on the following slides. Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

Significantly higher / lower than total

Enabling Accessibility Fund (EAF) – Mid-sized

Program Stream level-highlights

Figure 12: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5. Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Email Support from Program Officer: 72%.
• GCOS Web Portal: 69%.
• GoC Website: 61%.
• Mail: 50%.
• Email Support from SC: 41%.
• 1-800-OCanada: 25%.
• Phone Support from SC: 20%.

Figure 13: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 5%. Denied 61%. TBD 34%.

Base: EAF Mid-sized applicants – Year 3 (n=77)

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Enabling Accessibility Fund (EAF) Early Learning and Child Care

Program Stream level-highlights

Figure 14: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5. Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• SC Office: 100%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 76%.
• GCOS Web Portal: 73%.
• GoC Website: 67%.
• 1-800-OCanada: 67%.
• Email Support from SC: 66%.
• Phone Support from SC: 65%.
• Mail: 57%.

Figure 15: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 75%. Denied 25%.

Base: EAF Early Learning and Child Care applicants – Year 3 (n=177)

* small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Enabling Accessibility Fund (EAF) Youth Innovation

Program Stream level-highlights

Figure 14-1: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5. Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: 100%.
• Email Support from SC: 76%.
• GoC Website: 74%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 71%.
• Phone Support from SC: 50%.

Figure 15-1: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 96%. Denied 4%.

Base: EAF Youth Innovation applicants – Year 3 (n=45)

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

New Horizons For Seniors Program (NHSP)

Program level-highlights

Figure 16: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5. Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Email Support from Program Officer: Year 3 83%. Year 2 80%. Year 1 81%.
• Email Support from SC: Year 3 73%. Year 2 76%. Year 1 72%.
• GCOS Web Portal: Year 3 73%. Year 2 73%. Year 1 67%.
• GoC Website: Year 3 72%. Year 2 74%. Year 1 70%.
• Phone Support from SC: Year 3 72%. Year 2 68%. Year 1 68%.
• SC Office: Year 3 70%. Year 2 75%. Year 1 71%.
• Mail: Year 3 69%. Year 2 56%. Year 1 56%.
• 1-800-OCanada: Year 3 57%. Year 2 50%. Year 1 68%.

Figure 17: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 80%. Denied 20%.

Base: NHSP applicants – Year 3 (n=1296); Year 2 (n=384); Year 1 (n=431)

There were different stream(s) for this program, in past years, comparisons should be done with caution.

Small grant (n=52); Community-based projects (n=332) Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ)

Program level-highlights

Figure 18: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5. Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Email Support from Program Officer: Year 3 79%. Year 2 80%. Year 1 80%.
• GCOS Web Portal: Year 3 73%. Year 2 77%. Year 1 66%.
• Email Support from SC: Year 3 70%. Year 2 71%. Year 1 64%.
• Mail: Year 3 68%. Year 2 61%. Year 1 65%.
• GoC Website: Year 3 67%. Year 2 71%. Year 1 65%.
• Phone Support from SC: Year 3 62%. Year 2 59%. Year 1 60%.
• SC Office: Year 3 50%. Year 2 60%. Year 1 67%.
• 1-800-OCanada: Year 3 41%. Year 2 49%. Year 1 48%.

Figure 19: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 83%. Denied 17%.

Base: CSJ applicants – Year 3 (n=1004); Year 2 (n=865); Year 1 (n=942) Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Social Development Partnerships Program (SDPP)

Program level-highlights

Figure 20: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: Year 3 66%. Year 2 69%. Year 1 80%.
• Phone Support from SC: Year 3 56%. Year 2 61%. Year 1 100%.
• GoC Website: Year 3 54%. Year 2 70%. Year 1 33%.
• SC Office: Year 3 50%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: Year 3 50%. Year 2 83%. Year 1 75%.
• Email Support from SC: Year 3 36%. Year 2 73%. Year 1 38%.
• Mail: Year 3 30%. Year 2 50%.
• 1-800-OCanada: Year 3 20%.

Figure 21: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 9%. Denied 76%. TBD 15%.

Base: SDPP applicants – Year 3 (n=214); Year 2 (n=153); Year 1 (n=17*)

Analysis was also conducted for SDPP-C&F and SDPP-D applicants and have been provided on the following slides

Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Social Development Partnerships (SDPP-C&F)

Children And Families

Program level-highlights

Figure 22: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: 69%.
• Phone Support from SC: 58%.
• GoC Website: 53%.
• SC Office: 50%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 46%.
• Email Support from SC: 36%.
• Mail: 22%.
• 1-800-OCanada: 20%.

Figure 23: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 7%. Denied 93%.

Base: SDPP applicants – Year 3 (n=214); Year 2 (n=153); Year 1 (n=17*)

Analysis was also conducted for SDPP-C&F and SDPP-D applicants and have been provided on the following slides

Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

SDPP - C&F - Financial Empowerment Of Low Income People

Program Stream Highlights

Figure 24: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5. Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: 70%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 60%.
• Phone Support from SC: 50%.
• Mail: 50%.
• GoC Website: 43%.
• Email Support from SC: 39%.

Figure 25: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for Year 3 as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 9%. Denied 89%. TBD 2%.

Base: SDPP-C&F – Financial Empowerment of Low-income People– Year 3 (n=47)

Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

SDPP - C&F - Social Inclusion Of Vulnerable Children And Youth

Program Stream Highlights

Figure 26: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: 68%.
• Phone Support from SC: 60%.
• GoC Website: 57%.
• SC Office: 50%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 42%.
• Email Support from SC: 34%.
• 1-800-OCanada: 20%.
• Mail: 14%.

Figure 27: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 6%. Denied 94%.

Base: SDPP-C&F – Social Inclusion of Vulnerable Children and Youth – Year 3 (n=121)

Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Social Development Partnerships (SDPP-D)

Disability

Program Stream Highlights

Figure 28: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GoC Website: 59%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 59%.
• GCOS Web Portal: 57%.
• Phone Support from SC: 50%.
• Mail: 50%.
• Email Support from SC: 38%.

Figure 29: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 17%. Denied 83%.

Base: SDPP – Disability Inclusion – Year 3 (n=46)

Analysis was also conducted by program stream and no statistically significant differences were observed in survey responses due in part to small samples sizes: National AccessAbility Week (n=22*); Phase 1 Partnerships (n=24*)

Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

SDPP-D – National Accessability Week Grant (GRANT)

Program Stream Highlights

Figure 30: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: 86%.
• Phone Support from SC: 67%.
• GoC Website: 62%.
• Mail: 50%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 43%.
• Email Support from SC: 33%.

Figure 31: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 18%. Denied 82%.

Base: SDPP-D – National AccessAbility Week (Grant) – Year 3 (n=22*)

Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

SDPP-D – Phase 1 Partnerships (CONTRIBUTION)

Program Stream Highlights

Figure 32: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Email Support from Program Officer: 70%.
• GoC Website: 57%.
• Mail: 50%.
• GCOS Web Portal: 43%.
• Email Support from SC: 42%.
• Phone Support from SC: 33%.

Figure 33: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 17%. Denied 83%.

Base: SDPP-D – Phase 1 Partnerships (Contribution) – Year 3 (n=24*)

Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2.

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Program Levels Highlights- New Programs Added in Year 3

Please note that the following programs were added in Year 3 and as such, there is no Year 1 or Year 2 data for comparison.

• Apprenticeship Service (AS) – (n=11*)
• Workplace Opportunities: Removing Barriers to Equity (WORBE) – (n=22*)
• Supports for Student Learning Program (SSLP) – (n=24*)
• Women’s Employment Readiness (WER) Pilot Program – (n=51)
• Skilled Trades Awareness and Readiness Program (STAR) – (n=3**)
• Sectoral Initiatives Program (SIP) .- (n=106) Please note that this program is now called the "Sectoral Initiatives Program (SWSP), which builds on and replaces the Sectoral Initiatives Program (SIP)

* small sample size

* very small sample size

Apprenticeship Service (AS)

Program Level Highlights

Figure 34: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Email Support from Program Officer: 50%.
• GCOS Web Portal: 33%.
• GoC Website: 25%.
• Email Support from SC: 18%.

Figure 35: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 73%. Denied 27%.

Base: AS applicants (n=11*)

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Workplace Opportunities Removing Barriers To Equity (WORBE)

Program Level-Highlights

Figure 36: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: 100%.
• GoC Website: 81%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 80%.
• Email Support from SC: 55%.
• Mail: 50%.
• Phone Support from SC: 50%.

Figure 37: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 9%. Denied 90%.

Base: WORBE applicants (n=22*)

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Supports For Student Learning Program (SSLP)

Program Level-Highlights

Figure 38: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• SC Office: 100%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 79%.
• GCOS Web Portal: 60%.
• GoC Website: 44%.
• Email Support from SC: 41%.
• Phone Support from SC: 25%.

Figure 39: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 75%. Denied 17%. TBD 8%.

Base: SSLP applicants (n=24*)

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Women’s Employment Readiness (WER) Pilot Program

Program Level-Highlights

Figure 40: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GCOS Web Portal: 75%.
• GoC Website: 67%.
• Phone Support from SC: 50%. 
• 1-800-OCanada: 50%.
• Email Support from SC: 31%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 29%.

Figure 41: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 24%. Denied 75%. TBD 1%.

Base: WER applicants (n=51)

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Skilled Trades Awareness And Readiness Program (STAR)

Program Level-Highlights

Figure 42: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• GoC Website: 100%.

Figure 43: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Denied 100%.

Base: STAR applicants (n=3**)

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Sectoral Initiatives Program (SIP)*

Program Level-Highlights

Figure 44: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the service they received from the service channels they used throughout the application process. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale and results were grouped by those who provided a rating of 4 or 5.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• 1-800-OCanada: 100%.
• Email Support from Program Officer: 54%.
• SC Office: 50%.
• GoC Website: 44%.
• GCOS Web Portal: 44%.
• Email Support from SC: 37%.
• Phone Support from SC: 31%.
• Mail: 20%.

Figure 45: Funding Approval

This horizontal bar chart shows whether the applicants to this program received funding approval or not and presents results for as follows:

• Year 3: Approved 2%. Denied 97%. TBD 1%.

Base: SIP applicants (n=116)

* The program is now called the "Sectoral Initiatives Program (SWSP), which builds on and replaces the Sectoral Initiatives Program (SIP)

* small sample size

Top 5 driver of satisfaction

Significantly higher / lower than total

Service Channel Assessments

Satisfaction with Service Channels

• Satisfaction with the quality of service decreased among those using the Government of Canada website (66%, -5 pts) compared to Year 2 (71%). At nearly eight in ten (77%), applicants remained most satisfied with email support from a program officer, followed by more than seven in ten (72%) who were satisfied with the GCOS web portal. Roughly two thirds were satisfied with email support from a Service Canada office (68%), the Government of Canada website (66%) and mail service (65%). Six in ten were satisfied with telephone support from a Service Canada office (62%) and five in ten with in-person service at a Service Canada Office (52%). Satisfaction remained lowest for the 1 800 O-Canada phone line (42%).

How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from each of the following?

Figure 46: Satisfaction with Service Channels

This horizontal bar chart shows responses to a question about how satisfied or dissatisfied the applicant was with the overall quality of service provided by the service channels used during the applicant process and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale. Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Email support from a Program Officer: Year 3 49% very satisfied, 29% somewhat satisfied, 10% neutral, 6% somewhat dissatisfied, 4% very dissatisfied, 3% Don’t know. 77% very/somewhat satisfied. A total of 842 respondents answered this question. Year 2 79% very/somewhat satisfied. Year 1 80% very/somewhat satisfied.  
• GCOS Web portal: Year 3 32% very satisfied, 40% somewhat satisfied, 20% neutral, 6% somewhat dissatisfied, 2% very dissatisfied, 1% Don’t know. 72% very/somewhat satisfied. A total of 881 respondents answered this question. Year 2 76% very/somewhat satisfied. Year 1 67% very/somewhat satisfied.
• Email support from a Service Canada office: Year 3 37% very satisfied, 32% somewhat satisfied, 14% neutral, 5% somewhat dissatisfied, 2% very dissatisfied, 11% Don’t know. 68% very/somewhat satisfied. A total of 2442 respondents answered this question. Year 2 70% very/somewhat satisfied. Year 1 65% very/somewhat satisfied.
• Government of Canada website: Year 3 24% very satisfied, 42% somewhat satisfied, 23% neutral, 5% somewhat dissatisfied, 2% very dissatisfied, 4% Don’t know. 66% very/somewhat satisfied. A total of 1871 respondents answered this question. Year 2 71% very/somewhat satisfied. Year 1 66% very/somewhat satisfied.
• Mail: Year 3 36% very satisfied, 29% somewhat satisfied, 10% neutral, 5% somewhat dissatisfied, 3% very dissatisfied, 17% Don’t know. 65% very/somewhat satisfied. A total of 154 respondents answered this question. Year 2 58% very/somewhat satisfied. Year 1 63% very/somewhat satisfied.
• Telephone support from a Service Canada office: Year 3 36% very satisfied, 27% somewhat satisfied, 12% neutral, 7% somewhat dissatisfied, 3% very dissatisfied, 17% Don’t know. 62% very/somewhat satisfied. A total of 573 respondents answered this question. Year 2 61% very/somewhat satisfied. Year 1 61% very/somewhat satisfied.
• Service Canada office: Year 3 43% very satisfied, 9% somewhat satisfied, 17% neutral, 6% somewhat dissatisfied, 17% very dissatisfied, 8% Don’t know. 52% very/somewhat satisfied. A total of 44 respondents answered this question. Year 2 62% very/somewhat satisfied. Year 1 66% very/somewhat satisfied.
• 1800 O-Canada phone line: Year 3 17% very satisfied, 25% somewhat satisfied, 32% neutral, 4% somewhat dissatisfied, 6% very dissatisfied, 17% Don’t know. 42% very/somewhat satisfied. A total of 94 respondents answered this question. Year 2 48% very/somewhat satisfied. Year 1 49% very/somewhat satisfied.

Q26. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “very dissatisfied”, and 5 means “very satisfied". How dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from each of the following?

Base: Used channel at aware, apply or follow-up stage. Note: Figures for ‘[PROGRAM] web portal’ is reported in Year 1 and compared with ‘GCOS web portal’ in Year 2 and Year 3.

Note: values less than 3% not labelled

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Satisfaction with Service Channels by Program

• Applicants to SDPP and SIP were less satisfied with many service channels used during their experience, while applicants to EAF and WER were less satisfied with email support from a Service Canada office. NHSP applicants were more likely to be satisfied with the GoC website and telephone support from a SC office.
• Compared to Year 2, applicants to SDPP were less likely to be satisfied with the GoC website and email support form a Service Canada office or from a program officer. Satisfaction with service channels for all other programs remained statistically consistent.

How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from each of the following?

Q26. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “very dissatisfied”, and 5 means “very satisfied". How dissatisfied or satisfied were you with the overall quality of service you received from each of the following?

Base: Used channel at aware, apply or follow-up stage

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Number of Contacts with Service Channels

• Consistent with Year 1 and Year 2, there were significant differences in the number of contacts applicants had with Service Canada depending on the channel they used. Applicants who went to a Service Canada office, called a Service Canada office directly, emailed a Service Canada office and to a lesser extent communicated with the Government of Canada by mail were more likely to have been in contact with Service Canada only once during their experience. Those who used the GCOS web portal, went online to the Government of Canada website or emailed a program officer directly were much more likely to have used the channel 5 times or more.
• Compared to Year 2, applicants report using the GCOS web portal, going online to the GoC website and calling 1 800 O-Canada more times and having fewer contacts emailing a Service Canada office.

Thinking about your overall experience, how many times did you use each of the following?

Figure 47: Number of Contacts with Service Channels (1/2)

This horizontal bar chart shows responses to a question about how many times the applicant used each service channels during their experience and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Go to a Service Canada office: Year 3 32% one time, 6% two times, 5% three times, 0% four times, 6% five or more times, 50% Don’t know. Year 2 40% one time, 3% two times, 8% three times, 0% four times, 3% five or more times, 47% Don’t know. Year 1 42% one time, 6% two times, 7% three times, 3% four times, 1% five or more times, 41% Don’t know.
• Communicate by mail with the Government of Canada: Year 3 25% one time, 10% two times, 4% three times, 2% four times, 5% five or more times, 54% Don’t know. Year 2 31% one time, 7% two times, 6% three times, 1% four times, 8% five or more times, 47% Don’t know. Year 1 42% one time, 11% two times, 6% three times, 2% four times, 4% five or more times, 35% Don’t know.
• Call a Service Canada office directly: Year 3 29% one time, 13% two times, 6% three times, 2% four times, 6% five or more times, 43% Don’t know. Year 2 31% one time, 12% two times, 10% three times, 3% four times, 10% five or more times, 34% Don’t know. Year 1 25% one time, 18% two times, 10% three times, 4% four times, 20% five or more times, 24% Don’t know.
• Call 1800 O-Canada: Year 3 22% one time, 23% two times, 11% three times, 0% four times, 7% five or more times, 37% Don’t know. Year 2 40% one time, 16% two times, 6% three times, 3% four times, 5% five or more times, 31% Don’t know. Year 1 23% one time, 18% two times, 9% three times, 5% four times, 14% five or more times, 31% Don’t know.

Q25. Thinking about your overall experience, how many times did you [IF MULTIPLE SOURCES ‘use each of the following’ IF ONLY ONE SOURCE ‘use the following’]? Please provide one response per item.

Base: Used channel at aware, apply or follow-up stage n= Base Varies

Note: values less than 3% not labelled

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Thinking about your overall experience, how many times did you use each of the following?

Figure 48: Number of Contacts with Service Channels (2/2) Continuation

This horizontal bar chart shows the continuation on the responses to the question about how many times the applicant used each service channels during their experience and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3.  Sample sizes vary by service channel, only those who used each channel during their experience were asked about it.

• Email a Service Canada Office: Year 3 28% one time, 12% two times, 7% three times, 4% four times, 12% five or more times, 38% Don’t know. Year 2 22% one time, 12% two times, 8% three times, 5% four times, 16% five or more times, 37% Don’t know. Year 1 19% one time, 13% two times, 11% three times, 6% four times, 22% five or more times, 30% Don’t know.
• Go online to the Government of Canada website: Year 3 14% one time, 12% two times, 11% three times, 5% four times, 27% five or more times, 31% Don’t know. Year 2 14% one time, 15% two times, 9% three times, 5% four times, 27% five or more times, 29% Don’t know. Year 1 18% one time, 15% two times, 9% three times, 6% four times, 28% five or more times, 25% Don’t know.
• Go online to the program they applied for web portal: Year 3 6% one time, 8% two times, 11% three times, 7% four times, 48% five or more times, 20% Don’t know. Year 2 8% one time, 12% two times, 13% three times, 7% four times, 44% five or more times, 16% Don’t know. Year 1 13% one time, 12% two times, 10% three times, 7% four times, 37% five or more times, 21% Don’t know.
• Email a Program Officer directly: Year 3 14% one time, 18% two times, 13% three times, 8% four times, 27% five or more times, 21% Don’t know. Year 2 13% one time, 16% two times, 11% three times, 8% four times, 31% five or more times, 20% Don’t know. Year 1 9% one time, 22% two times, 16% three times, 9% four times, 37% five or more times, 7% Don’t know.

Q25. Thinking about your overall experience, how many times did you [IF MULTIPLE SOURCES ‘use each of the following’ IF ONLY ONE SOURCE ‘use the following’]? Please provide one response per item.

Base: Used channel at aware, apply or follow-up stage n= Base Varies

Note: values less than 3% not labelled

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Number of Contacts by Program

• Across all service channels, a greater proportion of applicants report having been in contact with Service Canada 1 to 3 times and fewer 7 to 9 times or 10+ times compared to Year 2. More than two in ten applicants were in contact with Service Canada 1 to 3 times (22%, +3 pts), 4 to 6 times (23%, +2 pts) or 10 or more times (23%, -5 pts), while one in ten (9%, -4 pts) were in contact 7 to 9 times.
• As observed in Year 1 and Year 2, satisfaction with the service experience declined with the number of times the client contacted Service Canada and continued to be lower among those who had 10 or more contacts through any channel during the client journey.
• Those applying to all programs but EAF, NHSP and CSJ and in particular SDPP (37%, +14 pts) and SIP (33%) were more likely to have been in contact with Service Canada 10 or more times. Applicants to NHSP were more likely to have been in contact 1 to 3 times or 7 to 9 times.
• Compared to Year 2, applicants to NHSP and CSJ were more likely to have been in contact with Service Canada 1 to 3 times, while applicants to SDPP were more likely to report being in contact 10 or more times.

Thinking about your overall experience, how many times did you use each of the following?

Q25. Thinking about your overall experience, how many times did you [IF MULTIPLE SOURCES ‘use each of the following’ IF ONLY ONE SOURCE ‘use the following’]? Please provide one response per item.

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Barriers and Issue Resolution

Explanation of Problem or Issue

• The most common problems or issues were that it took too long to receive a funding decision (44%, +10 pts), took too long to receive an update on their application (31%, +8 pts), and technical difficulties (24%, -3 pts).
• Compared to Year 2, a greater proportion of applicants said it took too long to receive a funding decision or to receive an update on their application, while fewer reported experiencing confusion with the online application process or program website information, felt the application form was complicated or that they received different answers from different program officers.

How would you describe the problem or issue you experienced?

Figure 49: Explanation of Problem or Issue

This horizontal bar chart shows coded responses to an open-ended question about how the applicant would describe the problem or issue they experienced and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. A total of 800 respondents from Year 3 who experienced problem or issue answered as follows:

• Took too long to receive a funding decision: Year 3 44%. Year 2 34%. Year 1 43%.
• Took too long to receive an update on my application: Year 3 31%. Year 2 23%. Year 1 37%.
• Technical difficulties: Year 3 24%. Year 2 27%.
• Application form was too long: Year 3 15%. Year 2 21%.
• Application requirements were difficult to understand: Year 3 14%. Year 2 13%. Year 1 16%.
• Online application process was confusing: Year 3 14%. Year 2 19%.
• Program website information was confusing: Year 3 13%. Year 2 19%. Year 1 15%.
• Online account creation was confusing: Year 3 13%. Year 2 18%.
• Application form was complicated: Year 3 12%. Year 2 19%. Year 1 25%.
• Staff were not knowledgeable / could not answer my questions: Year 3 10%. Year 2 10%. Year 1 13%.
• Telephone lines were busy: Year 3 10%. Year 2 11%. Year 1 16%.
• Government of Canada website information was confusing: Year 3 10%. Year 2 11%.
• I received different answers from different Program Officers: Year 3 9%. Year 2 16%. Year 1 22%.
• Information on the program was difficult to understand: Year 3 7%. Year 2 11%. Year 1 16%.
• The information session was confusing: Year 3 2%.

Note: Only responses of 3% or more for Year 2 are shown.

Q28. How would you describe the problem or issue you experienced? Select all that apply.

Base: Experienced problem or issue (n=800)

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Encountered a Problem – % Yes

• One quarter (26%) of applicants encountered a problem or issue during the application process, an increase of 4 points from Year 2.
• Those applying to SDPP and all programs but EAF, NHSP, CSJ were more likely to say they encountered a problem, while applicants to NHSP were less likely.
• Compared to Year 2, applicants to CSJ were more likely to have experienced a problem or issue.

Thinking about your overall experience getting information and applying for [PROGRAM], did you experience any problems or issues during this process? – % Yes

Figure 50: Encountered a Problem

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about whether the applicant experienced any problems or issues during the application process and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and 3.

• Total: Year 3 26%. A total of 3041 respondents answered this question. Year 2 22%. Year 1 35%.
• EAF: Year 3 26%. A total of 300 respondents answered this question. Year 2 21%. Year 1 23%.
• NHSP: Year 3 23%. A total of 1296 respondents answered this question. Year 2 27%. Year 1 32%.
• CSJ: Year 3 26%. A total of 1004 respondents answered this question. Year 2 20%. Year 1 35%.
• SDPP: Year 3 41%. A total of 214 respondents answered this question. Year 2 33%. Year 1 47%.
• AS: Year 3 27%. A total of 11 respondents answered this question.
• WORBE: Year 3 14%. A total of 22 respondents answered this question.
• SSLP: Year 3 63%. A total of 24 respondents answered this question.
• WER: Year 3 31%. A total of 51 respondents answered this question.
• STAR: Year 3 67%. A total of 3 respondents answered this question.
• SIP: Year 3 29%. A total of 116 respondents answered this question.
• ALL BUT EAF, NHSP, CSJ: Year 3 37%. A total of 441 respondents answered this question. Year 2 35%. Year 1 31%.

Q27. Thinking about your overall experience getting information and applying for [INSERT PROGRAM], did you experience any problems or issues during this process?

Base: All respondents n=3041

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Explanation of Problem or Issue by Program

• Among those who experienced a problem or issue, SDPP and SIP applicants were more likely to mention nearly all problems or issues. NHSP and EAF applicants were more likely to say that the application requirements or program information were difficult to understand, the application form was complicated and the information session was confusing. EAF applicants were also more likely to say the website information was confusing, while NHSP applicants were also more likely to cite technical difficulties, that the application form was too long or the online application process was confusing.
• Compared to Year 2, SDPP applicants were more likely to mention several problems or issues of which the greatest increase was for the application form being too long and too complicated, while CSJ applicants were more likely to say that it took too long to receive a funding decision or an update on their application.

How would you describe the problem or issue you experienced?

Note: Only responses of 3% or more for Year 2 Totals are shown.

Q28. How would you describe the problem or issue you experienced? Select all that apply.

Base: Experienced problem or issue (n=800)

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Ease of Issue Resolution

• Among those who experienced a problem or issue, fewer than two in ten (17%) felt it was easily resolved, a decrease of 12 points from Year 2 (28%). While nearly half (47%) disagree that the problem or issue was easily resolved, an increase of 10 points from the previous year (37%).
• Those who applied to NHSP and experienced a problem or issue were more likely to say it was easily resolved, while applicants to all programs but EAF, NHSP and CSJ were less likely.
• Compared to Year 2, applicants to CSJ were less likely to feel their problem was easily resolved.

The problem or issue was easily resolved.

Figure 51: Ease of Issue Resolution

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about the extent to which the applicant agrees or disagrees that the problem or issue was easily resolved and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and 3. Those who experienced problem or issue answered as follows:

• Total: Year 3: 6% strongly agree, 11% somewhat agree, 30% neutral, 20% somewhat disagree, 27% strongly disagree. A total of 800 respondents answered this question. Year 2: 10% strongly agree, 18% somewhat agree, 31% neutral, 18% somewhat disagree, 19% strongly disagree. Year 1: 10% strongly agree, 16% somewhat agree, 30% neutral, 25% somewhat disagree, 17% strongly disagree.
• EAF: Year 3 23% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 78 respondents answered this question. Year 2 35% strongly/somewhat agree. Year 1 39% strongly/somewhat agree.
• NHSP: Year 3 27% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 298 respondents answered this question. Year 2 29% strongly/somewhat agree. Year 1 25% strongly/somewhat agree.
• CSJ: Year 3 16% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 263 respondents answered this question. Year 2 30% strongly/somewhat agree. Year 1 26% strongly/somewhat agree.
• SDPP: Year 3 12% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 88 respondents answered this question. Year 2 24% strongly/somewhat agree. Year 1 13% strongly/somewhat agree.
• AS: Year 3 67% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 3 respondents answered this question.
• WORBE: Year 3 0% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 3 respondents answered this question.
• SSLP: Year 3 20% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 15 respondents answered this question.
• WER: Year 3 6% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 16 respondents answered this question.
• STAR: Year 3 0% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 2 respondents answered this question.
• SIP: Year 3 0% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 34 respondents answered this question.
• ALL BUT EAF, NHSP, CSJ: Year 3 10% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 161 respondents answered this question. Year 2 17% strongly/somewhat agree. Year 1 16% strongly/somewhat agree.

Q29. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”, how much would you agree or disagree that the problem or issue was easily resolved?

Base: Experienced problem or issue (n=800)

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Drivers of Satisfaction

Drivers of Satisfaction

The primary driver of satisfaction in the service experience was the amount of time it took from start to finish was reasonable, followed by the ease of follow-up before receiving a decision and confidence that any issues or problems would have been easily resolved. 

• Other prominent drivers included whether the applicant received funding approval, that it was clear what would happen next and when, being able to complete steps online made the process easier, ease of understanding information about the program and putting together the information needed for the application.

When comparing the drivers of satisfaction between Year 2 and Year 3, timeliness of service has increased in importance and become the most prominent driver overall (consistent with Year 1), while the ease of follow-up has also increased in importance and become the second most prominent driver.

• Other aspects of service which have increased in importance in driving satisfaction include confidence in issue resolution and whether the applicant received funding approval, while the helpfulness of Service Canada phone representatives and ease of getting help when needed have decreased in importance.

Overall, the greatest opportunities to improve the service experience are improving the timeliness of service and ease of follow-up.

• 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 and ease of follow-up (before receiving a decision). The most prominent secondary areas for improvement include confidence in the issue resolution process and overall clarity of process.
• The provision of service in either Official Language, the ease gained from completing steps online, ease of finding information about the program and ease of determining eligibility are relative strengths and areas that should be maintained.
• In Year 3, the primary driver of satisfaction in the service experience was the amount of time it took from start to finish was reasonable, followed by the ease of follow-up (before receiving a decision) and confidence that any issues or problems would have been easily resolved.
• The strength of the drivers’ analysis was strong and had an R2 of 0.62 (consistent with Year 1 and Year 2, 0.63).

Figure 52: Drivers of Satisfaction

This horizontal bar chart shows results of a regression analysis that was conducted to identify the primary service attributes driving overall satisfaction with the service experience.  Results were reported by impact score per service attribute as follows:

• The amount of time it took was reasonable 0.344
• Ease of follow-up 0.259
• I was confident that any issues or problems would have been easily resolved 0.132
• Received funding approval 0.080
• Throughout the process it was clear what would happen next and when it would happen 0.076
• Being able to complete steps online made the process easier for me 0.074
• Understanding the requirements of the application 0.072
• Putting together the information you needed to apply for [Program] 0.071
• Find general information about [Program] 0.061
• I received consistent information 0.059
• Overall, it was easy for me to apply for [Program] 0.053
• It was clear what to do if I had a problem or question 0.050
• Find out what information you need to provide when applying for [Program] 0.048
• Completing the narrative questions (i.e. funding objectives, description of project, scope of project, etc.) 0.040
• Determine the steps to apply for funding 0.039
• I needed to explain my situation only once 0.033
• The application took a reasonable amount of time to complete 0.033
• I was provided with service in my choice of English or French 0.032
• Completing the budget document 0.029
• Meeting the requirements of the application process 0.028
• It was easy to get help when I needed it 0.024
• You were able to find the information you needed (online, in person, or by phone) within a reasonable amount of time 0.022
• It was easy to access service in a language I could speak and understand well 0.014
• I was confident that my personal information was protected 0.013
• Understand the information about [Program] 0.009
• Service Canada phone representatives were helpful 0.007
• I was able to move smoothly through all of the steps related to the [Program] application 0.005
• Completing the project timeline 0.001
• Determine if your organization is eligible for [Program] funding 0.001

R² = 0.62

Top of Drivers of Satisfaction – Trending

• When comparing the drivers of satisfaction between Year 2 and Year 3, timeliness of service has increased in importance and become the most prominent driver overall (consistent with Year 1). The ease of follow-up, confidence in issue resolution and whether the applicant received funding approval have also increased in importance, while the helpfulness of Service Canada phone representatives and ease of getting help when needed have decreased in importance.

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 applicants.

A priority matrix allows for decision makers to identify priorities for improvement by comparing how well applicants feel you have performed in an area with how much impact that area has on applicants’ 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 are in improving the timeliness of service and ease of follow-up before receiving a decision. The most prominent secondary areas for improvement include confidence in the issue resolution process and overall clarity of the process.
• The provision of service in either Official Language, the ease gained from completing steps online, ease of finding information about the program and ease of determining eligibility are relative strengths and areas that should be maintained.

*factors with standardized coefficients below 0.03 were excluded

Pre-Application

Information Gathering about the Program 

Channel Use Pre-Application to Learn About the Program

• At just over half (52%, -5 pts), applicants were most likely to have received an email from the GoC, ESDC, or the program they applied to during the aware stage, followed by slightly fewer who went to the Government of Canada website for the program (48%) or used the applicant guide (45%). Roughly one quarter (27%, +4 pts) talked to peers/community networks and two in ten went to the general Government of Canada website (20%, -5 pts).
• Compared to Year 2, a greater proportion talked to peers/community networks (27%, +4 pts), while fewer received an email directly (52%, -5 pts), went to the GoC website (20%, -5 pts), participated in a GoC info session (10%, -2 pts) or talked to their local MP (9%, -6pts).

Which of the following did you use to find out about [PROGRAM] before you applied?

Figure 53: Channel use pre-application- to learn about the program

This horizontal bar chart shows responses to a question about which channels the applicant used to find out about the program before they applied and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. All the 3041 respondents from Year 3 answered as follows:

• Received an email from the funding program directly: Year 3 52%. Year 2 57%. Year 1 51%.
• Went online to the Government of Canada website for the [program]: Year 3 48%. Year 2 48%.
• Used the applicant guide: Year 3 45%.
• Talked to my peers / community network: Year 3 27%. Year 2 23%. Year 1 29%.
• Went online to the Government of Canada website: Year 3 20%. Year 2 25%. Year 1 60%.
• Emailed a Program Officer for [program] directly: Year 3 10%. Year 2 11%. Year 10%.
• Participated in Government of Canada info session / webinar. Year 3 10%. Year 2 12%. Year 1 10%.
• Talked to my local Member of Parliament (MP): Year 3 9%. Year 2 15%. Year 1 18%.
• Used social media to get information: Year 3 5%. Year 2 5%. Year 1 5%.
• Went online to websites for other levels of government: Year 3 4%. Year 2 5%. Year 1 8%.
• Went online to other websites: Year 3 3%. Year 2 3%. Year 1 4%.
• Emailed a Service Canada office: Year 3 3%. Year 2 4%. Year 1 5%.
• Called a Service Canada office directly: Year 3 2%. Year 2 3%. Year 1 5%.
• Called 1 800 O Canada phone line: Year 3 1%. Year 2 2% Year 1 2%.
• Went to a Service Canada office: Year 3 0%. Year 2 1% Year 1 1%.
• NONE OF THESE: Year 3 3%. Year 2 4%. Year 1 4%.

Q2. Which of the following did you use to find out about [INSERT PROGRAM] before you applied? Consider all the methods you used to learn about the program before filling out the application. Please select all that apply.

Base: All respondents.

Note: In Year 3 the response option "Used the applicant guide for [program]“ was added. In Year 1 the following answer choice wording did not mention the specific program applied to:  “Emailed a program officer directly” and “Received an email from the funding program directly”.

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Channel Use Pre-Application to Learn About the Program by Program

• NHSP applicants were more likely to have used several channels when learning about the program and most notably the applicant guide, talked to peers/ community networks, participated in a GoC info session and talked to their local MP. Applicants to all programs but EAF, NHSP and CSJ and in particular SDPP, SIP and to a lesser extent WER were also more likely to used several channels of which the most notable differences were for going to the GoC website and participated in a GoC info session, while SIP applicants were also much more likely to have talked to peers/ community network. EAF applicants were more likely to have gone online to the GoC website, participated in a GoC info session, used social media and or to have gone to other government websites.
• Compared to Year 2, applicants to EAF and NHSP were more likely to have talked to peers/ community network (along with CSJ applicants) and to have participated in a GoC info session (along with SDPP applicants), while EAF and SDPP applicants were also more likely more likely to have received an email from the GoC, ESDC or the program directly.

Which of the following did you use to find out about [PROGRAM] before you applied?

Q2. Which of the following did you use to find out about [INSERT PROGRAM] before you applied? Consider all the methods you used to learn about the program before filling out the application. Please select all that apply.

Base: All respondents.

Note: In Year 3 the response option "Used the applicant guide for [program]“ was added. In Year 1 the following answer choice wording did not mention the specific program applied to:  “Emailed a program officer directly” and “Received an email from the funding program directly”.

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Ease of Use of Government of Canada Website

• Of those who used the Government of Canada website during the aware stage, the vast majority felt nearly all aspects of learning about the program were easy. Applicants were most likely to feel it was easy finding general information about the program they applied for (82%), to determine the steps to apply for funding (81%) and to determine if their organization was eligible for funding (80%). Ratings were lowest for the determining the amount of time each phase of the application process was anticipated to take (56%).
• Compared to Year 2, applicants were less likely to feel it was easy to determine if their organization was eligible for funding (80%, -4 pts).

How difficult or easy was it to find the following information about [PROGRAM] on the Government of Canada website?

Figure 54: Ease of Use of Government of Canada website

This horizontal bar chart shows responses to a question about how difficult or easy it was for the applicant to find different types of information about the program they applied for on the Government of Canada website and presents results for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3. Respondents were asked to provide ratings on a 5-pt scale.  All 1,682 respondents from Year 3 who used government of Canada website responded as follows:

• Find general information about the [program]: Year 3 44% very easy, 38% somewhat easy, 15% neutral, 3% somewhat difficult, 1% very difficult, 0% Don’t know. 82% easy. Year 2 82% easy. Year 1 82% easy.
• Determine the steps to apply for funding: Year 3 41% very easy, 40% somewhat easy, 15% neutral, 3% somewhat difficult, 1% very difficult, 0% Don’t know. 81% easy. Year 2 81% easy. Year 1 78% easy.
• Determine if your organization is eligible for [program] funding: Year 3 50% very easy, 30% somewhat easy, 14% neutral, 5% somewhat difficult, 2% very difficult, 0% Don’t know. 80% easy. Year 2 84% easy. Year 1 83% easy.
• Find out what information they need to provide when applying for the [program]: Year 3 39% very easy, 40% somewhat easy, 16% neutral, 3% somewhat difficult, 1% very difficult, 0% Don’t know. 79% easy. Year 2 79% easy. Year 1 78% easy.
• Determine when the application period for [program] takes place: Year 3 50% very easy, 29% somewhat easy, 15% neutral, 4% somewhat difficult, 2% very difficult, 0% Don’t know. 79% easy. Year 2 83% easy. Year 1 n/a easy.
• Understand the information about the [program]: Year 3 38% very easy, 39% somewhat easy, 19% neutral, 4% somewhat difficult, 1% very difficult, 0% Don’t know. 77% easy. Year 2 80% easy. Year 1 76% easy.
• Determine the amount of time each phase of the application process is anticipated to take: Year 3 24% very easy, 31% somewhat easy, 23% neutral, 14% somewhat difficult, 6% very difficult, 2% Don’t know. 56% easy. Year 2 58% easy. Year 1 n/a.

Q5. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘very difficult’ and 5 is ‘very easy’, how difficult or easy was it to find the following information about [INSERT PROGRAM] on the Government of Canada website? Select one response per item.

Base: Used Government of Canada website (n=1682)

Note: values less than 3% not labelled

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Ease of Use of Government of Canada Website by Program

• Of those who used the GoC website, applicants to all programs but EAF, NHSP, and CSJ and in particular SDPP were less likely think it was easy to find all types of information related to their program. WER and SIP applicants were less likely to feel it was easy to find general information, while WER applicants less likely to say it was easy to find out what information they need to provide when applying and SIP applicants to determine the amount of time ease phase was anticipated to take.
• Compared to Year 2, NHSP applicants were less likely to feel it was easy to determine the steps to apply. CSJ applicants were less likely to feel it was easy to determine if their organization was eligible for funding, while applicants to all programs but EAF, NHSP and CSJ found it easier and were also more likely to find it easy to determine the amount of time ease phase is anticipated to take.

How difficult or easy was it to find the following information about [PROGRAM] on the Government of Canada website?

Q5. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘very difficult’ and 5 is ‘very easy’, how difficult or easy was it to find the following information about [INSERT PROGRAM] on the Government of Canada website? Select one response per item.

* small sample size

** very small sample size

Significantly higher / lower than total

Significantly higher / lower than Year 2

Able to Find Information in Reasonable Amount of Time

• More than three quarters (77%) of applicants said they were able to find the information needed (online, in person, or by phone) within a reasonable amount of time.
• NHSP applicants were more likely to agree they found the information needed in a reasonable time, while applicants to all programs but EAF, NHSP, CSJ and in particular SDPP and SIP were less likely.

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?

Figure 55: Able to Find Information in Reasonable Amount of Time

This vertical bar chart shows responses to a question about the extent to which the applicant agrees or disagrees that they were able to find the information they needed within a reasonable amount of time and presents results for Year 3. Those who used at least one channel (online, in person or by phone) answered as follows:

• Total: Year 3: 42% strongly agree, 36% somewhat agree, 15% neutral, 4% somewhat disagree, 4% strongly disagree. A total of 2944 respondents answered this question.
• EAF: Year 3 76% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 282 respondents answered this question.
• NHSP: Year 3 83% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 1266 respondents answered this question.
• CSJ: Year 3 77% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 969 respondents answered this question.
• SDPP: Year 3 67% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 204 respondents answered this question.
• AS: Year 3 70% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 10 respondents answered this question.
• WORBE: Year 3 82% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 22 respondents answered this question.
• SSLP: Year 3 63% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 24 respondents answered this question.
• WER: Year 3 70% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 50 respondents answered this question.
• STAR: Year 3 67% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 3 respondents answered this question.
• SIP: Year 3 67% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 114 respondents answered this question.
• ALL BUT EAF, NHSP, CSJ: Year 3 68% strongly/somewhat agree. A total of 427 respondents answered this question.

5b. 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 is “strongly disagree” and 5 is “strongly agree”.

Base: Used at least one channel during aware stage (n=2944)

New question added in Year 3

Note: values less than 3% not labelled

Qualitative Findings: Awareness of Gs&Cs

Overall, regardless of whether an organization received funding or not, ESDC was seen by many as doing an excellent job of raising awareness about the various funding programs that are available.

“We know they exist. Canada Summer Jobs is very well advertised. Pretty much everybody knows about it. So, there’s a knowledge mobilization component to that program is very well done. And it is very prominent and present.”

Program websites were the main source of support used by applicants and the feedback on the websites and supporting documents was predominantly positive.

“We definitely consulted the websites as well as the frequently asked questions. These resources I think are well done. The eligibility requirements, the concept of what they’re looking for, I haven’t found it unclear… I thought it was clearly put together and didn’t often require additional information. The FAQs are usually quite helpful too. And what I’ve seen them do in the past, is that they also host these Ask Me Anything sessions where people who are interested in applying can show up and pose questions to the ESDC staff that’s assigned to this.”

Most Impactful Changes to Improve Ease of GoC Website

• At nearly four in ten (38%), applicants were most likely to say that if it were easier to determine the amount of time each phase of the application process takes it would have improved their experience the most, followed by two in ten (19%) that said finding out the information needed when applying and one in ten (11%) for being able to determine when the application period for the program takes place.
• EAF and NHSP applicants were more likely to say being able to find out the information needed when applying, while NHSP applicants were also more likely to mention to determine when the application period for the program takes place and understand information about the program and EAF applicants to determine the steps to apply. SDPP applicants were more likely to mention to find general information about the program.

When learning about [INSERT PROGRAM] on the Government of Canada website, which of the following changes would have improved your experience the most? If it were easier to…