Client Satisfaction Research - 2011-2012 - Long Descriptions

Regardless of the nature of their interaction, three in four clients are satisfied with the overall quality of service provided by the Agency

Figure 1

This image is three horizontal stacked bar charts, one representing 2011/2012, one representing 2010/2011, and one representing 2009/2010.  Respondents were asked, Putting aside your views on the outcome of your dealings with the Agency, how satisfied were you with the overall quality of service provided by the Agency?  In 2011/2012, respondents selected very satisfied (52.3%), somewhat satisfied (24.3%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (7%), somewhat dissatisfied (4%) and very dissatisfied (12%); the base is n=189.  In 2010/2011, respondents selected very satisfied (41%), somewhat satisfied (24%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (13%), somewhat dissatisfied (7%) and very dissatisfied (13%); the base is n=230.  In 2009/2010, respondents selected very satisfied (44%), somewhat satisfied (21%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (8%), somewhat dissatisfied (7%), very dissatisfied (6%), and don't know (14%); the base is n=72.

The image includes a note; the total level of satisfaction for 2011/2012 is 76.6%, or 77% with rounding.  The question wording in 2010/2011 and 2009/2010 was ‘Aside from the [audience] process, how satisfied/dissatisfied were you with the overall quality of service provided by the Agency?'.

Return to reference 1

Reasons for level of satisfaction with the quality of service provided by the Agency among those satisfied with the overall quality of service

Figure 2

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, Please provide the main reason why you would rate your satisfaction with the overall quality of service provided by the Agency as 4 or 5.  Respondents selected: "they were helpful/ informative" (22%); "staff were professional/ courteous" (21%); "provides detailed/ thorough information/ takes time to explain" (16%); "issue was addressed/ resolved in a timely manner" (14%); "successful outcome/ my issue was resolved"(12%); "excellent service/ they are good at what they do" (9%); "positive/ I'm satisfied with my experience" (8%); "they were fair/ objective" (8%); "staff are thorough/ did all they could" (8%); "am not satisfied/ issue was not resolved" (8%); "understanding/ accommodating staff" (7%); "I couldn't have resolved the issue without them" (7%); "knowledgeable staff" (6%); "I received a refund/ was reimbursed" (5%); "friendly/ pleasant staff" (5%); "Agency needs more power/ should help with more issues" (5%); and "don't know/ not sure" (18%).  The base size is n=145.  The chart only includes responses of 4% or more.

Return to reference 2

Reasons for level of satisfaction with the quality of service provided by the Agency among those dissatisfied with the overall quality of service

Figure 3

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, Please provide the main reason why you would rate your satisfaction with the overall quality of service provided by the Agency as 1 or 2. Respondents selected: "am not satisfied/ issue was not resolved" (27%); "Agency needs more power/ should help with more issues" (27%); "biased/ does not represent consumer interests" (20%); "it's a waste of time/ money" (20%); "provides detailed/ thorough information/ takes  time to explain" (13%); "slow service/ process takes too long" (13%); "too bureaucratic" (13%); "staff were professional/ courteous" (10%); "poor service" (10%); "issue was addressed/ resolved in a timely manner" (7%); "staff are thorough/ did all they could" (7%); "friendly/ pleasant staff" (7%); "unfair decisions" (7%); "didn't provide an explanation" (7%); "poor communication" (7%); "other negative mentions" (13%); and "don't know/ not sure" (10%).  The base size is n=30.  The chart only includes responses of 4% or more.

Return to reference 3

About two thirds of respondents report that the process met their objectives, while one in four say it did not; this ratio has shifted positively from last year

Figure 4

This image is three horizontal stacked bar charts, one representing 2011/2012, one representing 2010/2011, and one representing 2009/2010.  Respondents were asked, To what extent were your objectives met in your dealings with the Agency? on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 equals not at all and 5 equals fully.

In 2011/2012, respondents selected fully (rated 5; 45%), largely (rated 4; 19%), to an acceptable degree (rated 3; 10%), a bit (rated 2; 7%), and not at all (rated 1; 16%); the base is n=189.  In 2010/2011, respondents selected fully (rated 5; 28%), largely (rated 4; 16%), to an acceptable degree (rated 3; 14%), a bit (rated 2; 11%), and not at all (rated 1; 28%); the base is n=185.  In 2009/2010, respondents selected fully (rated 5; 43%), largely (rated 4; 8%), to an acceptable degree (rated 3; 18%), a bit (rated 2; 6%), and not at all (rated 1; 21%); the base is n=72.

Return to reference 4

Satisfaction with overall quality of service is closely tied to the perception that their objectives were met

Figure 5

This image is a horizontal bar chart that shows the Percent satisfaction with service provided by the Agency among all respondents and among respondents based on the extent to which their objectives were met. Respondents selected: for "satisfaction among all respondents" (77%); the base size is n=189.  Those for whom their "objectives were met (4 or 5 on satisfaction scale)" is 91%; the base size is n=121; those for whom their "objectives were met to an acceptable degree (3 on satisfaction scale)" is 95%; the base size is n=19; those for whom their "objectives were not met (1 or 2 on satisfaction scale)" is 32%; the base size is n=44.

Return to reference 5

Timeliness of acknowledgement from the Agency and perception of acceptable time to acknowledge

Figure 6

This image is two horizontal bar charts, each with a bar representing 2011/2012, a bar representing 2010/2011, and a bar representing 2009/2010.  Respondents were asked to, Please indicate the approximate number of days it took for the Agency to acknowledge your complaint/application?  In 2011/2012, the respondents selected: "1-4 days" (35%); "5-9 days" (26%); "10-19 days" (20%); "20-24 days" (6%); "25-29 days" (2%); "30 days or more" (11%).  The base size is n=125, and includes all respondents except those in the INSP audience.  In 2010/2011, the respondents selected: "1-4 days" (35%); "5-9 days" (28%); "10-19 days" (15%); "20-24 days" (3%); "25-29 days" (1%); "30 days or more" (17%).  The base size is n=174.  In 2009/2010, the respondents selected: "1-4 days" (22%); "5-9 days" (40%); "10-19 days" (25%); "20-24 days" (4%); "25-29 days" (1%); "30 days or more" (7%).  The base size is n=68.  Percentages reflect the removal of ‘don't know/ not sure' for comparison to previous data.

Respondents were also asked, What do you consider an acceptable number of days for the Agency to acknowledge your complaint/ application? In 2011/2012, respondents selected: "1-4 days" (32%); "5-9 days" (42%); "10-19 days" (18%); 20-24 days" (3%); "25-29 days" (2%); "30 or more days" (3%).  The base size is n=125, and includes all respondents except those in the INSP audience.  In 2010/2011, respondents selected: "1-4 days" (37%); "5-9 days" (39%); "10-19 days" (17%); 20-24 days" (1%); "25-29 days" (3%); "30 or more days" (3%).  The base size is n=174.  In 2009/2010, respondents selected: "1-4 days" (26%); "5-9 days" (29%); "10-19 days" (41%); 20-24 days" (1%); "25-29 days" (0%); "30 or more days" (1%).  The base size is n=174.  Percentages reflect the removal of ‘don't know/ not sure' for comparison to previous data.

Return to reference 6

Timeliness of resolution and perception of acceptable time to resolve

Figure 7

This image is two horizontal bar charts, each with a bar representing 2011/2012, a bar representing 2010/2011, and a bar representing 2009/2010.  Respondents were asked, Overall, how long did it take for the Agency to resolve your issue from start to finish?  In 2011/2012, respondents selected: "1-30 days" (60%); "31-60 days" (19%); "61-90 days" (9%); "91-120 days" (4%); "121 days or more" (8%).  The base size is n=126, and includes all respondents except those in the INSP audience.  In 2010/2011, respondents selected: "1-30 days" (26%); "31-60 days" (18%); "61-90 days" (13%); "91-120 days" (16%); "121 days or more" (28%).  The base size is n=108.  In 2009/2010, respondents selected: "1-30 days" (22%); "31-60 days" (22%); "61-90 days" (21%); "91-120 days" (14%); "121 days or more" (17%).  The base size is n=63.  Percentages reflect the removal of ‘don't know/ not sure' for comparison to previous data.

Respondents were also asked, What would be an acceptable number of days, from start to finish, for the Agency to resolve your issue? In 2011/2012, respondents selected: "1-30 days" (72%); "31-60 days" (17%); "61-90 days" (8%); "91-120 days" (2%); "121 days or more" (2%).  The base size is n=126, and includes all respondents except those in the INSP audience.  In 2010/2011, respondents selected: "1-30 days" (38%); "31-60 days" (28%); "61-90 days" (24%); "91-120 days" (8%); "121 days or more" (2%).  The base size is n=108.  In 2009/2010, respondents selected: "1-30 days" (38%); "31-60 days" (35%); "61-90 days" (14%); "91-120 days" (11%); "121 days or more" (2%).  The base size is n=63.  Percentages reflect the removal of ‘don't know/ not sure' for comparison to previous data.

Return to reference 7

Clients who are satisfied with timeliness are much more likely than those who are not to be satisfied with overall quality of service

Figure 8

This image is a horizontal bar chart that shows the Percent satisfaction with service provided by the Agency among all respondents and among respondents based on their level of satisfaction with the time it took to acknowledge and resolve their complaint. Respondents selected: for "satisfaction among all respondents" (77%); the base size is n=189.  Those who were "satisfied with time to acknowledge" is 86%; the base size is n=96; those who were "dissatisfied with time to acknowledge" is 6%; the base size is n=16; those who were "satisfied with time to resolve" is 86%; the base size is n=125; those who were "dissatisfied with time to resolve" is 22%; the base size is n=27.

Return to reference 8

In terms of attributes of service, respondents place the most importance on the accuracy of the information they receive, as well as the knowledge and competence of Agency staff

Figure 9

This image is a horizontal stacked bar chart.  Respondents were asked to, Please indicate how important or unimportant you view each of the following aspects of service from the Agency. Respondents selected for "the accuracy of any information provided": very important (84%), somewhat important (11%); total importance (95%); "knowledge and competence of staff": very important (80%), somewhat important (14%); total importance (95%); "helpfulness of staff": very important (79%), somewhat important (15%); total importance (94%);"the Agency provides me with information that is clear and easy to understand": very important (77%), somewhat important (15%); total importance (93%); "staff are easily accessible": very important (73%), somewhat important (19%); total importance (92%); "staff are easy to deal with": very important (72%), somewhat important (20%); total importance (93%); "impartiality of staff": very important (71%), somewhat important (20%); total importance (91%); "courtesy of staff": very important (70%), somewhat important (23%); total importance (94%); "the time it takes to acknowledge my issue": very important (61%), somewhat important (29%); total importance (90%); and "the time it takes to resolve the matter": very important (58%), somewhat important (28%); total importance (86%).  The image includes a note that "the time it takes to acknowledge my issue" was not asked of the INSP audience, or of MED or NTD audiences if the matter brought by the other party (n=126).  The base size is n=189.

Return to reference 9

In terms of attributes of service, respondents are broadly satisfied; once again, courtesy of staff is a high point, and time to resolve the issue is area of lowest satisfaction

Figure 10

This image is a horizontal stacked bar chart.  Respondents were asked to, Please indicate the response that best describes your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of service from the Agency. Respondents selected for "courtesy of staff": very satisfied (76%); somewhat satisfied (16%); total satisfaction (92%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (79%) and for 2009/2010 (93%); for "staff were easy to deal with": very satisfied (70%); somewhat satisfied (19%); total satisfaction (89%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (69%) and for 2009/2010 (81%); for "knowledge and competence of staff": very satisfied (66%); somewhat satisfied (20%); total satisfaction (86%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (68%) and for 2009/2010 (79%); for "helpfulness of staff": very satisfied (65%); somewhat satisfied (22%); total satisfaction (87%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (68%) and for 2009/2010 (79%); for "impartiality of staff": very satisfied (64%); somewhat satisfied (19%); total satisfaction (84%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (65%) and for 2009/2010 (76%); for "staff were easily accessible": very satisfied (63%); somewhat satisfied (23%); total satisfaction (86%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (66%) and for 2009/2010 (85%); for "the accuracy of any information provided": very satisfied (58%); somewhat satisfied (26%); total satisfaction (84%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (65%) and for 2009/2010 (81%); for "the Agency provided me with information that was clear and easy to understand": very satisfied (56%); somewhat satisfied (26%); total satisfaction (82%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (67%) and for 2009/2010 (76%); for "the time it took to acknowledge my issue*": very satisfied (54%); somewhat satisfied (23%); total satisfaction (77%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (60%) and for 2009/2010 (78%); for "the time it took to resolve the matter": very satisfied (46%); somewhat satisfied (25%); total satisfaction (71%); percent satisfaction for 2010/2011 (48%) and for 2009/2010 (63%).  The image includes a note that "the time it takes to acknowledge my issue" was not asked of the INSP audience, or of MED or NTD audiences if the matter brought by the other party.  Percentages reflect the removal of ‘don't know/ not sure' for comparison to previous data.

Return to reference 10

Suggestions for improvement among those satisfied with Agency service

Figure 11

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, If the Agency could improve in two of the following areas, which two should it focus on?  It displays results among those reporting satisfaction with the Agency (rating 4, 5 on the scale).

Respondents selected: "the time it takes to resolve the matter" (26%); "the Agency provides me with information that is clear and easy to understand" (23%); "the time it takes to acknowledge my issue" (10%); "the accuracy of any information provided" (8%); "helpfulness of staff" (7%); "knowledge and competence of staff" (6%); "staff are easily accessible" (6%); "impartiality of staff" (1%); "staff are easy to deal with" (1%); "courtesy of staff" (0%); and "don't know/ not sure" (52%).  The base size is n=145.

Return to reference 11

Suggestions for improvement among those dissatisfied with Agency service

Figure 12

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, If the Agency could improve in two of the following areas, which two should it focus on?  It displays results among those reporting dissatisfaction with the Agency (rating 1, 2 on the scale).

Respondents selected: "the time it takes to resolve the matter" (33%); "knowledge and competence of staff" (30%); "impartiality of staff" (27%); "the accuracy of any information provided" (20%); "the Agency provides me with information that is clear and easy to understand" (17%); "the time it takes to acknowledge my issue" (7%);  "helpfulness of staff" (7%); "courtesy of staff" (3%);  "staff are easy to deal with" (3%); "staff are easily accessible" (0%); and "don't know/ not sure" (17%).  The base size is n=30.

Return to reference 12

Importance vs. Satisfaction: Attributes of Service

Figure 13

This image is a quadrant chart that compares satisfaction with attributes of service (Q39, based on ratings of five on the scale) with priority areas of focus (Q40).  It plots priority from lower to higher along the horizontal axis and satisfaction from less satisfied to more satisfied along the vertical axis.  The horizontal axis represents the percentage of respondents who assigned specific attributes of service from the Agency as the two aspects which should be focused on.  The mean of these values is 10%, represented by a vertical line on the chart.  The vertical axis represents the percentage of respondents who reported being very satisfied with the particular aspects of service from the Agency.  The mean of these values is 62%, represented by a horizontal line on the chart.  The lines corresponding to these mean values divides the chart into four quadrants, onto which each attribute of service is placed on the chart according to its priority percentage and its satisfaction percentage.

The respective attributes of service plotted, from left to right and top to bottom, are: "courtesy of staff" (1% priority, 76% satisfaction); "staff easy to deal with (1% priority, 70% satisfaction); "staff easily accessible" (6% priority, 63% satisfaction); "helpfulness" (8% priority, 65% satisfaction); "impartiality of staff" (8% priority, 64% satisfaction); "time to acknowledge" (9% priority, 54% satisfaction); "knowledge, competence of staff" (12% priority, 66% satisfaction); "accuracy of info" (12% priority, 58% satisfaction); "info clear/easy to understand" (22% priority, 56% satisfaction); "time to resolve" (27% priority, 46% satisfaction).

Return to reference 13

Respondents place high importance on fair treatment and clarity of process

Figure 14

This image is a horizontal stacked bar chart.  Respondents were asked to, Please indicate how important or unimportant you consider each of the following aspects of service from the Agency. Respondents selected for "fairness of treatment": very important (77%); somewhat important (19%); total importance (95%); for "that you are informed of everything that you have to do in order for the matter to be dealt with by the Agency": very important (75%); somewhat important (20%); total importance (95%); for "that all your questions are answered": very important (72%); somewhat important (22%); total importance (94%); for "being told what the Agency can and cannot do in dealing with your matter": very important (72%); somewhat important (20%); total importance (92%); for "that you gain a good understanding of the mandate and jurisdiction of the Agency": very important (59%); somewhat important (28%); total importance (86%); for "that the Agency's forms are easy to complete": very important (57%); somewhat important (28%); total importance (85%); for "that the contact you have with the Agency is in the official language of your choice (English or French)": very important (57%); somewhat important (20%); total importance (77%); for "that the Agency interacts with you in a way that accommodates your disability": very important (57%); somewhat important (14%); total importance (71%); for "quick response time from staff": very important (52%); somewhat important (35%); total importance (88%); for "having a variety of means to contact Agency staff": very important (44%); somewhat important (32%); total importance (76%).  The base is n=189.  The image includes a note that "that the Agency interacts with you in a way that accommodates your disability*" was only if respondent self-identified as person with a disability (n=14).

Return to reference 14

Assessment of various aspects of service is broadly positive

Figure 15

This image is a horizontal stacked bar chart.  Respondents were asked to, Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about aspects of service from the Agency. Respondents selected for "the contact I had with the Agency was in the official language of my choice (English or French)": strongly agree (80%); somewhat agree (15%); total agreement (95%); percent satisfied in 2010/2011 (92%) and for 2009/2010 (96%); for "I was treated fairly": strongly agree (62%); somewhat agree (23%); total agreement (85%); percent satisfied in 2010/2011 (69%) and for 2009/2010 (85%); for "I was informed of everything I had to do in order for the matter to be dealt with by the Agency": strongly agree (60%); somewhat agree (23%); total agreement (83%); percent satisfied in 2010/2011 (75%) and for 2009/2010 (84%); for "the Agency interacted with me in a way that accommodated my disability": strongly agree (55%); somewhat agree (36%); total agreement (91%); no percent satisfied for 2010/2011 and for 2009/2010, as it was not asked in the same way; for "the Agency let me know what they could and could not do in dealing with the matter": strongly agree (55%); somewhat agree (26%); total agreement (81%); percent satisfied in 2010/2011 (76%) and for 2009/2010 (82%); for "staff responded quickly": strongly agree (54%); somewhat agree (28%); total agreement (82%); percent satisfied in 2010/2011 (64%) and for 2009/2010 (87%); for "I was offered a variety of means of contacting Agency staff": strongly agree (54%); somewhat agree (23%); total agreement (77%); percent satisfied in 2010/2011 (74%) and for 2009/2010 (86%); for "I felt that all my questions were answered": strongly agree (52%); somewhat agree (25%); total agreement (77%); no percent satisfied for 2010/2011 and for 2009/2010, as it was not asked in the same way; the base is n=186; for "the Agency's forms were easy to complete": strongly agree (46%); somewhat agree (34%); total agreement (80%); percent satisfied in 2010/2011 (76%) and for 2009/2010 (80%); for "I gained a good understanding of the mandate and jurisdiction of the Agency": strongly agree (46%); somewhat agree (32%); total agreement (78%); no percent satisfied for 2010/2011 and for 2009/2010, as it was not asked in the same way.  The image includes a note that "the Agency interacts with you in a way that accommodates your disability*" was only asked if the respondent self-identified as person with a disability.  Percentages reflect the removal of ‘don't know/ not sure' for comparison to previous data.

Return to reference 15

Suggestions for improvement among those satisfied with Agency service

Figure 16

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, If the Agency could improve in two of the following areas, which two should it focus on?  It displays results among those reporting satisfaction with the Agency (rating 4, 5 on the scale).

Respondents selected: "simplifying its forms" (19%); "having a quick response time" (16%); "informing you on all that is required for the matter at hand" (14%); "explaining its role and what it can and cannot do in dealing with your matter" (11%); "providing their mandate and jurisdiction" (10%); "answering all your questions" (8%); "offering fairness of treatment" (6%); "having a variety of means to contact them" (3%); "offering both official languages (English and French)" (1%); and "don't know/ not sure" (51%).  The base size is n=145.

Return to reference 16

Suggestions for improvement among those dissatisfied with Agency service

Figure 17

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, If the Agency could improve in two of the following areas, which two should it focus on?  It displays results among those reporting dissatisfaction with the Agency (rating 1, 2 on the scale).

Respondents selected: "offering fairness of treatment" (43%); "having a quick response time" (27%); "explaining its role and what it can and cannot do in dealing with your matter" (17%); "answering all your questions" (17%); "providing their mandate and jurisdiction" (13%); "simplifying its forms" (10%); "informing you on all that is required for the matter at hand" (10%); "having a variety of means to contact them" (3%); "offering both official languages (English and French) (0%); and "don't know/ not sure" (20%).  The base size is n=30.

Return to reference 17

Importance vs. Satisfaction: Specific Aspects of Agency Service

Figure 18

This image is a quadrant chart that compares agreement with statements about service from the Agency (Q42, based on ratings of five on the scale) with priority areas of focus (Q43).  It plots priority from lower to higher along the horizontal axis and agreement from softer agreement to stronger agreement along the vertical axis.  The horizontal axis represents the percentage of respondents who assigned specific attributes of service from the Agency as the two aspects which should be focused on.  The mean of these values is 13%, represented by a vertical line on the chart.  The vertical axis represents the percentage of respondents who reported strongly agreeing with the statements about service from the Agency.  The mean of these values is 54%, represented by a horizontal line on the chart.  The lines corresponding to these mean values divides the chart into four quadrants, onto which each attribute of service is placed on the chart according to its priority percentage and its agreement percentage.

The respective attributes of service plotted, from left to right and top to bottom, are "variety of means of contact" (3% priority, 54% agreement); "questions were answered" (11% priority, 52% agreement); "provides a good understanding of mandate" (11% priority, 46% agreement); "told what CTA could/could not do" (13% priority, 55% agreement); "fair treatment" (14% priority, 62% agreement); "informed about everything required by CTA" (14% priority, 60% agreement); "easy to complete forms" (17% priority, 46% agreement); "quick response by staff" (19% priority, 54% agreement).

Return to reference 18

The clarity and professionalism of the process are highly rated

Figure 19

This image is a horizontal stacked bar chart.  Respondents were asked to, Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about this process (based on process described per audience). Respondents selected for "the Agency made it clear what information I was required to submit": agree (84%); neither agree nor disagree (7%); disagree (9%); percent of agreement in 2010/2011 (73%) and for 2009/2010 (71%); for "the process was conducted in a professional manner": agree (84%); neither agree nor disagree (7%); disagree (10%); percent of agreement in 2010/2011 (71%) and for 2009/2010 (81%); for "the Agency's process was clearly explained to me": agree (81%); neither agree nor disagree (7%); disagree (12%); percent of agreement in 2010/2011 (70%) and for 2009/2010 (75%); for "I had enough of an opportunity to present my case": agree (77%); neither agree nor disagree (8%); disagree (15%); percent of agreement in 2010/2011 (69%) and for 2009/2010 (71%); for "the final outcome was clear and easy to understand": agree (76%); neither agree nor disagree (6%); disagree (18%); percent of agreement in 2010/2011 (58%) and for 2009/2010 (68%); for "the process followed was impartial": agree (73%); neither agree nor disagree (7%); disagree (20%); percent of agreement in 2010/2011 (66%) and for 2009/2010 (67%); for "I had enough of an opportunity to respond to the other party's view": agree (63%); neither agree nor disagree (14%); disagree (23%); percent of agreement in 2010/2011 (67%) and for 2009/2010 (67%).  Respondents include only FAC, ADJ and NTD audiences.  The base for 2011/2012 is n=120, for 2010/2011 is n=128 and for 2009/2010 is n=63.  Percentages reflect the removal of ‘don't know/ not sure' for comparison to previous data.

Return to reference 19

Suggestions for improvement among those satisfied with Agency service

Figure 20

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, If the Agency could improve in two of the following areas, which two should it focus on?  It displays results among those reporting satisfaction with the Agency (rating 4, 5 on the scale).

Respondents selected: "clearly explain the process" (19%); "provide enough opportunity to respond to the other party's view" (13%); "make it clear what information needs to be submitted" (11%); "ensure that the final outcome is clear and easy to understand" (11%); "provide enough opportunity to present my case" (7%); "conduct the process impartially" (5%); "ensure that the rationale for the outcome is clearly explained*" (2%); "conduct the process in a professional manner" (1%); and "don't know/ not sure" (58%).  The image includes a note that "ensuring that the rationale for the outcome is clearly explained*" was not asked of the FAC audience.  The base size is n=88, and includes only FAC, ADJ and NTD audiences only.

Return to reference 20

Suggestions for improvement among those dissatisfied with Agency service

Figure 21

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, If the Agency could improve in two of the following areas, which two should it focus on?  It displays results among those reporting dissatisfaction with the Agency (rating 1, 2 on the scale).

Respondents selected: "conduct the process in a professional manner" (36%); "provide enough opportunity to respond to the other party's view" (36%); "clearly explain the process" (14%); "provide enough opportunity to present my case" (14%); "conduct the process in a professional manner" (9%); "ensure that the final outcome is clear and easy to understand" (9%); "make it clear what information needs to be submitted" (5%); "ensure that the rationale for the outcome is clearly explained*" (5%); and "don't know/ not sure" (18%).  The image includes a note that "ensuring that the rationale for the outcome is clearly explained*" was not asked of the FAC audience.  The base size is n=22, and includes only FAC, ADJ and NTD audiences only.

Return to reference 21

Nine in ten indicate that they have visited the Agency's website, nearly half within the last three months

Figure 22

This image is of two charts, a pie chart on the left and a horizontal bar chart on the right.  Respondents were asked, Have you ever visited the Agency's website?  Respondents selected: "yes" (89%); "no" (11%).  The base size is n=189.

Respondents who have visited the Agency's website were asked, How recently did you visit the Agency's website? Respondents selected: "within the past three months" (46%); "between three and six months ago" (31%); "between six months and a year ago" (16%); "more than a year ago" (4%); "don't know/ not sure" (3%).  The base size is n=168.

Return to reference 22

Satisfaction with the Agency's website is higher in 2011/2012

Figure 23

This image is three horizontal stacked bar charts, each with a bar representing 2011/2012, one representing 2010/2011, and one representing 2009/2010.  Respondents who have visited the Agency's website were asked to, Please indicate the response that best describes your level of satisfaction with the following aspects of service from the Agency's website. Respondents selected for "the Agency's website had the information I was looking for*": for 2011/2012, satisfied (70%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (20%), dissatisfied (9%); for 2010/2011, satisfied (63%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (20%), dissatisfied (17%); and for 2009/2010, satisfied (73%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (18%), dissatisfied (10%); for "the information on the website was easy to understand" for 2011/2012, satisfied (70%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (19%), dissatisfied (9%); for 2010/2011, satisfied (57%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (21%), dissatisfied (21%); and for 2009/2010, satisfied (75%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (19%), dissatisfied (6%); for "it was easy to find information I needed on the website*": for 2011/2012, satisfied (65%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (19%), dissatisfied (14%); for 2010/2011, satisfied (52%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (24%), dissatisfied (24%); and for 2009/2010, satisfied (72%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (22%), dissatisfied (6%).  The image includes a note that the "question wording varied slightly in 2010/2011" for both "the Agency's website had the information I was looking for*" and "it was easy to find information I needed on the website*".  The 2011/2012 base size is n=168, and varies in 2010/2011 and 2009/2010.

Return to reference 23

Nearly two in five respondents learned about the Agency by searching the Web; a quarter already knew about the Agency

Figure 24

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, How did you become aware of the Canadian Transportation Agency? Respondents selected: Web search (39%); already knew about Agency (24%); had previous contact with the Agency (13%); another government department (12%); transportation service provider (12%); friend/family member (10%); an association (3%); 1-800 OCANADA/ government (3%); travel agent (3%); newspaper article (2%); an Agency brochure (1%); have made complaint(s) to Agency before (1%); telephone directory (1%); through work (co-worker/ staff/ employee) 1%); Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO; 1%); other (3%); none (1%); and don't know/refused (2%).  The base size is n=189.

Return to reference 24

E-mail, the Agency's website, and telephone are most often used to obtain information about the Agency; fewer used telephone as compared to 2010/2011

Figure 25

This image is a single tracking horizontal bar chart with a bar representing 2011/2012, a bar representing 2010/2011, and a bar representing 2009/2010.  Respondents were asked, In the course of your interaction with the agency, which of the following did you use to get information about the Agency?  Please choose all that apply.

In 2011/2012, respondents selected: e-mail (72%); the Agency's website (61%); telephone (57%); regular mail (15%); fax (8%); courier (2%); other (3%); and don't know/ refused (2%).  The base size is n=189.

In 2010/2011, respondents selected: e-mail (72%); the Agency's website (56%); telephone (63%); regular mail (18%); fax (9%); courier (6%); other (1%); and don't know/ refused (1%).  The base size is n=180.

In 2009/2010, respondents selected: e-mail (69%); the Agency's website (47%); telephone (54%); regular mail (21%); fax (12%); courier (0%); other (0%); and don't know/ refused (3%).  The base size is n=68.

Return to reference 25

Most respondents would prefer to use e-mail to obtain information about the Agency, followed by the Agency's website

Figure 26

This image is a single horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, Which one of the following ways would you most prefer to use in order to get information about Agency?  Please choose only one.

Respondents selected: e-mail (46%); the Agency's website (31%); telephone (18%); regular mail (3%); fax (1%); other (1%); don't know/ refused (1%).  The base size is n=189.

Return to reference 26

Additional comments among those satisfied with overall service

Figure 27

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, Do you have any additional comments about the Agency and/or its services?  It displays results among those reporting satisfaction with the Agency (rating 4, 5 on the scale).

Respondents selected: "am satisfied/I like the Agency/am grateful for its help" (15%); "the Agency needs more power/should be able to help with more issues" (6%); "prompt service/response" (3%); "the representative/investigator was very helpful/effective" (3%); "good/excellent service" (3%); "bureaucratic" (3%); "should respond to all complaints / inquiries" (3%); "poor website navigation" (3%); "staff was friendly/ courteous" (2%); good/ excellent staff" (2%); "need more advertising/ awareness" (2%); "other positive mentions" (2%); "other negative mentions (3%); "none/ don't know/ not sure" (59%).  The base size is n=145.

Return to reference 27

Additional comments among those dissatisfied with overall service

Figure 28

This image is a horizontal bar chart.  Respondents were asked, Do you have any additional comments about the Agency and/or its services?  It displays Results among those reporting dissatisfaction with the Agency (rating 1, 2 on the scale). 

Respondents selected: "not helpful/my complaint was not resolved (to my satisfaction)" (23%); "the Agency needs more power/should be able to help with more issues" (17%); "dissolve the Agency" (10%); "poor communication" (10%); "waste of time/ money" (10%); "dislike/am not satisfied with the Agency" (7%); "slow service/process takes too long" (7%); "biased (towards transport companies)/does not represent consumer interests" (7%); "cost/ fees involved" (7%); "confusing forms/ applications" (3%); "should address accessibility/consumer comfort while traveling" (3%); "passenger's rights should be clearly outlined" (3%); "other negative mentions" (7%); "other" (7%); "none/ don't know/ refused" (37%);  The base size is n=30.

Return to reference 28

The five audiences included in this year's research are described in the table below.

Table 1

This image is a table with two columns and six rows.  The first row contains the column titles.  The contents of each row are as follows: row one: Survey Type; Target Audience; row two: Facilitation (FAC); Passengers with travel-related complaints processed through facilitation (including persons with disabilities); row three: Mediation (MED); Those who have been involved in mediations; row four: Travel-related dispute adjudication (ADJ); Those with travel-related adjudicated disputes and determinations involving only one party; row five: Non-travel dispute adjudication and multi-party determination (NTD); Those with both non-travel-related disputes and determinations involving more than one party; row six: Inspection and new licensing (INSP); New licensing and inspection activity.

Return to Table 1

The table below provides a breakdown of the survey universe (representing the total number of clients within each audience type), the number of online and paper-based surveys administered, and the resulting number of completed surveys and participation rates.

Table 2

This image is a table with six columns and seven rows.  The first row contains the column titles: Survey Type; Survey Universe; Online Surveys Administered; Paper Surveys Administered; Total Completes (Online/Paper); Participation Rate.

For row two: Facilitation (FAC); 275; 105; 8; 113; 41%.  For row three: Mediation (MED); 12; 3; 3; 6; 50%.  For row four: Travel-related dispute adjudication (ADJ); 15; 5; 1; 6; 40%.  For row five: Non-travel dispute adjudication and multi-party determination (NTD); 8; 0; 1; 1; 13%.  For row six: Inspection and new licensing (INSP); 241; 57; 6; 63; 26%.  For row seven: Total; 551; 170; 19; 189; 34%.

Return to Table 2

The following table shows the breakdown of participants by category:

Table 3

This image is a table with two columns and eight rows.  The first row contains the column titles.  The contents of each row are as follows: row one: Category; Total; row two: Railway; 4; row three: Airline; 11*; row four: Shippers; 6; row five: Marine; 3; row six: Persons With Disabilities; 7; row seven: Municipalities; 1; row eight: Total; 32.  There is a note at the bottom related to the asterisk in row three: *Airline numbers reflect four people from one airline who participated in a telephone focus group, and two people each from two other airlines who were interviewed separately.

Return to Table 3

Date modified: