veterans affairs canada

25
Veterans Affairs Canada Veterans Affairs Canada A Client Centred Service Approach 2003

Upload: guinevere-pollard

Post on 02-Jan-2016

120 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Veterans Affairs Canada. A Client Centred Service Approach 2003. Service Improvement Initiative Global Objectives. Achieve a minimum 10% increase in client satisfaction on specific service elements by 2005; - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Veterans Affairs CanadaVeterans Affairs Canada

A Client Centred Service Approach

2003

Service Improvement InitiativeService Improvement InitiativeGlobal ObjectivesGlobal Objectives

Achieve a minimum 10% increase in client Achieve a minimum 10% increase in client satisfaction on specific service elements by 2005;satisfaction on specific service elements by 2005;

Develop a multi-year Service Improvement Plan Develop a multi-year Service Improvement Plan based on survey results and service priorities based on survey results and service priorities defined by clients;defined by clients;

Strengthen accountability for service improvement Strengthen accountability for service improvement results; andresults; and

Instill a culture of continuous service improvement.Instill a culture of continuous service improvement.

VAC’s Approach to Continuous VAC’s Approach to Continuous Service ImprovementService Improvement

Conducted a National Client Satisfaction Survey in Conducted a National Client Satisfaction Survey in June 2001June 2001Examined 23 service elements on Access to Service, Examined 23 service elements on Access to Service, Communications, and Services Offered by StaffCommunications, and Services Offered by StaffUsing Survey Results, identified Primary and Using Survey Results, identified Primary and Secondary Opportunities for Service ImprovementSecondary Opportunities for Service ImprovementDeveloped and Implemented a Departmental Service Developed and Implemented a Departmental Service Improvement Plan (200+ Initiatives)Improvement Plan (200+ Initiatives)Conducted a follow-up Survey in May 2003Conducted a follow-up Survey in May 2003Continue to monitor progress and modify the Service Continue to monitor progress and modify the Service Improvement Plan as required.Improvement Plan as required.

VAC National Client Satisfaction VAC National Client Satisfaction Survey 2003Survey 2003

Measured client satisfaction on the same serviceMeasured client satisfaction on the same serviceelements as the 2001 surveyelements as the 2001 survey

– 2003 Survey also contained extra questions2003 Survey also contained extra questions on BPA Services, Commemoration, and GOL on BPA Services, Commemoration, and GOL

Clients having contact with VAC 6 months prior to the surveyClients having contact with VAC 6 months prior to the survey– 559 Veterans from WWI, WWII & the Korean War559 Veterans from WWI, WWII & the Korean War– 401 Survivors401 Survivors– 487 Canadian Forces Members487 Canadian Forces Members

Conducted between April and May 2003Conducted between April and May 2003

1,447 telephone interviews (4% completed by proxy)1,447 telephone interviews (4% completed by proxy)

Clients disbursed geographically across five regionsClients disbursed geographically across five regions

Overall Level of SatisfactionOverall Level of Satisfaction

12 15 72

8 8 84

5 6 89

6 8 85

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

2001 Survey

8 12 80

7 7 86

3 7 90

5 8 87

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Dissatisfied Neutral

Satisfied Variance

2003 Survey

Total Clients

War Veterans

Survivors

Canadian ForcesVeterans/Clients

Margin of Error is +/- 2.8 percentage points, 95% of the time. Margin of Error is +/- 2.6 percentage

points, 95% of the time.

2%↑

1%↑

2%↑

8%↑

Due to rounding of figures, some results do not yield a total of 100%.

Overall Level of SatisfactionOverall Level of SatisfactionRegional PerspectiveRegional Perspective

7 10 83

8 10 81

3 7 89

10 9 80

7 6 88

6 8 85

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

3 8 89

2 7 90

6 8 86

7 11 82

5 7 87

5 8 87

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied

2001 Survey 2003 Survey

VAC

Pacific

Prairie

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

2%↑

1%↓

2%↑

9%↑

3%↓

6%↑

* The margin of error increases when groups of clients are separated from the total sample(i.e. for the regional perspective, the margin of error increases to +/- 5.8%, 95% of the time).

Drivers CategoryTotal

Clients%

War Vets%

Survivors%

CFMembers

%

Access to Services (10) 83.1 87.3 88.2 74.5

Communications (6) 88.7 90.8 91.2 82.0

Service Offered by Staff (7) 91.9 93.1 93.4 86.7

Overall Average 87.9 90.4 90.9 81.1

23 Service Drivers by Category23 Service Drivers by Category

Level of SatisfactionLevel of Satisfaction20032003

Highest Satisfaction Ratings (87%>)Highest Satisfaction Ratings (87%>)

Official language of choice Official language of choice (97%) (97%) (97%) (97%) = =

Courtesy of staff Courtesy of staff (96%) (96%) (96%) (96%) = =

Respect and dignity given to clients Respect and dignity given to clients (95%) (95%) (95%) (95%) = =

Clarity of verbal communication Clarity of verbal communication (95%) (96%) (95%) (96%) 1%1%↑↑

Protection of privacy/confidentiality (94%) (95%)Protection of privacy/confidentiality (94%) (95%) 1%1%↑↑of informationof information

Hours of serviceHours of service (93%) (90%) (93%) (90%) 3%3%↓↓

Ease of access to buildings Ease of access to buildings (92%) (89%) (92%) (89%) 3%3%↓↓

Clarity of written communications Clarity of written communications (92%) (89%) (92%) (89%) 3%3%↓↓

2001 2003 Variance

Highest Satisfaction Ratings (87%>)Highest Satisfaction Ratings (87%>)

Location Location (91%) (89%) (91%) (89%) 2%2%↓↓

Methods of contact available Methods of contact available (90%) (89%) (90%) (89%) 1%1%↓↓

Helpfulness & willingness to (90%) (91%) Helpfulness & willingness to (90%) (91%) 1%1%↑↑go the extra mile go the extra mile

Fair and equitable treatment (89%) (90%) Fair and equitable treatment (89%) (90%) 1%1%↑↑

Staff knowledge on programs (83%) (89%) Staff knowledge on programs (83%) (89%) 6%6%↑↑and servicesand services

Sensitivity of staff to issuesSensitivity of staff to issues (86%) (87%) (86%) (87%) 1%1%↑↑facing Canadian Forces Members facing Canadian Forces Members

2001 2003 Variance

Lowest Satisfaction Ratings (< 87%)Lowest Satisfaction Ratings (< 87%)

Waiting time to receive a written decisionWaiting time to receive a written decision (70%) (70%) (70%) (70%) ==

Waiting time on the telephone Waiting time on the telephone (79%) (81%) (79%) (81%) 2%2%↑↑

ParkingParking (79%) (70%) (79%) (70%) 9%9%↓↓

Ease in finding information Ease in finding information (78%) (80%) (78%) (80%) 2%2%↑↑on programs and services on programs and services

Information on applying for/ or accessing (82%) (84%)Information on applying for/ or accessing (82%) (84%) 2%2%↑↑a benefit or servicea benefit or service

Time to wait for an appointmentTime to wait for an appointment (85%) (83%) (85%) (83%) 2%2%↓↓

Ease of access by telephoneEase of access by telephone (89%) (84%) (89%) (84%) 5%↓5%↓

Questions being answeredQuestions being answered (85%) (86%) (85%) (86%) 1%1%↑↑

Signs and directions to office locationsSigns and directions to office locations (87%) (86%) (87%) (86%) 1%1%↓↓

2001 2003 Variance

Level of SatisfactionLevel of SatisfactionAccess to ServicesAccess to Services (Total Respondents)

Satisfaction Importance* Variance Satisfaction Importance* Variance

Hours of Service 93 73 +20 90 70 +20Building Accessibility 92 83 +9 89 80 +9Location 91 72 +19 89 76 +13Methods of Contact Available 90 80 +10 89 80 +9Ease of Access by Telephone 89 88 +1 84 86 -2Signs and Directions to Office Locations 87 76 +11 86 74 +12Time to Wait for an Appointment 85 88 - 3 83 90 -7Parking 79 72 +7 70 72 -2Time to Wait on the Telephone 79 83 - 4 81 79 +2Time to Wait for a Written Decision 70 88 - 18 70 86 -16Overall Average - Satisfaction/Gap85.5 80.3 +5.2 83.1 79.3 +3.8

2003 Total Respondents (1,447) Service Element

2001 Total Respondents (1,204)

* Level of importance/priority ascribed by Respondents to the service element

Level of SatisfactionLevel of SatisfactionCommunicationsCommunications (Total Respondents)

Satisfaction Importance* Variance Satisfaction Importance* Variance

Official Language of my Choice 97 92 +5 97 92 +5

Clear Verbal Communication by Staff 95 92 +3 96 93 +3

Clear Written Communication (Letters, Forms, etc) 92 94 - 2 89 90 -1

Questions Being Answered 85 93 - 8 86 91 -5

Information on Applying for or Accessing a Benefit or Service 82 92 - 10 84 90 -6

Ease in Finding Information on Programs and Services 78 89 - 11 80 87 -7

Overall Average - Satisfaction 88.1 92.0 - 3.9 88.7 90.5 -1.8

Service Element2003 Total Respondents

(1,447)2001 Total Respondents

(1,204)

* Level of importance/priority ascribed by Respondents to the service element

(Total Respondents)

Level of SatisfactionLevel of SatisfactionService Offered by StaffService Offered by Staff

Satisfaction Importance* Variance Satisfaction Importance* Variance

Courtesy of Staff 96 96 0 96 96 0

Respect and Dignity Given 95 95 0 95 96 -1

Protection of Privacy/Confidentiality 94 94 0 95 94 +1

Helpfulness and Willingness to go the Extra Mile

90 95 - 5 91 94 -3

Fair and Equitable Treatment 89 96 - 7 90 95 -5

Sensitivity of Staff to Issues Facing Canadian Forces

86 92 - 6 87 93 -6

Staff Knowledge of Programs and Services

83 93 - 10 89 95 -6

Overall Average - Satisfaction 90.4 94.4 - 4.0 91.9 94.7 -2.8

Service Element2001 Total Respondents

(1,204)2003 Total Respondents

(1,447)

* Level of importance/priority ascribed by Respondents to the service element

Examples of Service ImprovementExamples of Service Improvement

Service Service ElementElement

Level of SatisfactionLevel of Satisfaction

20012001 20032003 Improvement Improvement PrairiePrairieEase in finding Ease in finding information on information on

programs and servicesprograms and services64 %64 % 72 %72 % 8 %8 %↑↑ 1 %1 %↑↑

Information on applying Information on applying for/ or accessing a for/ or accessing a benefit or service benefit or service

56 %56 % 71 %71 % 15 %15 %↑↑ 7 %7 %↑↑

Canadian Forces Veterans/Clients

Action taken to achieve results:

• Integrated Service Delivery Framework- Strong VAC presence at 17 CF locations across the country- Interdisciplinary Client Service Teams.

• Seniors Canada On-line.

• “Salute” - Quarterly Newsletter reaching more than 200,000 clients.

Examples of Service ImprovementExamples of Service Improvement

Prairie RegionPrairie RegionLevel of Satisfaction Level of Satisfaction

20012001 20032003 ImprovementImprovement

Total RespondentsTotal Respondents 80 %80 % 90 %90 % 10 %10 %↑↑Canadian Forces Canadian Forces Veterans/ClientsVeterans/Clients 74 %74 % 88 %88 % 14 %14 %↑↑

Staff Knowledge of Programs and Services

Action taken to achieve results:

• National Training Programs and structured Orientation for new staff, and as well as for employees changing positions.

• Specialized training offered in the following areas:-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder;-Dementia Care;-Vocational Rehabilitation; and -Crisis Management.

Examples of Service ImprovementExamples of Service Improvement

Prairie Prairie RegionRegion

Level of Satisfaction Level of Satisfaction

20012001 20032003 ImprovementImprovement

70 %70 % 76 %76 % 6 %6 %↑↑

Commemoration Program and Activities

Action taken to achieve results:

• Established a Prairie Advisory Council with members from Veterans’ Organizations.

• Strengthened relationships with stakeholders groups through Liaison Committees.

• All employees involved in commemorative activities during the year.

• Established Interdepartmental Committees to better coordinate federal, provincial, and municipal services.

Overall, to what extent do VAC programs Overall, to what extent do VAC programs and services meet your needs?and services meet your needs?

Total RespondentsCanadian Forces Veterans/Clients

20012001 20032003 20012001 20032003

EntirelyEntirely 39% 38% 22% 25%For the For the most partmost part 33% 39% 37% 44%Only in Only in partpart 19% 16% 27% 19%Not at allNot at all 5% 4% 6% 6%

Can’t sayCan’t say 4% 3% 8% 6%

(72) (59)(77) (69)

Overall, would you say that over the last Overall, would you say that over the last 12 months the quality of service 12 months the quality of service

provided by Veterans Affairs has :provided by Veterans Affairs has :

Total RespondentsCanadian Forces Veterans/Clients

20012001 20032003 20012001 20032003

ImprovedImproved 22% 28% 21% 26%Stayed the Stayed the SameSame 55% 50% 54% 48%

DeterioratedDeteriorated 5% 4% 9% 5%Can’t SayCan’t Say 18% 18% 16% 20%

Primary Service Improvement Primary Service Improvement OpportunitiesOpportunities

1. Waiting time for a written response √ √

2. Ease in finding information on programs and services√

3. Information on applying for/ or assessing a √ √

benefit or service

4. Staff knowledge of programs and services √

5. Questions being answered √ √

6. Staff sensitivity to issues facing Members √ √

of the Canadian Forces

7. Waiting time for an appointment √ √

Service Elements 2001 2003

Secondary Service Improvement Secondary Service Improvement OpportunitiesOpportunities

Service Elements 2001 2003

1. Fair and equitable treatment √ √ 2. Helpfulness and willingness to go √ √

the extra mile

3. Clear written communication (letters, √ √ forms, etc.)

4. Respect and dignity given √

5. Staff knowledge of programs and services √

VAC’s PhilosophyVAC’s Philosophy Service Improvement is Everyone’s Responsibility!Service Improvement is Everyone’s Responsibility!

Deputy Minister Deputy Minister Management Management Accountability Framework Accountability Framework

Departmental ManagersDepartmental Managers Performance ContractsPerformance Contracts

Departmental Employees Departmental Employees Performance Appraisals Performance Appraisals

Clear AccountabilityClear Accountability is a critical component to is a critical component to continuous service improvement.continuous service improvement.

Through

Through

Through

VAC’s Quality of ServiceVAC’s Quality of Service

49% of respondents rate VAC’s service 49% of respondents rate VAC’s service

superior to other government departments; superior to other government departments;

3% say service is inferior.3% say service is inferior.

55% of respondents rate VAC’s service 55% of respondents rate VAC’s service

superior to other government departments; superior to other government departments;

3% say service is inferior.3% say service is inferior.

Next StepsNext Steps1.1. Continue to evaluate the 2003 Survey Results relative to Continue to evaluate the 2003 Survey Results relative to

where we are now and where we want to be in 2005;where we are now and where we want to be in 2005;

2.2. Reaffirm and/or adjust the focus of VAC’s Service Reaffirm and/or adjust the focus of VAC’s Service Improvement activities;Improvement activities;

3.3. Revise VAC’s published Service Standards;Revise VAC’s published Service Standards;

4. 4. Monitor and report performance relative to Service Monitor and report performance relative to Service Improvement activities – linking Performance to Improvement activities – linking Performance to Performance Contracts;Performance Contracts;

5.5. Communicate progress to Parliament via Report on Plans Communicate progress to Parliament via Report on Plans and Priorities and the Departmental Performance Report; and Priorities and the Departmental Performance Report; andand

6.6. Continue to make Service Improvement a priority within Continue to make Service Improvement a priority within Veterans Affairs Canada.Veterans Affairs Canada.

For Further Information Contact:For Further Information Contact:

Ron LabbéRon LabbéRegional Director, Client ServicesRegional Director, Client Services

Regional Client ServicesRegional Client Services

Prairie Regional Office, Winnipeg Prairie Regional Office, Winnipeg

phone: (204) 983-4162phone: (204) 983-4162

fax: (204) 983-1736fax: (204) 983-1736

email: email: [email protected]@vac-acc.gc.ca