CF7 National Report FINAL

INSTITUTE FOR CITIZEN-CENTRED SERVICE
2014

Citizens First 7
This study and the reports were conducted and guided by the following project team
members:
From Ipsos Reid Public Affairs
Marina Gilson
Sandra Guiry
Greg Garrison
Diana MacDonald
Daniel Kunasingam
Rudi Wong
From the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service
Nicholas Prychodko
Michal Dziong
© The Institute for Citizen-Centred Service, 2014
Institut des services axés sur les citoyens, 2014
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED/TOUS DROITS RÉSERVÉS
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français. Veuillez communiquer avec l’ISAC
pour en obtenir une copie.
This publication is also available in French. Please contact the ICCS to obtain a copy.
The Institute for Citizen-Centred Service
The mission of the ICCS is to support public-sector organizations achieve high levels of
citizen and business satisfaction by:
• facilitating inter-jurisdictional collaboration;
• sharing research, tools, resources and knowledge;
• building organizational capacity through development of the service profession; and
• promoting excellence in citizen-centred service.
Internet: www.iccs-isac.org Email: info@iccs-isac.org
ISBN 978-0-9936825-1-3
2

Citizens First 7
Acknowledgements
This study and the report came together with the involvement of a large group of
dedicated individuals who are passionate about improving service to citizens. The
Citizens First 7 (CF7) initiative was sponsored by provincial, territorial, regional and
municipal levels of government, under the leadership and management of the team at
the ICCS.
ENHANCED SPONSORS
 Province of British Columbia
 City of Hamilton
CORE SPONSORS
 Province of Alberta
 Province of Manitoba
 Northwest Territories
 Province of Nova Scotia
 Province of Ontario
 Region of Peel
 Province of Québec
 City of Toronto
 York Region
 Yukon
The research team at Ipsos would also like to express their appreciation to the 5,769
individuals whose valued time taken to respond to these surveys contributed to its
success.
3

Citizens First 7
Table of Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12
3. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 17
Service Reputation 18
Service Quality Scores 19
4. SERVICE EXPERIENCE MEASURES 24
The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model 25
Key Drivers of Client Satisfaction with Government Service 34
Priorities for Improvement 52
Channel Use and Preferences 56
Inclusion and Diversity 60
5. CITIZEN SERVICE STANDARD EXPECTATIONS 61
6. MOVING SERVICES ONLINE 73
7. APPENDICES 96
4

Citizens First 7
1. Introduction
About Citizens First
The initial Citizens First survey was undertaken
in 1998, establishing baseline measures with
respect to citizens’ satisfaction with and
expectations of service from government, at all
levels.
This is now the seventh in this series of studies
which have been conducted every 2 to 3 years.
These extensive and rigorous citizen surveys
explore various dimensions of the evolving
service environment, tracking perceptions of
service quality and performance for a wide
range of services offered by municipal,
provincial/territorial and federal governments.
Each wave also builds on the learning from
previous surveys, providing public sector service
managers with new insights and practical
recommendations to improve service delivery
and continue the drive toward citizen-centred
service.
6
The Citizens First series has gained
international attention and recognition and
remains the “gold-standard” in research on
public sector service delivery. Over the
past 16 years, the surveys have plumbed
key facets of the citizen-government
interface, including:
 The drivers of satisfaction, by
delivery channel;
 The challenges associated with
creating a seamless, multi-
channel experience;
 Citizens’ expectations in terms of
service standards; and,
 The relationship between service
and trust and confidence in
government.
A similar survey has been undertaken
across multiple waves, focused on business
representatives’ satisfaction with and
expectations of service from government,
called ‘Taking Care of Business’.

Citizens First 7
Citizens First 7 continues to report key trends
and changes from previous waves of the
survey, and also continues the tradition of
breaking new ground.
The 2014 survey represents a pivotal point in
the program’s history. A number of important
changes have been made to the methodology
and approach. Key changes include:
• Further development of the model for
drivers of satisfaction with government
services, in parallel with the approach
implemented for Taking Care of Business 4.
The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model is
employed to provide a robust, integrated
approach to measuring client satisfaction
and understanding the relative importance
of various aspects of service, including
functional and emotional dimensions, as
well as the contextual situation. For more
information on the model and analysis,
please refer to Section 4 of this report.
• The proportion of respondents who
provide detailed evaluations of services
provided by the participating jurisdiction
are maximized through the use of
questionnaire customizations. (Previous
iterations of Citizens First permitted the
respondent to evaluate the service of their
choosing, regardless of level of
government providing the service, which
resulted in services outside of the
jurisdiction being evaluated.)
Making Citizens First More Actionable
A performance
measurement and
benchmarking tool
Exploding myths
and
misperceptions
Channel
strategies and
the multi-
channel
experience
e-government
Elements of
the service
value chain
Building trust
and confidence
in government
Expectations
management
New service
technologies
Serving people
with disabilities
Service
standards for
emerging
channels
Satisfaction
across channels
CF1 1998
CF2 2000
CF3 2002
CF4 2005
CF5 2008
CF6 2012
CF7 2014
• Qualitative insight is provided by
analyzing the comments of survey
respondents regarding how service
experiences can be improved. For the
first time this information has been
categorized and included in the reports.
Individual participating jurisdictions are
also provided with a copy of the verbatim
comments for their jurisdiction for
further consideration and analysis.
• New topics explored in this iteration
include probing the awareness and usage
of online government services,
examining the attitudinal profile of users
and non-users of online services and
identifying drivers of online usage.
7

Citizens First 7
The Citizens First 7 survey included two
separate components:
National Survey
Firstly, a national survey was conducted with a
randomly selected, representative sample of
over 800 Canadians from every province and
territory. This survey included the topics of
service standards and expectations and
provision of online services.
Multiple methodologies were used to collect
data for the national survey, including a
randomly-recruited internet panel, mail and
mail-to-online (respondents who received a
survey package by mail had the option of
completing and returning a paper copy of the
survey, or completing the same survey online).
Final sample sizes by method of completion
for the national survey are as follows:
 Online panel: 617 (75% of all
responses);
 Mail: 155 (19% of all responses); and,
 Mail-to-online: 47 (6% of all
responses).
The national survey was in field from June to
September, 2014. The final data are weighted
proportionate-to-population by
province/region, age and gender.
Jurisdictional Survey
The jurisdictional survey is the second
component. It includes a sample of at least
400 respondents in each subscribing
jurisdiction for a total of around 5,000
Canadians (n=4,951). As with the national
survey, it is based on a randomly selected,
representative sample of Canadians.
Data for the jurisdictional survey was also
collected using multiple methodologies.
The aggregate jurisdictional interviews by
method of completion for all jurisdictions
except Yukon and NWT are as follows:
 Online panel: 3,120 (75% of
responses);
 Mail: 757 (18% of all responses);
and,
 Mail-to-online: 256 (6% of all
responses).
Due to the small population in Yukon and
NWT, a combined telephone and mail/mail-
to-online approach was used.
The survey was in field from June to
September, 2014. The final data are
weighted within each subscribing jurisdiction
proportionate-to-population by region, age
and gender.
Survey Methodology
Participating Jurisdictions:
Province of Alberta
Province of British Columbia
City of Hamilton
Province of Manitoba
Northwest Territories
Province of Nova Scotia
Province of Ontario
Region of Peel
Province of Québec
City of Toronto
York Region
Yukon
8

Citizens First 7
National Survey Sample Composition
The table below shows the total sample distribution (unweighted and weighted) for both CF6
and CF7. Both samples were weighted by age, gender and region to be consistent with the 2011
Census.
Unweighted Weighted
CF6
(2012)
CF7
(2014)
CF6
(2012)
CF7
(2014)
Sample Size (Unweighted)
(n=1689)
%
(n=819)
%
(n=1689)
%
(n=819)
%
Region
British Columbia 9 13 13 13
Alberta 7 11 11 11
Manitoba/Saskatchewan 10 7 7 7
Ontario 41 39 38 39
Québec 12 24 24 24
Atlantic Canada 17 7 7 7
NWT/Yukon/Nunavut 4 <1 <1 <1
Gender
Female 48 51 50 51
Male 52 49 50 49
Ethnicity/Language
Visible minority 9 10 9 11
Aboriginal Canadian 3 5 2 5
First language–English 82 71 73 71
First language–French 11 24 21 24
First language–Other 5 5 5 5
Length of Time in Canada
Whole life 82 84 83 84
10 years or more 16 12 15 12
5-10 years 1 2 1 3
Less than 5 years <1 1 <1 2
Disability
Yes 5 4 4 4
9

Citizens First 7
Unweighted Weighted
CF6
(2012)
CF7
(2014)
CF6
(2012)
CF7
(2014)
Sample Size (Unweighted)
(n=1689)
%
(n=819)
%
(n=1689)
%
(n=819)
%
Size of Community
City or town of 1,000,000 people or more 17 20 24 21
City or town of 100,000 to 1,000,000 37 34 34 35
City or town of 10,000 to 100,000 25 25 24 25
Town of 1,000 to 10,000 11 11 10 11
Town of under 1,000 3 2 2 2
Rural or remote 6 7 5 6
No response 1 1 <1 1
Formal Education
Completed HS or less 16 23 9 22
Some post-secondary 14 18 15 18
Completed college or university 46 44 33 46
Post-graduate or professional degree 24 14 19 14
Household Income (before taxes)
Under $30K 11 20 12 21
$30K to just under $50K 14 17 14 17
$50K to just under $70K 13 16 16 17
$70K to just under $90K 12 14 13 14
$90K or more 35 30 32 30
No Answer 16 2 15 1
Main Occupation
Paid employment, full or part time 53 51 52 55
Student, full or part time 2 5 5 6
Looking for work 4 4 4 4
Homemaker 5 6 4 6
Retired 28 28 27 23
Other 9 7 7 6
10

Citizens First 7
Definitions and Reporting Conventions
0 to 100 scores: Responses to many of the Citizens First survey questions are recorded on a 5-
point scale where 1 means ‘very poor’ or ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 means ‘very good’ or ‘strongly
agree’. To present findings in a manner consistent with previous iterations of Citizens First, many
of the results are scaled from 0 to 100 by applying the following scores to each response:
Where sample sizes are shown, the lower case ‘n’ represents the sample size (number of
respondents) upon which the percentages or scores are based.
Statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence interval are designated by arrows
().
‘Best in Class’ represents the highest score achieved by a participating individual province or
territory (BC, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec or Nova Scotia),
region or municipality (City of Hamilton, Region of Peel, City of Toronto, or York Region). A ‘Best
in Class’ score is reported only if the sample size answering is at least n=30 respondents.
The CF7 National Basket of Services is based on an average 0-100 rating for a group of 21
services (which are detailed in Appendix 1). The results are comparable to the basket of 25
services that were included in CF6. Prior to CF6, a basket of 26 services were tracked in this
measure.
Rating
Very Poor
1 2 3 4
Very Good
5
Score 0 25 50 75 100
11

Citizens First 7
Reputation scores are positive,
and are trending upwards for
governments at all levels in
Canada. Service reputation scores across
all levels of government show either
significant improvement or sustained gains
compared to previous measures. In fact,
scores for municipal, regional and
provincial/territorial governments
have hit an all-time high. Scores for
regional and provincial/territorial
governments have increased significantly
compared to CF6, while scores for municipal
and federal governments have sustained
large increases that were made between CF5
and CF6.
Service Reputation
Canada, at least at local level, receives some of the highest scores for
government service delivery across the world.1 Residents continue to gauge how
well government delivers services on how well it provides some of the toughest
services to deliver– and these are the same services residents are most
concerned about– traffic management, public transit and road maintenance.
Residents tend to be more pleased with other services that are arguably easier
to deliver.
As difficult as it is, all levels of government need to start to show improvement in
these major service areas that are of the greatest importance to citizens.
1 One World, Many Places, Ipsos, 2010 http://www.ipsos.com/public-
affairs/sites/www.ipsos.com.public-affairs/files/ipsos_sri_municipal_final.pdfSee Appendix 3.
Call to Action:
Service Quality
Service quality scores for specific municipal
services also show increases and sustained
gains from the recent past, specifically on
composting and traffic management–albeit
traffic management still receives some of the
lowest quality ratings along with road
maintenance and municipally- or regionally-
run public transit. At the provincial level,
strong upticks in perceptions of
provincial/territorial police and the courts are
noted, while ratings of EMS services have
declined.
The overall rating of the National Basket of
Services (which is composed of 21 baseline
services across all three levels of government)
is unchanged from CF6, but continues to
sustain gains first noted in CF4 when the score
increased from 67 out of 100 in CF3 to 73.
This year’s score is 74.
13

Citizens First 7
Recent Service Experience
The new ICCS Client Satisfaction Model was implemented for the first
time in Taking Care of Business 4. It provides a comprehensive view of
what it takes to satisfy citizen expectations of government services.
The model utilizes an index of seven components (which comprise the
Client Satisfaction Index or CSI) to represent satisfaction–covering
various personal and societal components. It includes the important
element of impact of service provision on confidence in public service,
which is also being measured for the first time in CF7.
The CSI ratings vary greatly between provincial/territorial
governments, but all score at least moderately well with an average
CSI score of 67 (and that’s just the average!). On average, only 12% of
residents were actively dissatisfied with a recent service experience.
The ICCS Customer Satisfaction Model is also a useful vehicle to
identify specific priorities for governments to focus on to improve
satisfaction. The proprietary model centres on five drivers of
satisfaction. Within each driver of satisfaction, dimensions related to
personal experience tend to be rated higher than societal dimensions.
This suggests that residents are happy with their own experiences, but
still would like to see improvement in government service delivery.
Delivery timeliness and issue resolution emerge as
the key drivers of overall satisfaction. Dimensions within
these drivers are largely within the control of government, and any
improvements in these areas will have a measurable impact on overall
satisfaction. While scores in these categories are already positive,
bringing them up to the next level will be important as expectations of
residents in these areas continue to rise.
Focusing improvement efforts in the areas that will have the greatest impact on overall
impressions is key to driving an overall increase in client satisfaction. As expectations around
speed of accessing services and conducting transactions, and customer service are on the rise
(clients even want to be entertained while they wait!), both for government services and for
all other consumer services, experiences will need to be in sync with expectations. At the
same time, it is important to continue to maintain high performance in other areas that are
‘hygiene factors’–aspects that are simply expected by the public as a matter of course in
dealing with services. While government may not realize a huge benefit for their positive
performance in staff interactions, it is likely a base expectation, and any declines will result in
a negative impact on overall satisfaction.
“I tried to find
information online
and was unable to
retrieve it. I gave up
after 30 minutes.
There was nowhere
to ask for 'help'. Live
chat would be very
helpful.”
- Online user
“The service was
excellent. The only
thing that could have
made it better would
have been some
entertainment while I
waited in line (TV or
radio).”
- In-person user
Call to Action:
14

Citizens First 7
Online access has the potential to become
the ‘new normal’ for government services.
Despite lingering concerns about security
and privacy, online channels are increasingly
being used to interact with government
services. Usage of government websites and
online services is on par with other access
channels, and there is a firm precedent for
conducting other business transactions
online. Usage patterns are currently uneven
between levels of government, with the
highest incidence reported for visiting a
federal website, likely reflecting the finding
that filing taxes is the most frequent online
transaction for government services.
Awareness of services available online is also
uneven between levels of government and
among specific services, with again the
highest awareness reported for filing taxes.
Demand is apparent with nearly eight in ten
(79%) of Canadians reporting a likelihood to
use the internet for government services in
the near future.
As usage is on the rise, so too are
expectations, primarily around speed. Speed
is recognized as a key benefit of an online
channel, but experiences are falling short of
expectations–too much time surfing around
for needed information is the key issue, as
websites for all levels of government receive
low ratings for ease of navigation.
Online Service Delivery
Online services need to be easy
to find and fast to complete.
Residents expect to find the information
or services they are looking for in 6.5
minutes– currently the average resident
is spending 19 minutes.
“I hate going on government websites
because they are not clearly laid out. It is
difficult to find exact departments and the
search button almost never takes me to
what I am looking for.”
- Social media user
Call to Action:
In order for online to become the “new
normal”, government will need to drive
awareness of services available, optimize
experiences to match rising expectations,
and mitigate subconscious concerns.
Awareness of what residents can do online
at all levels of government needs to be
raised. The benefits of the online channel
need to be reinforced (primarily speed and
convenience) and the user experience needs
to be optimized to validate these benefits.
Fewer clicks to find the information or
services needed is imperative to a positive
experience.
The security of information and transactions
online needs to be reinforced. Residents do
not always recognize their fears
spontaneously or consider them a barrier to
use but, when prompted, lingering concerns
are evident. Recent security breaches in the
public and private sectors have raised
concerns, but have not deterred online
users. People are coming to terms that these
events can and do occur. That said, in order
to drive online usage among a broader
audience and attract new users, service
managers need to ensure their secure
environments are highly visible to reassure
users of the security of their information,
particularly when it comes to financial (e.g.,
credit card) information.
15

Citizens First 7
The threshold for waiting for service across all channels is
diminishing. Acceptable wait times for service in-person,
on the telephone (answering or transferring calls and
returning voicemails), and online (looking for information)
are declining. This is particularly the case for telephone
and online where expectations for near-instant service are
increasing.
At present, expectations are not in line with experience.
More latitude is extended to in-person interactions where
speed is not necessarily the key driver of that channel
choice. It appears that the value associated with that
preference–being able to ask questions, knowing that the
transaction is completed accurately–means that clients
are prepared to wait a little longer for service. As such,
personal experience for this channel is in sync with
expectations. A slight majority would like the in-person
experience optimized through flexible hours of operation.
In-Person/Telephone Service Expectations
The average telephone
service experience lasts 19
minutes. Those who say
they had to wait on hold
too long had average calls
of 29 minutes compared to
only 14 minutes for others.
The average in-person
service experience lasts 21
minutes. Those who say
they had to wait in line too
long had average visits of
34 minutes compared to
only 17 minutes for others.
Call to Action:
Wait times expectations for all channels
need to be either met or managed. The
opportunity for instant and anonymous
information transactions across consumer
service categories afforded by today’s
technology means that there is less
tolerance for delay, and government
services need to meet these standards.
Where wait times are necessary, managing
expectations around the duration of the
wait or offering a reason for the wait is key
to a more positive experience.
Thresholds for waiting for a call to be
connected or to receive a call back are also
diminishing. While a majority of residents
continue to find a wait of 5 minutes or less
on hold to be acceptable, there has been a
notable increase over the previous
reporting period in the proportions of
those who want to remain on hold for just
one minute or less. A similar trend is found
in expectations for receiving a callback.
Within the business day remains
acceptable to the majority, however there
has been a significant increase in
expectations of hearing back within the
hour.
While time on hold and waiting for a call-
back is important, equally important is the
total amount of time to receive the service
over the phone–which needs to stay under
15 minutes. In-person visits need to
remain around 20 minutes. In-person is
the only channel where governments are
meeting the service expectation.
16

Citizens First 7
The services of your municipal
government
The services of your regional or
county government, or urban
community (if applicable)
The services of your
provincial/territorial government
The services of the federal
government
5
4
6%
7%
8%
10%
12%
13%
30%
35%
36%
35%
37%
37%
35%
34%
20%
14%
10%
11%
Base: Total Sample (n=819), excluding not applicable
Q4: Overall, how would you rate the services you get from each level of government?
Service Reputation
In CF7 perceptions of government services at the municipal, regional and provincial/territorial
levels are at an all-time high. Significant increases in positive perceptions over the previous wave
are noted at the regional and provincial levels. Gains made between CF5 and CF6 in ratings of
the municipal and federal level are maintained in the current wave.
Overall perceptions of government services at all levels are moderately positive, with municipal
government services generating the highest and most strongly positive ratings. Negative ratings
for all levels are offered by a minority, with around one-third giving a neutral score.
OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE
OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE: TREND
0 to 100 Score
Level of government: CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7
Municipal 53 57 59 62 55 62 65
Regional/County/Urban
Community
-- -- -- -- 53 54 62
Provincial/Territorial 47 50 51 51 51 52 58
Federal 47 51 56 59 51 56 57
 Significantly higher/lower than the previous wave (stat testing provided between CF5-CF7 only)
Q4: Overall, how would you rate the services you get from each level of government?
18
Very Good (5)Very Poor (1)

Citizens First 7
Municipal services related to drinking water,
public libraries, first responders and waste
management receive the most positive
scores:
 Eighty-two percent rate the
drinking water in their home, and
public libraries, at good or better (4
or 5 on the 5-point scale) with the
gains reported for drinking water
between CF5 and CF6 maintained
in the current wave.
 Similarly positive ratings are given
to the fire department (85%),
ambulance services (76%) and
police (74%) at the municipal level.
 Residents feel that the various
waste management and treatment
services provided to them in their
local area are also good/very good,
with garbage collection/disposal
scoring 79%, recycling and
composting scoring 78% and 67%
respectively, sewage and waste
water treatment at 75%, and yard
waste at 72%. Gains made in
positive ratings of recycling
services between CF5 and CF6 are
maintained in the current wave,
with an increase in ratings of
composting services also noted.
Municipal recreation services tend to elicit
more moderately positive ratings, with
approximately 60% to 70% rating services
like parks/campgrounds, recreation centres,
museums/heritage sites positively. A similar
score is given to municipal/regional courts
(63%).
Residents are least inclined to rate
transportation-related services positively.
Only one-half or fewer residents rate transit,
traffic management, road maintenance, and
snow removal services at 4 or 5. A significant
increase in positive ratings for traffic
management is noted in this wave, and the
gains made in snow removal ratings between
CF5 and CF6 are maintained.
Service Scores for Municipal Services
Service Quality Scores
19

Citizens First 7
Drinking Water provided to you at
your residence
Fire Department
Recycling (blue/black bin)
Garbage collection or garbage disposal
Public library services
Municipal or regional EMS or
ambulance services
Composting (green bin)
Municipal or regional Police
Leaf and yard waste collection
(brown bag)
Sewage and waste water treatment
Municipal parks and campgrounds
Municipal recreation centres
Municipal museums or heritage sites
Municipal or regional snow removal
services
Municipal or regional courts
Municipally- or regionally-run public
transit (bus, streetcar, subway)
Traffic management in your municipality
or region
Roads maintained by your municipality
or region
51%
50%
45%
44%
43%
38%
37%
36%
36%
35%
33%
30%
30%
23%
22%
19%
17%
11%
31%
35%
33%
35%
39%
38%
30%
38%
36%
40%
43%
42%
39%
34%
41%
35%
34%
29%
13%
12%
13%
15%
15%
19%
19%
19%
18%
18%
18%
20%
22%
25%
27%
25%
28%
29%
5
4
4
7%
5
5
5
4
5
6%
14%
5
13%
12%
18%
8%
5
5
5
9%
9%
14%
Very Good (5)
MUNICIPAL/REGIONAL SERVICES
Note: Responses with values of <4% are not labelled
Base: Residents who have used the service in past 12 months. Base: varies
Q6: Please rate the quality of each of these services (if you did not use this service in the past 12
months, select ‘Does Not Apply’.
Very Poor (1)
20

Citizens First 7
0 to 100 Score
Service CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7
Fire Department -- -- -- -- -- -- 83
Drinking water at your residence -- -- 66 75 78 82 81
Public library services -- -- -- -- -- -- 80
Garbage collection or disposal 74 72 72 81 79 79 78
Recycling (Blue/Black Bin) -- -- 70 75 74 77 78
Municipal or regional EMS or
ambulance services
-- -- -- -- -- -- 76
Sewage, waste water -- -- 66 72 76 75 75
Municipal or regional Police -- -- -- -- -- -- 75
Municipal parks and campgrounds -- -- -- -- -- -- 75
Leaf and yard waste collection (Brown
bag)
-- -- -- -- -- 70 73
Municipal recreation centres -- -- -- -- -- -- 73
Municipal museums or heritage sites -- -- -- -- -- -- 72
Composting (Green Bin) -- -- -- -- -- 66 70
Municipal or regional courts -- -- -- -- -- -- 68
Snow removal services -- -- -- 58 59 63 64
Traffic management in your
municipality
-- -- -- -- -- 56 60
Municipally- or regionally-run public
transit (bus, streetcar, subway)
-- -- -- -- -- -- 60
Roads maintained by the municipality -- -- -- 46 51 51 52
Base: Residents who have used the service in past 12 months
MUNICIPAL/REGIONAL SERVICES: TREND
21

Citizens First 7
Provincially/territorially-run EMS or
ambulance services
Provincial/territorial police
Provincially/territorially-run public
transit (e.g., GO TRAIN)
Provincial/territorial courts
32%
30%
19%
18%
38%
36%
35%
35%
23%
24%
28%
35%
4
4
11%
7%
5
8%
6%
Service Scores for Provincial and Federal Services
Services at the provincial and federal levels are all rated positively by a majority. Around two-
thirds of residents give a rating of 4 or 5 to ambulance and police services. Transit and court
services at these levels of government receive slightly lower ratings, but are still scored
favourably by a majority at just over 50% positive.
An increase in positive ratings in the current wave is noted for provincial/territorial police and
courts.
PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL/FEDERAL SERVICES
Base: Residents who have used the service in past 12 months.
PROVINCIAL/TERRITORIAL/FEDERAL SERVICES: TREND
0 to 100 Score
Service: CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7
Provincially/territorially-run
EMS or ambulance services
-- -- 80 79 78 82 73
Provincial/territorial police -- -- -- 65 59 65 70
Provincially/territorially-run
public transit
(e.g., GO TRAIN)
-- -- -- -- -- -- 62
Provincial/territorial courts -- -- -- 56 53 53 63
Base: Residents who have used the service in past 12 months
Q6: Please rate the quality of each of these services (if you did not use this service in the past 12 months,
select ‘Does Not Apply’.
Very Poor (1) Very Good (5)
22

Citizens First 7
National Basket of Services
The National Basket of Services is composed of 21 baseline services across all levels of
government–municipal, regional, provincial/territorial and federal. (Refer to Appendix 1 for a
list of all services included in the basket.)
The overall rating of the National Basket of Services edged up since CF5, and continues to
sustain gains first noted in CF4 when the score increased from 67 to 73 out of 100 since CF3.
The gains in overall client satisfaction with a range of services made between CF3 and CF4 have
been maintained over the past 3 survey cycles. In the current reporting period, client
satisfaction with the basket of services holds at 74.
LONG-TERM TREND IN CLIENT SATISFACTION
64 64
67
73 72 74 74
50
60
70
80
90
100
CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 CF6 CF7
0 to 100 Score
* The CF7 National basket of services is based on an average 0-100 rating for a group of 21 services
(which are described in Appendix 1). The results are comparable to the basket of 25 services that were
included in CF6. Prior to CF6, a basket of 26 services were tracked in this measure.
Base: Residents who have used at least one of the Basket of Services in past 12 months
Q8: If you used this service in the past 12 months, please indicate the quality of the service.
23

4. Service Experience Measures
24

Citizens First 7
The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model
The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model represents an evolution and refinement of the
model first established in 1998. The model has been developed over time, with
additional insights developed and tested during previous iterations of Citizens First
and Taking Care of Business.
In Citizens First 7, client satisfaction is measured using a multi-item composite known
as the Client Satisfaction Index (CSI). It incorporates both the individual service
experience (personal experience) and the broader “cultural” environment in which
the service experience takes place (societal context). This analytical framework
connects service quality, client satisfaction, reputation, and trust and confidence in an
integrated model that allows for the analysis of data to shed light on these
relationships.
The ICCS Client Satisfaction Model© is the property of the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service
25

Citizens First 7
Personal Experience
The personal experience is the component of the model that is most directly under
the control of the service provider. It is the component of the model that public
service providers have focused on almost exclusively to date.
Personal experience is comprised of two sub-dimensions: functional and emotional.
The functional dimension reflects the technical/mechanical aspects of service
delivery, while the emotional dimension reflects the strength of emotional
engagement in the service experience (telephone and in-person channels).
The functional dimension includes aspects such as access, timeliness, information,
staff knowledge and competence, information, and privacy. The functional dimension
is also more than the sum of its parts; taking a holistic approach, such drivers are all
components of the question “How easy is it to get the service I need?”.
The emotional dimension has in the past been partially reflected in those staff quality
drivers associated with extra mile, fairness, and courtesy, but has not been recognized
or addressed as a discrete component until Taking Care of Business 4 (TCOB4).
Research such as Gallup’s Human Sigma and the 2010 Kiwis Count study has
demonstrated that an emotional connection between service provider and the client
in the service experience is critical to the achievement of client satisfaction.
26

Citizens First 7
Societal Context
The societal context is the component of the model over which the service provider
has no immediate control, but which nonetheless shapes the clients’ perceptions in
the service experience.
The broader “cultural” environment in which the service experience takes place
includes comparative and reputational contexts.
• Comparative Context: How the experience compares with service experiences
from other private and public service providers.
• Reputational Context: What past experience and personal and societal
expectations the client has regarding public services.
27

Citizens First 7
Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions/ Residents who have used one of the services in
Appendix 2 in past 12 months
Q18 and Q19. Thinking back over your entire service experience, how much would you agree or
disagree with each of the following statements?
Client Satisfaction Index (CSI)
The outcome metric of the Client Satisfaction Model is the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI),
which is an average of the ratings of the following seven components that reflect the various
personal and societal dimensions of satisfaction. It should be noted that confidence in public
service is being measured for the first time in CF7. This establishes an important baseline for
future measures.
Overall client satisfaction is moderately high, sitting at 67 out of 100 across jurisdictions, just
below the 'Best in Class' score of 71. Scores for individual dimensions of satisfaction are at a
similar level to the overall, falling into a range between 60 and 71. Gaps between the average
and 'Best in Class' scores for each dimension are relatively small. Dimensions related to the
personal emotional and functional components tend to receive the highest ratings, with
societal reputational and comparative dimension scores slightly lower.
28
CLIENT SATISFACTION INDEX ACROSS ALL SUBSCRIBERS
0 to 100 Score
Average
Across All
Participating
Jurisdictions
Best
In Class
Overall CSI 67 71
71 75
71 75
70 75
68 74
64 71
63 68
60 62
6
6
6
7
9%
8
9%
6
7
6
7
10%
10%
12%
21%
20%
23%
23%
26%
29%
31%
32%
31%
32%
32%
29%
29%
27%
36%
36%
33%
31%
27%
24%
21%
Overall, I was satisfied with the
service I received
Receiving the service I wanted was
easy
I felt good about the service
experience I had
I would speak positively to others
about my service experience
The service equals the best service
offered anywhere
The service I experienced increased
my confidence in public service
The service experience exceeded my
expectations
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

Citizens First 7
30%
16%
7%
5%
4%
4%
2%
Permits, Certificates and Licensing Services
Information or Advisory Government Services
Government-Provided Financial Aid, Benefits,
Compensation, Pensions and Support Programs
Government-Provided Healthcare or Counselling
Services
Government Community and Social Services
Government-Provided Employment or Professional
Training and Support
Government-Provided Childcare or Daycare Services
Services Included in Key Driver Analysis
After survey respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with each of the government
services that they have used in the past 12 months, they were asked to provide a deep dive
analysis of one of the jurisdictional services chosen at random. The key driver analysis presented
on the following pages is based on the aggregate data collected from the deep dive section.
The proportions below reflect the composition of the services rated in the deep dive section.
CATEGORIES OF SERVICES SELECTED FOR RECENT SERVICE EXPERIENCE
Proportion of CSI Score*
*Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as 20% of residents used some other service and
11% did not evaluate a service
For details on the services included in each service category, please refer to Appendix 2
Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions/ Residents who have used one of the services in
29

Citizens First 7
Client Satisfaction Index (CSI) by Service Category
Healthcare/counselling services and permits/certificates/licensing services net the highest
satisfaction scores at 70 or higher, as well as the closest alignment with 'Best in Class' scores.
Other service types receive average satisfaction scores between 61 and 65.
The largest gaps between the average and the ‘Best in Class’ scores occur for information or
advisory services (10 points) and employment of professional training and support (14 points).
These are areas where lower-performing jurisdictions can be guided by best practices in the ‘Best
in Class’ jurisdictions.
* The Client Satisfaction Index is based on an average level of agreement with the seven components
shown on page 28
** The sample size is too small to present data on the ‘Best in Class’ for Government Community and
Social Services and for Government-Provided Childcare and Daycare Services
Base: Aggregate of participating jurisdictions / Residents who have used one of the services in
For details on the services included in each category, please refer to Appendix 2
61
74 71
61 62 61 6567
77 76
71 75
Average Across all Participating Jurisdictions Best in Class
Financial Aid,
Benefits,
Compensation,
Pensions and
Support
Programs
Healthcare
or
Counselling
Services
Permits,
Certificates and
Licensing
Services
Information
or Advisory
Government
Services
Government
Community
and Social
Services
Government-
Provided
Employment or
Professional
Training and
Support
Government-
Provided
Childcare and
Daycare
Services
CLIENT SATISFACTION INDEX* BY SERVICE CATEGORY (0 TO 100 SCORE)
** **
30

Citizens First 7
Client Satisfaction Index (CSI) by Primary Channel
Satisfaction tends to be highest with in-person visits, followed by online and telephone
experiences. Current ratings for all channels fall slightly below 'Best in Class' scores, with the
largest gap occurring with web.
63 66
7269
74 77
Telephone Website In-person visit
Average Across All Participating Jurisdictions Best in Class
shown on page 28
For details on how many residents used each channel, please refer to page 58
Q10. What was your first method of contact for this service? Q12. If you used more than one method,
which was your main one?
CLIENT SATISFACTION INDEX* BY PRIMARY CHANNEL (0 TO 100 SCORE)
31

Citizens First 7
Nature of the Service Interaction
All categories of service interactions are well represented by survey respondents, with a slightly
higher incidence of routine or periodic transactions reported at 33% and a slightly lower
incidence of issues-related interactions reported at 13%
The total will add to more than 100% because some respondents selected more than one response
Q9. What was the nature of the service interaction?
NATURE OF SERVICE INTERACTION
33%
26%
24%
13%
25%
To complete a routine or periodic
transaction (e.g., pay property taxes, renew
a licence plate sticker)
To view, submit or obtain an application or
registration for any type of permit, licence or
certificate
To get information or advice (including
ordering publications)
To solve a problem, correct an error or to
make a complaint
Anything else
32

Citizens First 7
Client Satisfaction Index (CSI) by
Nature of Service Interaction
Routine/periodic transactions receive the highest satisfaction score and are most closely aligned
with the 'Best in Class' average.
Applications/registrations, information/advice, and other services receive an average
satisfaction score in the mid-60s, a 6 to 8 point gap from 'Best in Class' scores.
Issues-based interactions receive the lowest satisfaction score at 58, again 8 points lower than
'Best in Class'.
72
67 66
58
65
75 75 74
66
71
Routine or
periodic
transaction
Application or
registration
Information or
advice
Solve problem,
correct error,
complaint
Anything else
Average Across Participating Jurisdictions Best in Class
shown on page 28
Q9. What was the nature of the service interaction?
CLIENT SATISFACTION INDEX* BY INTERACTION TYPE (0 TO 100 SCORE)
33

Citizens First 7
Key Drivers of Client Satisfaction
with Government Service
A central objective of this research is to determine which drivers have the most impact on the
CSI, allowing service providers to focus on improving those which represent the greatest
opportunity to improve the service experience. The five CSI drivers are:
 Service design
 Delivery timeliness
 Staff interaction
 Channel functionality
 Issue resolution
As with TCOB4, multivariate analysis was conducted to determine which drivers have the most
impact on the CSI. Factor analysis was conducted in TCOB4 to confirm the validity of the drivers.
34

Citizens First 7
Service Design Driver
The overall service design rating sits at 75 across participating jurisdictions, a bit lower than the
'Best in Class' score.
Scores for individual dimensions of service all hover around the same level, with little
differentiation between the various tested elements. Seven-in-ten or more agree that they
received the service and necessary information they sought, that the process to get access to
and receive the service was easy, that they were aware of where or how to get what they
needed and that their personal information was protected.
All average scores for individual dimensions fall below 'Best in Class' scores, with the widest gap
noted in knowing where or how to find the service.
SERVICE DESIGN DRIVER SCORES
0 to 100 Score
Average
Across All
Participating
Jurisdictions
Best
In Class
Service Design 75 81
78 84
76 81
75 83
76 79
74 78
74 79
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
6
5
6
7
14%
18%
19%
20%
18%
18%
28%
31%
30%
31%
30%
31%
49%
43%
42%
41%
41%
40%
In the end, I received the service
I was seeking
I received all the information I
needed to receive the service
I knew where or how to find the
service I was looking for
I am confident my personal
information was protected
The process to get access to the
service was easy
The process to receive the
service was easy
Q18 and Q19. Thinking back over your entire service experience, how much would you agree or
disagree with each of the following statements?
35

Citizens First 7
Priority Matrices Explained
A priority matrix allows for decision makers to easily identify priorities for improvement by
comparing how strongly a driver performed and how much impact each driver has on the CSI. It
helps to answer the question ‘what can we do to improve client satisfaction?’. Each driver or its
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).
Please note that “Impact” represents squared Pearson’s correlation coefficients (pairwise against the
driver of CSI), and “Performance” represents the average score (0 to 100) for each component of the
driver (independent variable).
IMPACT VERSUS PERFORMANCE ON DRIVERS OF SATISFACTION
36

Citizens First 7
Action Priorities for Service Design Driver
Ease of accessing and receiving the service are two of the three most impactful components of
service design. Performance scores on these lag behind the performance of most of the other
service design components. Therefore, these are the components that most government
agencies should prioritize in service provision.
Receiving all the required information is also an impactful component of service design. While
performance is a bit stronger compared to the two process components, it too should be
prioritized for improvement.
37

Citizens First 7
“Simplify and shorten the number of questions on the form(s) used by employers for
submission to workers compensation.”
“One did not seem to know what the other was doing. One department would tell me one
thing (and supposedly entered the information in the system), but then I would talk to
someone else, and they had some of the information, but not all, and I would have to explain
to them that another individual had given me certain information and so on.”
“More courtesy and little bit of privacy in the cubicle. Clear signage of where to go.”
“[The first time] I went in to change my
[driver’s] licence and was told what
documents I would need. I returned a
couple of days later and they weren't good
enough. I was sent back. I was refused my
licence so it was quite an ordeal.”
“Communication should outline at the
outset the documentation, reports, and
referrals that are necessary in order to
complete a claim, particularly for those
who have never used the service before.”
“More detailed information on process,
requirements, and expectations before you
even start your interactions with
personnel.”
“…an office I could go to where you could
talk to a real person who had paper copies
of all the forms. They could tell you what
needed to be filled out and provide
envelopes with addresses for mailing
them.”
Insights: Service Design
The main themes arising from the verbatim comments are a need to increase awareness of what
information is required to receive services or what to bring to an in-person visit. Signage in
offices should be improved so residents know where to go. When it comes to receiving the
service, simplify and reduce the number of forms and ensure confidentiality at service counters.
To follow are some examples of issues that residents of Canadian jurisdictions raised with
respect to these priority themes.
Easy process for receiving the service
“The relevant application form could have
been available online (on the website).”
“It was unclear where I was to go when I
first entered the office. It seemed very
confusing and I didn't know if I was in the
correct line. I had to ask someone else
who had already been through the line
before I knew if I was where I ought to
be.”
“It would be better if all the services I
required were available at the one
location/office.”
“Receive an e-mail response that the
request has been received and have a
processing identification so you can keep
following up.”
“The area should be made totally handicap
accessible. If I had a walker or wheelchair I
could not access this place. There should
also always be an accessible washroom in
a public service area.”
Receiving all of the information
needed
Ease of access to the service
38

Citizens First 7
Delivery Timeliness Driver
The overall delivery timeliness score sits at 70 out of 100, 6 points lower than the 'Best in Class' score.
Again, there is little differentiation among the individual dimensions of delivery timeliness, with two-
thirds or more reporting satisfaction with the amount of time to access, receive or get help with a
service.
All average scores for individual dimensions fall below 'Best in Class' scores by 6 points.
Q19. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
39
DELIVERY TIMELINESS DRIVER SCORES
0 to 100 Score
Average
Across All
Participating
Jurisdictions
Best
In Class
Delivery Timeliness 70 76
70 76
70 76
69 75
8
8
8
8
8
9
18%
19%
18%
28%
29%
27%
38%
37%
37%
I was satisfied with the amount
of time it took to receive the
service
of time it took to get any help I
needed
of time it took to access the
service

Citizens First 7
Action Priorities for Delivery Timeliness
There is very little difference in both the impact and performance scores between the
components of delivery timeliness.
Government service providers in Canada would be well advised to focus on continuing to
maintain and improve all three components, since delivery timeliness is one of the top two most
impactful drivers of customer satisfaction.
40

Citizens First 7
Insights: Delivery Timeliness
The main themes arising from the verbatim comments are a desire for shorter wait times and
extended hours. To follow are some examples of issues that residents raised with respect to
delivery timeliness:
“Someone could be at the office more. The
hours could be extended. Occasionally I go
there and they are not there.”
“Services could be open later and on
Saturdays.”
“I'd like it if the municipal offices were
open later, maybe not everyday, but once
or twice a week stay open until six or
seven.”
“I don't feel any improvement was
necessary other than being able to contact
the office on Saturday would be
convenient.”
“Faster service at the DMV. Waiting 30-60
minutes in line to receive a 3 minute
transaction is too much.”
“Shorten the time it takes to pick up the
phone and address the issue directly.”
“They need much shorter wait times [at
service counter].”
“Give an estimated wait time.”
“More service personnel needed to be
working the counter. The wait time of 45
minutes was excessive.”
Time to access service
Hours
“Be more efficient. I've been waiting more than three months to receive a renewed card.”
“The wait time between applying and receiving the benefit was terribly excessive. It was not
possible to inquire as to the status of the request. We were told we would just have to wait
and that wait was over two months.”
“No one wants to wait for 2-4 weeks to get a social assistance/income cheque so the
government really needs to look into this and figure out a better solution because I think at
the moment it is not working for people.”
”There should have been more workers made available to handle inquiries [when accessing
services online]. Response should have taken a few days instead of several weeks.”
“There is too much paperwork that needs to be filled out by others that makes the process
take longer than necessary.”
Time to receive the service
41

Citizens First 7
Staff Interaction Driver
The staff interaction score is high with an overall average of 79, just slightly lower than the 'Best
in Class' score of 83.
Individual dimensions of staff interaction are rated similarly positively, with little differentiation
noted. Three-quarters or more agree that they were: treated fairly and courteously by service
staff; that the staff were knowledgeable, understood their needs and made every effort to
address them; and that they felt good about their interaction. All scores are within 6 points of
the 'Best in Class‘ score.
Q18B. Please indicate if you agree or disagree with the following statements.
42
STAFF INTERACTION DRIVER SCORES
0 to 100 Score
Average
Across All
Participating
Jurisdictions
Best
In Class
Staff Interaction 79 83
80 86
80 85
79 84
79 82
77 82
77 83
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
14%
14%
15%
15%
16%
16%
30%
30%
30%
31%
29%
30%
50%
50%
48%
47%
46%
46%
Service staff treated me with
courtesy
Service staff treated me fairly
Service staff understood my
needs
Service staff were
knowledgeable
I felt good about my interaction
with service staff
Service staff made every effort
to address my needs

Citizens First 7
Action Priorities for Staff Interaction
There is little variation in the impact of the components of staff interaction. There is also little
variation in the performance scores.
In an effort to bring some prioritization or focus to the components Canadian government
service providers should strive to improve the components in the improve quadrant as impact
scores are marginally higher and performance scores marginally lower – those are: ‘I felt good
about my interaction with service staff’ and ‘service staff made every effort to address my
needs’.
43

Citizens First 7
Insights: Staff Interaction
When it comes to the staff interaction driver, the following should be addressed: improving staff
knowledge, making sure staff are giving their best effort to address the needs of the resident,
and ensuring residents feel good about their interaction with staff.
The main themes arising from the verbatim comments are a desire for greater staff training to
ensure there is a consistent level of knowledge across front-line staff and improving the way
staff interact with residents. There is also a desire for greater compassion and empathy.
“Increased competence and knowledge.”
“Each time I go in there are a lot of people
there and some are really knowledgeable
and some not.”
“Have more knowledgeable staff, speak
English clearly, have less waiting time and
prompter service overall!”
“The volume that the people are dealing
with is not high and sometimes they are
not familiar with the nuances but they do
their best. I would like them to have more
experience but no one can really control
that.”
“Governments need people who know
what they are doing.”
Staff knowledge, communication skills
“People need to learn how to provide
better service and have more compassion.”
“Be respected more because having a
disability or financial issue does not mean
we live on another world. Staff get very
easily frustrated; no patience at all; no
empathy, and they rush to close the phone
call because they do not want to get
involved!”
“The [telephone] call representative was
rude and not empathetic. The whole
process was awful and degrading.”
“Stop the service person from arguing with
the client.”
Understanding, compassion
“Often I find that the workers are rude or snarky. The experience would be a whole lot better
if they would treat me more like a person with feelings and needs than just a case number or
inanimate object.”
“Public service members for the vast majority are not motivated and it shows through their
personality.”
“Customer service representative could refrain from bringing religious comments into the
interaction with customers.”
“Staff needs better communication & time management skills.”
Soft skills
44

Citizens First 7
Channel Functionality Driver
Overall channel functionality sits at 75 on the 0 to 100 point scale, just under the 'Best in Class'.
Three-quarters rate various dimensions of channel functionality positively, indicating ease of
access and achievement of service needs by their preferred method of contact, and overall
satisfaction with their main method of contact.
Individual dimension scores are somewhat lower than 'Best in Class'.
45
CHANNEL FUNCTIONALITY DRIVER SCORES
0 to 100 Score
Average
Across All
Participating
Jurisdictions
Best
In Class
Channel Functionality 75 80
75 80
75 80
74 81
5
5
5
6
6
6
18%
16%
18%
30%
30%
30%
42%
43%
42%
I was able to easily access this
service by my preferred method
of contact.
I was able to achieve my service
needs by using my preferred
method of contact.
I am satisfied with my
experience using the main
method of contact I used

Citizens First 7
Action Priorities for Channel Functionality
There is virtually no difference between the components of channel functionality on both impact
and performance.
Scores on channel functionality vary somewhat by the main channel used. Services delivered
through the telephone channel were rated lower than in-person or online. Residents whose main
channel was online rate “I was able to achieve my service needs by using my preferred method
of contact” 83 out of 100. This compares to 80 among those whose main channel was in-person
and 76 among those whose main channel was telephone.
46

Citizens First 7
Insights: Channel Functionality
The main themes arising from the verbatim comments related to channel functionality for online
service delivery are to make the website/webpages easier to navigate, allow website payments
and improve location and downloading of forms.
Regarding the in-person channel at a government office, service counter or kiosk, faster
service/less waiting is the most common theme. This also speaks to delivery timeliness.
For telephone, the most common theme is a desire to complete the service with fewer calls (or
on the first call preferably) and less time on hold.
“If you provided more comprehensive,
streamlined information and a more easy
to navigate website, then less people
would have to come to the service offices,
thus making the wait time at the service
offices shorter. Either that or hire more
people so that service time is sped up.”
“Better websites that are not as confusing
to navigate would be a huge benefit. I hate
going on government websites because
they are not clearly laid out… The search
button almost never takes me to what I am
looking for.”
“[The service could be improved] by
allowing website payment.”
“I tried to find information online and was
unable to retrieve it. I gave up after 30
minutes. There was nowhere to ask for
'help'. Live chat would be very helpful.”
“Technical issues, inability to load/access
site/login caused many delays.”
“Improve the search section as it didn't
work well and I had to call in for service.
Maybe have an on-line live help section
that can answer my questions or
frustrations while on-line.”
Online
“The office was too far away and
understaffed; I wish there was a closer
place.”
“Faster service.”
“Less waiting.”
“[In-person services] could provide an
estimated wait time.”
“[Make] things more efficient. The
information line is way at the back, at the
front would make sense to me.”
“Have more stations open in the office.
There were 4 stations open and the lineup
was out the door.”
“[Make it easier] to get into facilities for
wheelchairs.”
“Improve their parking/ not enough space
for public parking.”
“Have a shorter wait time or make the
service available online.”
“I would like it done online.”
“I would like the use of modern technology
and a competent staff.”
In person/office/service counter
47

Citizens First 7
“Speaking to a real person and not an automated service.”
“I was on hold for way too long and I gave up.”
“Put a live person on the end of the phone. The endless automated voice queues that refer
me to websites that don't answer my questions or endless automated voice queues that
never actually get me to where I needed to go were very annoying.”
“Not have to wait so long on the phone.”
“Adopt other countries' excellence and standards of service/ performance where a
telephone call is answered upon the third ring.”
“Include more specific phone numbers on the website and the number you should call for
the exact service you want instead of going through all those options.”
“Having the option to reach a person in the beginning.”
“Several messages were left on the phone, but no reply. It's important to give the client a 2
minute call saying, ‘we're still processing information‘ etc.”
Telephone
48

Citizens First 7
Issue Resolution Driver
The issue resolution scores are consistent with those for other drivers, both with regard to the
average across participating jurisdictions and the 'Best in Class' score, at 72 and 76 respectively.
Some differentiation between individual dimensions is noted, with residents more confident in
the satisfactory resolution of future issues than with the handling of issues/complaints currently
experienced.
In terms of the correlations between the five CSI drivers, it is interesting to note that the issue
resolution driver has correlations with the service design (.86) and staff interaction (.81) drivers
that are as strong, or stronger than the correlation with delivery timeliness (.80). This indicates
that issue resolution has much to do with resolving barriers to getting service (such as finding
the information they need, knowing where to go and what the process is), and issues with staff.
Nonetheless, the correlation with timeliness is still quite high, and importantly, having to wait
too long is related to issue resolution as well.
49
ISSUE RESOLUTION DRIVER SCORES
0 to 100 Score
Average
Across All
Participating
Jurisdictions
Best
In Class
Issue Resolution 72 76
72 76
68 73
65 72
6
7
9
6
8
7
19%
23%
27%
32%
31%
28%
37%
32%
29%
I have confidence that any future
issues will be addressed to my
satisfaction
Any issues I encountered in the
service process were easily
resolved
Any complaints I made about my
service experience were
addressed to my satisfaction

Citizens First 7
Action Priorities for Issue Resolution Driver
The components of the issue resolution driver all have about the same impact, there is some
variation by performance. How well complaints were addressed is rated lower than how easily
issues were resolved and how confident residents are that future issues will be addressed.
50
Issues were
easily resolved
Complaints
addressed to my
satisfaction
Confident future
issues will be
addressed
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
65 70 75 80 85
Improve
Impact
Protect
LOW
HIGH
HIGHLOW Performance

Citizens First 7
Insights: Issue Resolution
Below are some examples of issues that citizens raised with respect to issue resolution. Some
comments appear to focus more on service design issues that inhibit the ability of staff to
resolve issues, rather than any unwillingness by staff to resolve issues. However, some concerns
suggest that staff could offer more compassion when helping to resolve problems.
It is also recommended that issues faced by clients be tracked and analyzed to identify potential
improvement strategies.
“Long wait times and the person didn't
really have any advice to help me solve my
problem.”
“Email took 6 months for a reply and was
not targeted nor specific to the question
asked, not providing constructive solution
to my problem.”
“Too many people did not know what to do
and I was passed from one person to
another. I finally got the problem
resolved.”
“I did not receive a definitive answer as to
when the problem would be resolved, not
even an estimate.”
“No action has been taken, although I have
raised the same complaint three years in a
row. The process seems easy but it results
in no resolution.”
“I got the information and the department
that was responsible was to contact me but
they never did. Someone could follow up
with inquiries.”
“The person I spoke with wrote down my
address incorrectly. As a result, I didn't
receive the service I requested which was
bulk garbage pickup until I called again. The
second person was extremely helpful and
arranged for a special truck to pick up my
large items the very next day.”
Successful resolution Timely resolution
“Listening is the most important and most people in the service only listen to what they want
to hear and try to solve problems when they have heard only part of the problem. This is my
biggest problem about the system. Also people who don't understand how to communicate.”
“Service can be improved by asking the needs of the customer specifically and going one step
ahead and solving the problem instead of transferring here and there.”
“Show a caring attitude and genuine concern for the customer’s needs. Provide suggestions
on other avenues to pursue to get help.”
“[The service would have been better] dealing with the right people who have the
compassion, understanding & knowledge of your situation / problem, and who are courteous
and sincerely wish to help.”
Communications skills and empathy
51

Citizens First 7
Priority Areas of Improvement–Client Satisfaction Index
Drivers
The categories of issue resolution and delivery timeliness have the greatest impact on overall
client satisfaction, and also represent the greatest opportunities for improvement as they
currently score lower on performance relative to other categories. Focusing on improving
dimensions in these categories will net the most significant gains in satisfaction scores.
The strong impact that issue resolution has on satisfaction is a major new finding for the
Citizens First 7 study. All jurisdictions should take action to address issue resolution, and
citizens’ perceptions of it.
By contrast, while staff interaction is the highest performing category, it has relatively less
impact on overall levels of client satisfaction, so any improvements in this area will have
minimal effect on overall perceptions.
PRIORITY AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT–CSI DRIVERS
Priorities for Improvement
52

Citizens First 7
Priorities for Improvement—All Components
Of all 21 service components considered within the five drivers of satisfaction, five stand out as
priorities for improvement, as shown in the priority grid below. Three of the top five are
associated with issue resolution and two are associated with delivery timeliness.
1 Confident future issues will be resolved 11 Staff were knowledgeable
2 Issues were easily resolved 12 I received the service I was seeking
3 Amount of time to receive the service 13 Amount of time to get access to the service
4 Amount of time to get help 14 Staff understood my needs
5 Complaints were addressed 15 Staff treated me fairly
6 Received needed information 16 Process to access to the service was easy
7 I felt good about my staff interaction 17 Staff treated me with courtesy
8 Staff made every effort to address my needs 18 Achieve needs by my preferred channel
9
Satisfied with my experience using the main
method
19
Easy to access the service by my preferred
method
10 The process to receive the service was easy 20 Knew where or how to find the service
21 My personal information was protected
Note: the attributes are ordered from highest to lowest in terms of their impact on overall satisfaction.
53

Citizens First 7
Drivers of Satisfaction by Channel
The improvement priorities for service managers do not vary greatly by service channel. As
noted previously, the CSI is highest for in-person experience at a government office, service
counter or kiosk, followed by online, and lowest for telephone. Service managers should note
timeliness and issue resolution ratings are significantly lower when services are accessed by
telephone than online or in-person. Ratings of service design and channel functionality when
accessing services by telephone are on par with the comparable online measures.
PRIORITY AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT – CSI DRIVERS BY PRIMARY
CHANNEL
54

Citizens First 7
Summary of Priorities for Service Improvement
While there is much to celebrate with respect to Canadian jurisdictions’ improvement both in
terms of the reputation of and experience with public service delivery over the past few waves
of the CF study, there is room for more improvement. In particular, citizens are less satisfied
with telephone and website interactions than they are with in-person visits.
Issue Resolution Driver
The results of the driver analysis demonstrate that a key area for improvement is the issue
resolution driver, including the driver’s components of:
 Any complaints I made about my service experience were addressed to my satisfaction,
 Any issues I encountered in the service process were easily resolved, and
 I have confidence that any future issues will be addressed to my satisfaction.
Interactions to Resolve a Problem
In a finding related to the importance of the issue resolution CSI driver, citizens tend to be less
satisfied with service interactions that are for the purpose of solving a problem, correcting an
error or making a complaint than they are with other types of transactions. This further
demonstrates the need for improved problem and issue resolution.
Timeliness
The CF7 results show that service expectations are strongly correlated with timeliness of the
service delivery. And, delivery timeliness is the second driver identified in the driver analysis as a
priority for improvement. Canadian jurisdictions should strive to meet or exceed expectations on
timely service delivery. It is clear that improved performance on timeliness will increase
residents’ overall satisfaction with government services. Reducing wait times to under 20
minutes at government offices, greater first call resolution for services available over the phone
and less time online finding and completing web-based services are key to enhanced
performance.
Residents of Canadian jurisdictions spend substantially more time online looking for information
for a routine government service than what is considered reasonable. Improving the navigation
of government webpages and making sure that all of the information that is needed is available
online is recommended.
55

Citizens First 7
Channel Use and Preferences
Number of Channels Used
A single channel was used by the majority to access government services (53%), with a further
36% using 2 channels.
NUMBER OF CHANNELS USED TO GET SERVICE
Number of Channels Used to
Get Government Services:
Average Across All
Participating Jurisdictions
One 53%
Two 36%
Three 8%
Four or more 3%
Average 1.6
Number of channels derived from all methods of contact used (Q10. What was your first method of
contact for this service? And Q11. What other methods of contact did you use, if any?)
56

Citizens First 7
Service Experience by Number of Channels
Using multiple channels has only a small impact on client satisfaction with the service
experience. For the ‘Best in Class’ jurisdiction, satisfaction declines by only 3 points between
residents using only one channel and those who used 3 or more– and this difference is not great
enough to be statistically significant.
69
65 62
72 71
69
One Two Three or More
Average of Participating Jurisdictions Best in Class**
Number of Channels Used
Client Satisfaction Index*
* The Client Satisfaction Index is based on an average level of agreement (0 to 100 score) with the
seven service attributes shown on page 28
** 'Best in Class' defined as the subscriber with the highest Client Satisfaction Index
Number of channels derived from all methods of contact used (Q10. What was your first method of
contact for this service? and Q11. What other methods of contact did you use, if any?)
0 to 100
score
SERVICE EXPERIENCE BY NUMBER OF CHANNELS
USED WHEN ACCESSING SERVICE
57

Citizens First 7
Use of Different Types of Channels
Direct contact, either in-person or via telephone, is the most common first approach to access
government services, followed closely by online.
USE OF DIFFERENT CHANNELS TO GET SERVICE
Channel Used to Get Services: First Channel
Other
Channels
Visit an office or service counter 33% 14%
Telephone 29% 17%
Online/website 27% 14%
Regular mail 4% 3%
Email 4% 10%
Other 2% 7%
No Others n/a 52%
Q10. What was your first method of contact for this service? And Q11. What other methods of contact
did you use, if any?
58

Citizens First 7
Preferred Channel
Channel preference is consistent with initial approach to accessing services, with direct contact
(in-person or telephone) leading, and online/website following closely behind.
PREFERRED CHANNEL TO GET SERVICE
Preferred Channel to Get
Government Services
Visit an office or service counter 32%
Telephone 28%
Online/website 27%
Email 8%
Regular mail 3%
Other 3%
Q14. If you were to get this service again, which would you prefer as your main method of contact?
59

Citizens First 7
58 55 53
64
57
69
Total Visible Minority People with Disabilities*
CF6 CF7
57 57 51
63 64 67
Total Visible Minority People with Disabilities*
CF6 CF7
Inclusion and Diversity
Moderate scores are received by provincial/territorial governments on dimensions related to
responsiveness and inclusiveness of needs and voices of diverse populations. Ratings among
citizens overall are more positive than they were in the CF6 study, however there is clearly room
for additional improvement.
Services offered by my provincial/territorial government
are responsive to the needs of a diverse population
The voices and needs of varying ethnic and demographic groups are reflected in the
services provided by my provincial/territorial government
* Caution: Small sample sizes (n=<30).
 Significantly higher/lower than the previous wave
Base: Visible Minority (n=78) People with disabilities (n=34), excluding those who responded ‘don’t
know’
Q7 and Q7b: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
0-100
score
0-100
score
60

5. Citizen Service Standard
Expectations
61

Citizens First 7
At times government policy has advocated
greater personalization of public services to
tailor services to the needs of those who use
them. Personalization is seen as being a driver
by rising public expectations of services in both
the private and public sector; people’s daily
lives are hectic and pressured, and they
increasingly expect services to fit in around
their lives rather than vice versa.
Being able to access public services using a
channel that is convenient is now a ‘hygiene
factor’–something that is simply expected by
the public as a matter of course in dealing with
services. They expect services to fit in around
their lives; for example, to be open outside
working hours and to be located in a
convenient place that they are able to access
easily.
Online Channel
• The average number of minutes
Canadians are willing to search for
information for a routine service on a
government website is 6.5 minutes
which reflects a shift toward even
shorter times in CF7. The proportion
expecting to find the information they
need in under 5 minutes has increased
from 36% in CF6 to 42% in CF7.
• The average number of web pages
Canadians are willing to search is 3-5
pages (with a shift toward even fewer
pages in CF7). The proportion expecting
to search only 1 or 2 pages has increased
from 27% in CF6 to 35% in CF7.
• Most Canadians want instantaneous
payment confirmation. The proportion
expecting this has increased from 59% in
CF6 to 66% in CF7.
Telephone Channel
• Most expect to wait on hold for no more
than 2 minutes (with a shift toward only
1 minute in CF7). Demand for wait times
under 1 minute has doubled since CF6
from 16% to 33%.
• When it comes to expectations for
receiving a call-back in response to a
message left at a government office,
there has been a significant increase in
expectations of hearing back within the
hour (from 24% to 36%) and the
expectation to hear back within the next
business day has shifted down from 23%
to 14%.
• Canadians are willing to wait less time
to be transferred from a voice response
system to a live agent–in CF6 35% said
they expect to wait up to 2 minutes, in
CF7 64% expect it to be under 2
minutes. The number of residents who
say only 1 minute or less is reasonable
has more than doubled from 13% to
35%.
In-Person Channel
• The average number of minutes
Canadians are waiting for service at
government offices, service counters or
kiosks is 21 minutes–which is on target
with their expectations (19.5 minutes).
• Most citizens (57%) hold the view that
the hours at government offices should
be more flexible.
• Citizens who would prefer more flexible
hours at government offices are about
as likely to prefer weekend hours as
they are to prefer later evening hours.
Service Standard Expectations
62

Citizens First 7
Service Expectations – Delivery Timeliness
In-person service experiences are in line with service expectations for that form of contact.
Twenty minutes is the average expectation for waiting for service when visiting a government
office, service counter or kiosk, while the average actual time spent waiting in those venues is 21
minutes.
Online service expectations and experiences are, however, out of sync. Actual time spent looking
for information on government websites is more than double national service expectations (19
minutes average experience vs. 7 minutes average expectation). Telephone wait times are also
longer than what is expected.
* Residents who spent more than 120 minutes accessing services through any channel have been
identified as outliers and excluded from the mean calculation
** While national service expectation is not available we know that after 15 minutes on the phone
CSI falls below the average, therefore 15 minutes should be the aim
 Arrows indicate statistically significant differences
Base for Service Expectation: all those responding to the national survey
Base for Actual Experience: an aggregate of participating jurisdictions based on those who have used
one of the services identified in Appendix 2 in the past 12 months
Service Category
Service Expectation–
National
Actual Experience–
Across All Participating
Jurisdictions
Number of Minutes
Mean Median Mean* Median
What is a reasonable amount of time to
wait for service when visiting a
government office, service counter or
kiosk?
19.5 15 21 15
When you visit a government website for
a routine service, what is a reasonable
amount of time to spend online finding
the information you need?
6.5 7 19 15
Total amount of time on the telephone
(please include multiple calls).
15** 19 15
SERVICE EXPECTATIONS VS. ACTUAL EXPERIENCE–DELIVERY TIMELINESS
63

Citizens First 7
Online Expectations
Eight-in-ten citizens expect to spend less than 10 minutes online at a government site to find the
information they need, with 39% prepared to spend just 2-4 minutes (representing a significant
increase over CF6 findings), and 36% prepared to spend slightly longer searching (5-9 minutes).
Actual time spent searching significantly exceeds expectations for this service channel, with
three-quarters of users spending more than 10 minutes, and 37% spending 20 minutes or longer
on the site.
And expectations are rising. An increase in the desire to spend 2-4 minutes looking for
information needed is noted.
WAIT TIME FOR IN-PERSON SERVICE AT GOVERNMENT OFFICE
* Residents who spent more than 120 minutes accessing services through any channel have been
one of the services identified in Appendix 2 in the past 12 months
64

Citizens First 7
Expectations for finding information online more easily are also rising. A majority continues to be
prepared to look at 3-5 pages to find what they are looking for, however, the proportion
prepared to look at a maximum of 2 pages has increased significantly between CF6 and the
current reporting period.
2%
3%
53%
28%
7%
10 or more
6-9
3-5
2
1
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PAGES BEFORE FINDING INFORMATION ONLINE
CF6
4%
23%
65%
7%
1%
* Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer
Base: Representative sample of Canadians: CF7 (n=819)
Q34. What is the maximum number of web pages you should have to look at in order to find the
information you need?
Online payment confirmation continues to be expected instantaneously, and in fact this
expectation is only strengthening over time. Some delay is acceptable to one-third of residents,
with most of that proportion wanting confirmation within the hour.
66%
18%
3%
1%
5%
3%
1%
Instantaneously
Within an hour
Within 2 hours
Within 4 hours
The same day
Next business day
Within 2 days or more
EXPECTED WAIT TIME FOR ONLINE PAYMENT CONFIRMATION
CF6
59%
16%
3%
2%
8%
8%
3%
Q49. If you make a payment for a government service online, how quickly do you expect to receive
confirmation that your payment has been processed?
65

Citizens First 7
Telephone Expectations
Thresholds for waiting for a call to be connected or to receive a call back are also diminishing.
While a majority of residents continue to find a wait of 5 minutes or less for a phone call to be
connected acceptable, there has been a notable increase over the previous reporting period in
the proportion of those who want to remain on hold for just one minute or less.
A similar trend is found in expectations for receiving a callback. There has been a significant
increase in expectations of hearing back within the hour.
9%
24%
31%
26%
6%
3%
Up to 30 seconds
Up to 1 minute
Up to 2 minutes
Up to 5 minutes
Up to 10 minutes
11 minutes or more
36%
10%
36%
14%
2%
1 hour
4 hours
Same day
Next business day
2 days or more
ACCEPTABLE PHONE LINE HOLD
ACCEPTABLE WAIT TIME FOR A CALL BACK
CF6
3%
13%
27%
40%
14%
3%
CF6
24%
13%
35%
23%
5%
Q39. What is an acceptable length of time to wait for a call back?
Q38. When you call a government office using a direct line (that is a number that should get you
directly through to a person, not an automated system) and you get their voice mail greeting, and, if
you select the option to connect to a live person, what is an acceptable length of time to wait on hold?
66

Citizens First 7
Most residents find a wait time of 2 minutes or less acceptable when waiting to be connected
with another agent. Citizens are more likely to expect this to take less than two minutes than
they were in CF6. Within the business day remains the expected timeframe for returning a
voicemail, however, the expectation for immediate reply within the hour is growing.
11%
24%
29%
11%
19%
4%
1%
Up to 30 seconds
Up to 1 minute
Up to 2 minutes
Up to 3 minutes
Up to 5 minutes
Up to 10 minutes
11 Minutes or more
34%
12%
35%
15%
2%
1 hour
4 hours
Same day
Next business day
2 days or more
ACCEPTABLE WAIT TIME FOR TRANSFER TO AN AGENT
ACCEPTABLE WAIT TIME FOR A CALL BACK AFTER LEAVING MESSAGE ON
VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEM
CF6
3%
10%
22%
12%
36%
13%
3%
CF6
25%
13%
36%
21%
5%
Q43. And, If you leave a message on the automated voice response system, what is an acceptable
amount of time to wait for a call back?
*Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer
Q42. When you call a government automated voice response system, if you decide you need
assistance from a live person what is an acceptable length of time to wait before getting through to
an agent?
67

Citizens First 7
In-Person Channel Expectations
Nearly three-quarters of residents find a wait time of up to 15 minutes to be acceptable when
accessing government services in-person, and a further 22% are prepared to wait up to a half
hour.
Actual time spent waiting is consistent with wait times expectations for this service channel, with
63% waiting 15 minutes or less, and 25% up to 30 minutes.
WAIT TIME FOR IN-PERSON SERVICE AT GOVERNMENT OFFICE
*Residents who spent more than 120 minutes accessing services through any channel have been
one of the services identified in Appendix 2 in the past 12 months.
68

Citizens First 7
While residents remain essentially divided on whether standard or flexible operating
hours should be maintained by government offices and service centres, flexible hours
are slightly preferred (57% vs. 42%). Equal preference for opening hours on weekends
and weekday evenings is reported by those who would prefer flexible hours of
operation.
69
42%
57%
Standard hours of operation are
acceptable (i.e. 8:30a.m.to 5:00p.m.
Monday through Friday)
Government hours of operation should
be more flexible
23%
38%
39%
They should be open for extended business
hours (i.e., beyond 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.)
They should operate during usual business
hours on weekdays, but be open for a
period of time on the weekends
They should be open for evening hours on
weekdays
VIEWS ON HOURS OF OPERATION
PREFERENCE OF HOURS OF OPERATION
CF6
46%
54%
CF6
FOR THOSE SAYING
“MORE FLEXIBLE”:
32% *
34%
34%
*8:30 am to 5:30 PM
Base: Those who feel that Government hours should be more flexible (n=452)
Q45. Which ONE of the following reflects your preference for the hours of operation of these offices
and service centres?
Q44. When you visit a government office or service centre that serves the public, which one of the
following two statements best reflects your view about the hours of operation for these offices and
service centres?

Citizens First 7
Common Services Card Appetite
Most residents are in favour of a common services card, with 78% rating the concept as a
good/very good idea. No significant regional variations in interest are noted.
IDEA OF COMMON SERVICES CARD
Q31. Do you think a common services card is a good or bad idea?
30%
48%
14%
6%
Very good
Good
Bad
Very bad
IDEA OF COMMON SERVICES CARD
Q31. Do you think a common services card is a good or bad idea?
% Definitely or Probably Would
Total
BC/
Terr
AB MB/SK ON QC ATL
a b c d e f
n= 819 106 86 55 316 196 58
Very good 30% 28% 29% 22% 33% 30% 33%
Good 48% 52% 51% 54% 44% 49% 45%
Bad 14% 11% 15% 17% 14% 13% 14%
Very bad 6% 7% 4% 5% 7% 5% 4%
70

Citizens First 7
Positive Comments About a Common Services Card
Citizens who make positive comments about the common services card concept are likely to see
it as being more convenient. They mention having only one card, or fewer cards to carry, and
see it as being easier and more economical to renew or replace.
17%
12%
11%
8%
7%
7%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Less/ fewer cards to carry
Having only one card/ all in one
For convenience
For ease (easier to use/ carry)
For (one stop) renewing/ replacing card
Saves money/ economical
Good idea/ concept
It is streamlined/ one-stop transaction
Less/ fewer cards to lose or worry about
It is simple/ makes life simple
Saves time
Less documentation/ tracking
For managing or keeping up to date
Fast/ quick to use
It is useful, helpful or practical
Note: Mentions <3% not shown.
Q31. Do you think a common services card is a good or bad idea? And why?
“The fewer cards the better!”
“The advantage is carrying
one card, and only having to
renew one card instead of all
cards.”
“It would simplify and
streamline the whole process.”
.
“Less cards to carry, more
convenient, cost savings.”
71

Citizens First 7
Negative Comments About a Common Services Card
Residents are much less likely to provide negative input about the card than they are to provide
positive comments.
Most negative comments concern safety issues–identity theft, risk of losing the card, and safety
or privacy in general. As can be seen from the verbatim responses, some of the concerns are
based on misunderstanding the concept, since no data would be stored on the card.
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Can be used for identity theft/ fraud
Risk of losing card
Dislike all-in-one card/
prefer separate cards
Too much available info/ access to info
Not safe/ secured
Bad concept/ idea
Having potential problems/ concerns
Privacy issues
Note: Mentions <2% not shown.
Q31. Do you think a common services card is a good or bad idea? And why?
“I do not like the idea of my personal info
being readily available to government
agencies.”
“To date it seems that criminals are way
ahead of any government in determining
who accesses information so I do not
trust having my information online.”
“Because if the card is lost, all of the
information is gone.”
“The 2 cards we have are fine. Why
spend all that money to change
something that doesn’t need changing?”
72

Citizens First 7
Awareness and Usage
Virtually all (96%) citizens use the internet.
Among users, six-in-ten have used the
internet for government services. And, most
internet users are likely to use the internet
for government services in the future, with
37% stating that they are very likely to do so.
Filing income taxes is the most common
usage of online government services in the
past 12 months at 68%, with three-in-ten or
more renewing a license plate sticker or
accessing municipal services. Paying a
parking ticket, changing an address or
obtaining a certificate are the least utilized
services at around two-in-ten.
Usage varies significantly by level of
government. Usage is highest for federal
websites (50% in past 12 months), followed
by municipal websites (42%) and provincial
or territorial websites (39%). Usage of
regional websites is the lowest, with only
two-in-ten having done so in the past 12
months.
The level of usage is likely to be a function of
both likelihood to interact with various levels
of government, as well as awareness that
services are available online. Awareness of
the availability of online tax filing is much
higher than awareness of services at the
provincial/ territorial, municipal or regional
levels.
Across all levels of government, aspects of
the website that receive the lowest ratings
include offering the service or information
that citizens are seeking and ease of
navigation.
Benefits and Barriers
Speed and convenience are the key benefits
associated with accessing government
services online, with two-thirds agreeing that
online is generally faster and more
convenient.
It appears that lack of awareness that
services are available online is negatively
impacting usage. Security and privacy
concerns are also a barrier for some citizens.
Around one-in-ten citizens cite privacy and
confidentiality concerns as their reason for
not accessing government services online.
Awareness of recent security breaches has
not prevented many citizens from continuing
to access services online, however lingering
concerns impact the majority. About eight-in-
ten residents express concern about privacy,
identity theft and how their information
might be used.
When it comes to the messages that would
encourage citizens to access government
services online, privacy and data security are
among the messages that are the highest-
ranked by citizens. At least seven-in-ten
agree that they would be more likely to
access government services online if the sites
were encrypted to protect credit card
information, personal data was kept secure
during the transaction and then not stored
online, and if they would receive a receipt to
confirm their transaction.
Moving Services Online
74

Citizens First 7
Online Activities
Use of the internet is virtually universal among residents, with a wide range of online activities
regularly engaged in. A strong majority conduct transactions online, such as banking business
(82%) or shopping (73%). Travel arrangements are also made online, with 51% having booked a
hotel or car rental, and 44% having checked in for a flight within the past year.
82%
73%
51%
44%
36%
4
10%
15%
17%
18%
11%
13%
30%
35%
40%
4
4
5
5
7%
Online banking (such as transferring
money or paying bills)
Online shopping
Booked a hotel or car rental
Checked in for a flight
Purchased movie or theatre tickets
In the past 12 months Yes, but not in past 12 months Never Not Stated
Yes
96%
No
4%
Base: Those who use the internet (n=775)
Q10. Which, if any, of the following activities have you done online?
INTERNET USE
ONLINE ACTIVITIES
Q9. Do you personally use the internet?
75

Citizens First 7
Conducting their business online makes Canadians feel confident and productive at least some of
the time. While only 10% experience feelings of anxiety on a regular basis when accessing
services online it should be noted that fully half of citizens do experience this emotion at least
some of the time.
10%
45%
45%
51%
44%
43%
37%
10%
10%
Anxious
Productive
Confident
Most of the time Some of the time Never
Yes
60%
No
39%
The majority have accessed government services online, with 77% of those having done so
recently, within the past 12 months.
Yes
77%
No
22%
HAVE USED INTERNET FOR
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
USED FOR GOVERNMENT
SERVICES IN PAST 12 MONTHS
EMOTIONS WHILE ONLINE
Q11. How often do you experience the following feelings or emotions when you are accessing services
online?
Q12. Have you ever used the internet to get
services from or transact with government?
Base: Have used internet for government
services (n=462)
Q13 . Have you used the internet to get
services from or transact with government in
the past 12 months?
* Note: the total proportion will not add to 100% as some residents did not answer
76

Citizens First 7
Digital Technology Use
Daily use of common digital tools such as text messaging, mobile devices with data, and
Facebook is reported by a strong minority of residents, representing a significant
increase in the categories of text messaging and mobile devices over the previous survey
period. Twitter is the least frequently used, with 68% of respondents saying they never
use this tool.
FREQUENCY OF USE
Note: the total proportion will not add up to 100% as some residents did not answer
Q47. Please indicate how frequently you use each of the following.
77

CF7 National Report FINAL

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (14)

Similar a CF7 National Report FINAL

Similar a CF7 National Report FINAL (20)

CF7 National Report FINAL