Findings

Method and Frequency of Contact

With respect to service delivery, over the course of the year the largest proportion (73 per cent) of respondents contacted WD by phone, followed by e-mail at 62 per cent. In person contact was the least used method of interaction at 38 per cent. Other means of contact were reported by four per cent of respondents.

Over 50 per cent of respondents stated that they contacted the WD fewer than ten times over the course of the previous year. One in four respondents had been in contact anywhere from 11 – 20 times in the previous year and just over one in five respondents had been in contact with the WD more than 21 times.

Service Dimensions

There is a strong positive sentiment among respondents with respect to the various dimensions of service delivery tested. When asked to what extent clients were satisfied with the WD service received during the past year, we find over nine in ten reporting satisfaction with staff courteousness, fairness of treatment, ability to obtain an appointment in a reasonable amount of time, and the extent to which staff were knowledgeable and competent. Between eight and nine in ten hold favourable views on the overall quality of service delivery; the accessibility of service, the ability to get through to a WD official without difficulty, the completeness of information received, being informed of everything they had to do to get the service and the sense that staff went the extra mile to make sure they got what they needed. We find somewhat lower, albeit still healthy, satisfaction with the amount of time it took to get the service.

Respondents were next presented the same list of service dimensions and asked to rate how important each one was to them. We find less differentiation in these importance ratings, with between 90 and 96 per cent rating all dimensions as important to them.

The data for service satisfaction and importance are presented on the following pages.

A summative index was created to allow for an examination of any gaps between the important of service dimensions and satisfaction with those dimensions. This index essentially subtracts the percentage satisfied with a given dimension from the percentage rating that dimension as important. Given the strong satisfaction ratings, it is not surprising that this analysis reveals no large satisfaction gaps. We do, however, find four service dimensions with gaps of 10 or more points. We find a 15-point satisfaction gap with the amount of time required to access the service, and 12– and 11- point gaps for two information related dimensions — being informed of everything required to access the service and receiving complete information. A 12-point gap is also evident for perhaps the Common Measurement Tool's strictest evaluation of service excellence, the belief that staff "went the extra mile" to ensure clients got what they needed.

 We would interpret the remaining service dimensions as being at a rough equilibrium between importance and satisfaction, ranging from gaps of six or fewer points to a surplus of four points.

Respondents were asked to provide a final outcome related assessment of WD's service, being asked if they ultimately got what they needed. Three in four respondents (76%) replied that they got what they needed, with an additional 15 per cent saying they "got part of" what they needed. Just one in 20 (6%) said they did not, in fact, get what they needed. While sub-groups are too small to analyze with validity, it is instructive to note that those who did not get what they needed were clients whose program requests were denied. Clients who have had their projects approved but are still in progress are over-represented among those who feel they got part of what they needed.

Areas of Strengths and Weakness

Respondents were also asked two open-ended questions seeking their perceptions WD's service delivery strengths and weaknesses.

When asked to cite an area for improvement, it is instructive to note that a plurality (31%) could offer no response (close to three times the number who could not cite an area of strength). Among those citing possible areas for improvement, the two most frequently mentioned themes link back to the satisfaction gaps discussed in the previous section, with one in five mentioning either action on the length of the application process (20%) or timely information (19%). Smaller numbers cited the competence of staff (10%), the desire for greater program coordination (7%), and details of the funding process (6%) or program architecture (3%).

When asked to cite WD's service delivery strengths, a powerful theme emerges with over six in ten mentioning some aspect of service delivery staff (friendliness, competence, eagerness to help, accessibility and flexibility/problem solving).  Fifteen per cent cite client communication as a strength and smaller numbers mention the funding process and WD's mandate as strengths.

Profile of Respondents

Survey respondents represent a host of organizations, with a plurality (34%) coming from a community organization. We also find sizeable numbers representing universities, colleges or research organizations (22%), business service organizations (13%) industry associations (13%) and government departments or agencies (10%). Smaller numbers represent special targeted groups (8%), arts and cultural groups (3%), not-for-profits (2%) and environmental or conservation groups (2%).

In terms of sectors represented, we find a plurality of respondents in the service and professional sector (31%), followed by 16 per cent in some form of government. One in 20 respondents each are employed in the environmental (6%), educational (6%) and community development sectors. Smaller numbers represent 11 other sectors including advanced technology, natural resources, social services and manufacturing.