South Australian Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2020

OFFICIAL

South Australian Customer

Satisfaction Measurement

Survey 2020

Detailed Report

NOVEMBER 2020

Sensitive: SA Government

Results are subject to rounding

Report developed in conjunction with the NSW Department of Customer Service

Source: NSW Customer Experience Unit, (DCS), Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2020

Chapter Page no. Reading Guide

i Executive Summary 2Overview of the study methodology, 2020 results for key performance measures and

key findings from the overall data

Priority read

15 minutesii Key Findings 6

iii Detailed Findings 24Select by interest

area

1Overall measures and topline

analysis25

Results for the CSI and outcome measures comparing performance year on year and

by jurisdiction10 minutes

2Performance against customer

satisfaction attributes35

Results for specific service attributes across employees, processes, values and

goals, comparing performance by jurisdiction and results for overall drivers of

satisfaction

20 minutes

3Performance across contact

methods46

Results for contact methods used and preferred, impact on overall satisfaction and

expectations, attributes of online services and drivers of digital adoption20 minutes

4 Public Service overall 57Results for the SA Public Service brand comparing performance over time and by

jurisdictions and associations with word descriptors 5 minutes

5 Feedback 62Results for feedback to SA Government services and complaint handling, over time

and by jurisdictions10 minutes

iv Appendix 69

1 Analysis by service 70 Results for outcome measures, attributes and channel usage by service 25 minutes

2Contact method preference by

service87

Results for contact methods used and preferred, impact on overall satisfaction with

online experience by service15 minutes

3 Jurisdictional comparison 95 Results for overall customer satisfaction with services by jurisdiction 10 minutes

4 Demographics 98 Results for outcome measures by demographics 15 minutes

5 Cluster dashboards 108 Results for individual clusters and services 20 minutes

6 Overview and methodology 165Research programme background, objectives, scope and explanation of the

Customer Satisfaction index (CSI)5 minutes

7 Further technical information 169 Details of approach to data collection and management 5 minutes

Table of contents

1

OFFICIAL

South Australian Customer Satisfaction

Measurement Survey 2020i Executive Summary

2





Other jurisdictions - Consumers

QueenslandVictoriaNew South

Wales

Other jurisdictions - Businesses

SA – Consumers

SA – Businesses

Age Gender Region*

Business size Region

2,004

493

49%

male51%

female18-34

29%

35-5432%

55-6416%

65+23%

97%

under 20

staff3%

20+ staff

2,0182,0384,040

QueenslandVictoriaNew South

Wales

5105181,009

The 2020 Annual Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey included over 10,000 consumers and 2,500 businesses across 4 jurisdictions

Respondent Demographics

SA

Online survey

with respondents

recruited via a

panel

Consumer=10,100

Business=2,530

Total respondents (n)

VIC

NSW

QLD

*Regions defined as per ABS post code remoteness classification

74%

Metro

14%

Rural

13%

Regional

74%

Metro

15%

Rural

11%

Regional

3

Consumer





77.6

78.5 78.478.8

81.2

77

78

79

80

81

82

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

7.8 7.9

0.1

Satisfaction ExpectationGap

Expectation

Consumer satisfaction has

increased significantly compared to

2019, while consumer expectations

have remained relatively stable.

The result is a narrowing

expectation gap from 0.3 in 2019 to

0.1 in 2020.

The Customer Satisfaction

Index (CSI) for consumers

in SA has increased

significantly to 81.2 in 2020

compared to 78.8 in 2019

driven by a significant

increase in consumer

satisfaction and comparison

to ideal scores.

Performance of SA Government Services against baseline measuresCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI) results

Executive Summary: Consumer satisfaction with SA Government services and brand perception of SA Public Service overall has increased significantly in 2020

Consumer CSI

Employee attributes

Goals ProcessesKey:

+0.1+0.3

+0.9 -0.1

+0.5

+2.4

Consumers’ perception of the

SA Public Service ‘brand’ have

improved significantly in 2020,

leading all other industries.

However, the average

satisfaction score with the

‘brand’ has remained lower

than average satisfaction score

with the service. This indicates

a gap in the experiences of

dealing with SA Government

services and perceptions of SA

Public Service overall.

Lowest

Highest

Airlines: 6.6

SA Public

Service: 7.0

Telcos: 6.3

Local Council:

6.4

Banks: 6.4

Energy: 5.9

Federal Govt.:

6.4

Perceptions of the SA Public Sector ‘brand’

SA

Government Services

(avg. satisfaction)

0.0

7.4(2016)

7.6(2017)+0.2

-0.1

7.5(2018)

7.5(2019)

7.8(2020)

+0.3

Ten drivers of consumer satisfaction are

identified in 2020. Satisfaction drivers

that have a high relative importance are

all related to employees: ‘Efficiency and

effectiveness’, ‘Honesty and Integrity’

and ‘Communication’.

Drivers and relative importance*

Drivers of satisfaction

*Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on

analyses of NSW Government services, however it is

assumed that drivers of satisfaction are relatively

consistent across jurisdictions and generally across

service industries broadly.

Honesty and integrity

Fairness and empathy

Efficiency and effectiveness

Speed

Ease

Transparency

Privacy

Access to information and online

services

High

High

Moderate

High

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Communication

Moderate

Employee autonomyLow

4

Legend: Statistically significant increase in avg. from previous year (at 99% level of Confidence)

No significant change in avg. from previous year (at 99% level of Confidence)

Statistically significant decrease in avg. from previous year (at 99% level of Confidence)

Business





74.1

75.475.9

78.0

79.6

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Executive Summary: Business satisfaction with SA Government services is relatively stable compared to 2019 and brand perception of SA Public Service overall has improved significantly

Business satisfaction has

increased insignificantly and

expectation has remained stable

compared to 2019.

Both outcome measures have

been increasing steadily year-on-

year since 2016.

Performance of SA Government services against baseline measures

7.5 7.7

0.14


Expectation

+0.0+0.2

The Customer Satisfaction Index

(CSI) for businesses in SA has

increased to 79.6, however the

increase is not significant due to

relatively stable satisfaction,

expectation and comparison to

ideal scores in 2020 compared

to 2019.

Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) results

Business CSI

+1.3

+0.5

+2.1

+1.6

Business perceptions of the

SA ‘brand’ have increased

significantly in 2020, leading

all other industries. However,

the average satisfaction score

with the ‘brand’ is lower than

the average satisfaction score

with service experience. This

indicates a gap in the

experiences of businesses in

dealing with SA Government

services and their perception

of SA Public Service overall.+0.2

Perceptions of the SA Public Sector ‘brand’

+0.1

+0.1

Lowest

Highest

Avg

. sat

isfa

ctio

n (

con

sum

ers)

Banks: 6.6

SA Public

Service: 6.9

Federal Govt.:

6.2

Local Council:

6.3

Airlines: 6.5

Energy: 5.8

Telcos: 6.4

SA

Government Services

(avg. satisfaction)

7.0(2016)

7.1(2017)

7.2(2018)

7.3(2019)

7.5(2020)

+0.2

Employee attributes

Goals ProcessesKey:

*Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on





Drivers of satisfaction

Eleven drivers of business satisfaction

are identified in 2020. Satisfaction

drivers that have a high relative

importance are all related to employees:

‘Honesty and Integrity’, ‘Speed of

Service’ and ‘Accountability’.

Drivers and relative importance*

Speed of Service


Honesty and Integrity

Speed

Ease of access

Transparency

Privacy

Access to information and online

services

High

High

Moderate

High

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Communication and Consistency

Moderate

Employee autonomy Low

Accountability

Moderate

5




OFFICIAL


Measurement Survey 2020ii Key Findings

6





Consumer: Overall Measures and Topline Analysis

Key Findings Evidence

1. Consumer perceptions of SA

Government services have improved

significantly in 2020 compared to 2019

• SA consumers’ satisfaction has increased significantly from 7.5/10 in 2019 to 7.8/10 in 2020

• Expectation score has remained relatively stable in 2020 at 7.9/10 compared to 7.8/10 in 2019

• The gap between satisfaction and expectation has reduced from 0.3 in 2019 to 0.1 in 2020

• Perception of ideal service has increased significantly from 7.2/10 in 2019 to 7.5/10 in 2020

Summary of key findings in 2020

Business: Overall Measures and Topline Analysis


2. While scores for 2020 have

remained relatively stable compared

to 2019, all three outcome measures of

expectation, satisfaction and

comparison to ideal service continue

to show steady improvement since

2016

• Business satisfaction has increased steadily from 7.0/10 in 2016 to 7.5/10 in 2020

• Business expectation has increased steadily from 7.3/10 in 2016 to 7.7/10 in 2020

• The gap between satisfaction and expectation has reduced from 0.3 in 2019 to 0.1 in 2020

• Comparison to ideal service score has increased steadily from 6.7/10 in 2016 to 7.3/10 in 2020

7





Performance Against Customer Satisfaction Attributes


3. Improving actual and perceived wait

times through improvement in

efficiency and speed of service

delivery continues to remain an

opportunity area in 2020

4. Providing more opportunities and

platforms for public participation in

decision making continues to be an

area of improvement in 2020

• Employee attributes had the highest average score across all categories (employees, processes, goals, values)

of 7.6/10 for consumers and 7.4/10 for businesses and have been identified as important drivers of customer

satisfaction

• Despite a significant improvement from 6.3/10 in 2019 to 6.6/10 in 2020, the process related attribute of ‘Are

designed to reduce wait times’ continues to be one of the lowest rated attributes for consumers in 2020

• This attribute is also the second lowest scoring attribute for businesses, however the score has improved

significantly from 6.1/10 in 2019 to 6.6/10 in 2020

• Employee attribute of ‘Get things done as quickly as possible’ is the second lowest rated employee attribute for

consumers with a score of 7.2/10 and the third lowest employee attribute for businesses with a score of 7.1/10

• ‘Encourages public participation in decision making’ continues to be the lowest rated attribute for both

consumers (6.2/10) and businesses (6.6/10) in 2020


8





Consumer: Performance by Contact Methods


5. While consumer usage and

preference of online contact methods

has increased significantly, ‘in person’

continues to be the most used contact

method with the highest overall

satisfaction

• Use of online channels has increased significantly from 26% in 2019 to 31% in 2020

• Preference for online channels has increased significantly from 21% in 2019 to 26% in 2020

• Consumers who use online channels have the second overall highest satisfaction score of 7.8/10, slightly

behind ‘in person’

• Despite significant declines in 2020 compared to 2019, ‘in person’ continues to be the most used contact

method

• Consumers who have ‘in person’ interactions have seen a significant increase in satisfaction from 7.5/10 in 2019

to 7.9/10 in 2020


Business: Performance by Contact Methods


6. Business preference for online

channels has increased significantly

and businesses who use online

channels have the highest satisfaction

along with businesses who have ‘in

person’ interactions

• While use of online channels has increased from 29% in 2019 to 33% in 2020, ‘in person’ continues to be the

most used contact method at 47%

• Businesses who use ‘in person’ and online channels have equal highest overall satisfaction score of 7.6/10

• Preference for online channels has increased significantly from 16% in 2019 to 22% in 2020

9





Public Service Overall


7. Both consumers and businesses

have rated the SA Public Service

‘brand’ higher than all other industries

and public services (Federal

government and local councils)

• Perceptions of SA Public Service overall have improved significantly among both consumers and businesses

compared to 2019

• Compared to other industries and public services (Federal government and local councils), SA Public Service

overall has the highest ‘brand’ satisfaction score of 7.0/10 (compared to 6.6/10 in 2019) for consumers and

6.9/10 (compared to 6.6/10 in 2019) for businesses

• The average satisfaction score for the SA Public Service ‘brand’ (7.0/10) is lower than the average satisfaction

score for the experience of individual services (7.8/10) for consumers

• Similarly, the average satisfaction score for the SA Public Service ‘brand’ (6.9/10) is lower than the average

satisfaction score for the experience of individual services (7.5/10) for businesses

• The results indicate a gap in the experiences of consumers and businesses in dealing with SA Government

services and their perception of SA Public Service overall


10





Feedback


8. Majority of consumers and

businesses did not give any feedback

to SA Government services

The proportion of consumers and

businesses who have complained has

declined compared to 2019, with the

decline being significant for

businesses

• 69% of consumers and 62% of businesses did not give any form of feedback to SA Government services in the

past 12 months

• Complaints make up 26% of all consumer feedback received. While this is a decline of 7% points compared to

2019, it is not significant

• The proportion of feedback from businesses that were complaints went down significantly from 42% in 2019 to

20% in 2020

9. Good complaint handling is

associated with a higher than average

satisfaction with SA Government

Services for businesses. For

consumers with good complaints

handling experiences, satisfaction is

on par with the average satisfaction

score for SA Government Services

overall*

There is an opportunity to improve the

complaints resolution process to

ensure the experience is positive right

from making a complaint all the way

up to getting a resolution. This is

particularly relevant for consumers

• Consumers who had a good complaint handling experience had higher overall satisfaction (7.8/10) compared to

consumers who had a poor experience (5.6/10). This is on par with the average satisfaction score for SA

Government services overall (7.8/10)

• For consumers, the ease of making a complaint does not always translate into a positive experience with the

complaint handling process: While 49% of consumers found it easy (7-10 out of 10) to make a complaint, only

32% of consumers said their complaint had been handled well (7-10 out of 10)

• Businesses who had a good complaint handling experience had a higher satisfaction score compared to the

average satisfaction score (8.6/10 vs. 7.5/10)

• The complaint resolution process appears to be a more positive experience for businesses: 61% of businesses

found it easy to make a complaint (7-10 out of 10) and 54% said their complaint had been handled well (7-10 out

of 10)


*Please note that customers may have rated different services on satisfaction and provided feedback on a different service. The correlation between feedback and satisfaction is to be

treated as indicative only.

11

Consumer





Key finding 1 (Consumers): Overall measures and topline analysisConsumer perceptions of SA Government services have improved significantly compared to 2019.

Figure 2: 2020 Consumer satisfaction, expectation and expectation gap (average

score out of 10)

• Consumer expectation has remained relatively stable in

2020 at 7.9/10 compared to 7.8/10 in 2019

• Consumers’ satisfaction has increased significantly from

7.5/10 in 2019 to 7.8/10 in 2020

• Consumers’ comparison to ideal service score has

increased significantly from 7.2/10 in 2019 to 7.5/10 in

2020

• The gap between satisfaction and expectation has

reduced from 0.3 in 2019 to 0.1 in 2020

Expectation Satisfaction Ideal Service

Figure 1: Average scores for headline measures 2016 – 2020 - Consumers

7.8 7.9

0.1


Expectation

+0.1+0.3

7.7

7.8

7.7

7.8

7.9

-0.1

+0.1

+0.1

+0.12020

2019

2018

2017

2016 7.4

7.6

7.5

7.5

7.8

-0.1

+0.2

-

+0.32020

2019

2018

2017

2016 7.0

7.1

7.1

7.2

7.5

+0.1

-

+0.1

+0.32020

2019

2018

2017

2016

12




Business





Key Finding 2 (Business): Overall measures and topline analysisWhile scores for 2020 have remained relatively stable compared to 2019, all three outcome measures of expectation, satisfaction and

comparison to ideal service continue to show steady improvement since 2016.

• Business expectation score has increased steadily from

7.3/10 in 2016 to 7.7/10 in 2020

• Business satisfaction has increased steadily from 7.0/10

in 2016 to 7.5/10 in 2020

• Comparison to ideal service score has increased

steadily from 6.7/10 in 2016 to 7.3/10 in 2020

• The gap between satisfaction and expectation has

reduced from 0.3 in 2019 to 0.1 in 2020

-

Figure 3: Average scores for headline measures 2016 – 2020 - Business

Figure 4: 2020 Business satisfaction, expectation and expectation gap (average

score out of 10)

7.5 7.7

0.14


Expectation

+0.0+0.2

Expectation Satisfaction Ideal Service

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

+0.1

+0.1

+0.1

-2020

2019

2018

2017

2016 7.0

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.5

+0.2

+0.1

+0.1

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

+0.2

6.7

6.9

6.8

7.2

7.3

+0.2

-0.1

+0.4

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

+0.1

13




Consumer





Satisfaction Drivers* Average score across respondents (out of 10 on scale from 1, strongly disagree to 10, strongly agree)

Employee1. Honesty & integrity of employees

2. Efficiency and effectiveness of employees

3. Communication

4. Fairness and Empathy

Average across attributes:

Process1. Ease of processes

2. Speed of processes

3. Employee autonomy


7.9 7.9 7.87.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

7.37.2 7.17.6 7.7

7.67.5

7.47.4

7.4 7.47.3

7.06.9 7.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

De

live

r h

igh

safe

tysta

nd

ard

s

Are

hon

est

Pro

vid

e s

erv

ice

sw

itho

ut

bia

s

Expla

in in

ten

de

da

ction

s c

learl

y

Are

re

liab

le

Pro

vid

e g

oo

d v

alu

eserv

ice

s

En

ge

nd

er

con

fid

en

ce

in th

eir k

now

led

ge

Co

mm

unic

ate

we

ll

Are

con

sis

ten

t

Are

held

acco

un

table

Get

thin

gs d

on

e a

sq

uic

kly

as p

ossib

le

Se

e t

hin

gs fro

m m

yp

ers

pe

ctive

7.2

7.3

7.3

7.4

7.6

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

7.37.0

6.8 6.86.6

7.06.8 6.5

6.56.3

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Pro

cesse

s a

re e

asy

to u

nd

ers

tand

Em

plo

ye

es a

ree

mp

ow

ere

d t

o m

ake

decis

ions

Se

rvic

e f

ee

lssea

mle

ss e

ve

n if

Ih

ave t

o u

se m

ultip

lecon

tact

meth

od

s (

eg.

onlin

e,

ph

on

e,

em

ail)

I ca

n g

et to

the

rig

ht

pers

on

th

e fir

st

tim

e

Are

desig

ne

d t

ore

du

ce

wa

it t

ime

s

6.6

6.5

6.6

6.6

6.9

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

*Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on analyses of NSW Government services, however it is

assumed that drivers of satisfaction are relatively consistent across jurisdictions and generally across service

industries broadly.

Key Finding 3 (Consumers): Performance against employee and process attributes Consumers’ perceptions have improved significantly for employee related attributes which have been identified as key drivers of overall

satisfaction. Improving actual and perceived wait times through improvements in efficiency and speed of delivery continues to remain an

opportunity area in 2020.

14

7.3

This year (YoY change not significant)

Range of historic

Values(2016-19)

Legend:

7.77.9

7.1

Significant

increase

Significant

decrease

Last year

Base (n)=2,267

Base (n)=2,255

Business






Employee

1. Honesty & integrity of employees

2. Speed of service of employees


4. Communication and Consistency

5. Accountability


Process

1. Ease of Access


3. Employee Autonomy


7.7 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.37.1 7.0 7.0

7.57.5

7.3

7.27.1

7.27.1 7.1 7.2

6.86.8

6.9

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

De

live

r h

igh

safe

tysta

nd

ard

s

Are

hon

est

Pro

vid

e s

erv

ice

sw

itho

ut

bia

s

Co

mm

unic

ate

we

ll

Pro

vid

e g

oo

d v

alu

eserv

ice

s

Expla

in in

ten

de

da

ction

s c

learl

y

Are

re

liab

le

Are

con

sis

ten

t

En

ge

nd

er

con

fid

en

ce

in th

eir k

now

led

ge

Get

thin

gs d

on

e a

sq

uic

kly

as p

ossib

le

Se

e t

hin

gs fro

m m

yp

ers

pe

ctive

Are

held

acco

un

table

7.2 6.96.8 6.6 6.6

6.8

6.6 6.5 6.56.1

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

Pro

cesse

s a

re e

asy to

und

ers

tand

Em

plo

ye

es a

ree

mp

ow

ere

d t

o m

ake

decis

ions

I ca

n g

et to

the

rig

ht

pers

on

th

e fir

st

tim

e

Se

rvic

e f

ee

ls s

ea

mle

ss

eve

n if

I h

ave t

o u

se

multip

le c

on

tact

meth

ods (

eg.

on

line

,p

ho

ne

, e

mail)

Are

desig

ne

d t

o r

ed

uce

wa

it t

ime

s

6.1

6.4

6.5

6.5

6.8

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

6.8

7.1

7.0

7.1

7.4

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

*Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on analyses of NSW Government services, however it is assumed that drivers of

satisfaction are relatively consistent across jurisdictions and generally across service industries broadly.

Key Finding 3 (Business): Performance against employee and process attributes

Businesses’ perceptions of employees of SA Government services have increased significantly compared to 2019 for three attributes relating

to communication, good value services and reliability. Perceptions of processes have increased significantly for three attributes relating to ease

of understanding processes, empowered employees and reducing wait times.

157.3


Range of historic

Values(2016-19)

Legend:

7.77.9

7.1

Significant

increase

Significant

decrease

Last year

Base (n)=593

Base (n)=603

Consumer






Goals 1. Privacy

2. Transparency

3. Access


Values1. Service Quality

2. Accountability


7.8

7.2 7.06.9

6.27.5

7.06.8

6.7

6.15.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Sa

fegu

ard

privacy a

nd

con

fid

entialit

y

Is m

akin

g it

ea

sie

r to

access in

form

ation

abo

ut

their

serv

ices

Is m

akin

g b

est u

se

of

onlin

e s

erv

ice

s t

oim

pro

ve

con

ve

nie

nce

and

eff

icie

ncy fo

rcusto

me

rs

De

mo

nstr

ate

ope

nn

ess a

nd

tra

nsp

are

ncy in

decis

ion-m

akin

g

En

co

ura

ge p

ublic

part

icip

ation

in

decis

ion-m

akin

g

6.7

6.6

6.8

6.8

7.0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

7.0

7.1

7.2

7.2

7.4

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

7.5 7.5 7.47.3

7.3

7.27.2

7.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Ope

rate

s w

ith

inte

gri

ty

Pro

vid

es g

oo

dserv

ice

Is a

bod

y I

can

tru

st

Is a

cco

un

table

for

its s

erv

ices



industries broadly.

Key Finding 4 (Consumer): Performance against goals and values attributes

‘Encourage public participation in decision making’ continues to be the lowest rated attribute in 2020.

16

Base(n)=2,095

Base (n)=2,758

7.3


Range of historic

Values(2016-19)

Legend:

7.77.9

7.1

Significant

increase

Significant

decrease

Last year

Business





Satisfaction Drivers*Average score across respondents (out of 10 on scale of according to a scale from 1, strongly disagree to 10, strongly

agree)

Goals

1. Privacy

2. Transparency

3. Access to information and online services


Values

1. Service Quality

2. Accountability


7.67.1 7.0 7.0

6.67.4

6.9 6.8

6.76.3

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Sa

fegu

ard

privacy a

nd

con

fid

entialit

y

Is m

akin

g it

ea

sie

r to

access in

form

ation

abo

ut

their

serv

ices

Is m

akin

g b

est u

se

of

onlin

e s

erv

ice

s t

oim

pro

ve

con

ve

nie

nce

and

eff

icie

ncy fo

rcusto

me

rs

De

mo

nstr

ate

ope

nn

ess a

nd

tra

nsp

are

ncy in

decis

ion-m

akin

g

En

co

ura

ge p

ublic

part

icip

ation

in

decis

ion-m

akin

g

6.3

6.6

6.5

6.8

7.1

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

6.6

6.9

7.0

7.1

7.4

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3

7.27.1

7.1 7.0

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Ope

rate

s w

ith

inte

gri

ty

Pro

vid

es g

oo

dserv

ice

Is a

bod

y I

can

tru

st

Is a

cco

un

table

for

its

serv

ice

s



industries broadly.

Key Finding 4 (Business): Performance against goals and values attributes

‘Encourage public participation in decision making’ continues to be the lowest rated attribute in 2020.

17

Base (n)=595

Base(n)= 689

7.3


Range of historic

Values(2016-19)

Legend:

7.77.9

7.1

Significant

increase

Significant

decrease

Last year

Consumer





*Note – Percentages do not add up to 100% due to exclusion of Don’t Know from the analysis.

58%

34%

26%

16%

10%5%

52%

33% 31%

18%

11%

5%

In person Phone Online Email Mail/ fax Thirdparties

2019 Consumer (n=3,297) 2020 Consumer (n=3,391)

% c

usto

mers

who h

ave h

ad d

irect

dealin

gs v

ia t

his

channel

Figure 5: 2019 and 2020 channel usage

- Consumer

Figure 6: 2019 and 2020 most preferred channel*

- Consumer

• Use of online channels has increased

significantly for consumers from 26% in

2019 to 31% in 2020

• Despite significant declines in 2020

compared to 2019, ‘in person’ continues to

be the most used contact method

• Preference for online channels has

increased significantly for consumers from

21% in 2019 to 26% in 2020

• Consumers who used online channels

have an overall satisfaction score of 7.8/10

• Consumers who had ‘in person’

interactions have seen a significant

increase in satisfaction from 7.5/10 in 2019

to 7.9/10 in 2020

33%

21%24%

16%

4%2%

33%

26%

20%16%

4% 2%

In person Online Phone Email Mail/ fax Thirdparties


-6% pts

+5% pts

+5% pts

-4% pts

7.5 7.77.3 7.4

7.0 7.1

7.9 7.87.5 7.5 7.4 7.3

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

In person Online Phone Third parties Email Mail/fax


Avera

ge s

atisfa

ction

score

(out of 10)

Customers were asked, “Which of the following contact methods have you used to carry out your direct dealings with the following services?”

Figure 7: Variation in overall satisfaction by contact method

+0.1

+0.2+0.2 +0.1

+0.3

+0.4

Key Finding 5 (Consumer): Performance across contact methodsWhile consumer usage and preference of online contact methods has increased significantly, ‘in person’ continues to be the most used contact

method with the highest overall satisfaction.

18

Legend: Statistically significant increase in proportion from previous year (at 99% level of Confidence)

No significant change in proportion from previous year (at 99% level of Confidence)

Statistically significant decrease in proportion from previous year (at 99% level of Confidence)

Business






• While use of online channels has increased

from 29% in 2019 to 33% in 2020, this

increase is not significant

• ‘In person’ continues to be the most used

contact method at 47%

• Businesses who use ‘in person’ and online

channels have equal highest overall

satisfaction of 7.6/10

• Preference for online channels has

increased significantly from 16% in 2019 to

22% in 2020

Key Finding 6 (Business): Performance across contact methodsBusiness preference for online channels has increased significantly. Businesses that use online channels have the highest sat isfaction along

with businesses who have ‘in person’ interactions.

47%

40%

27% 29%

15%

6%

47%

43%37%

33%

17%

10%

In person Phone Email Online Mail/ fax Thirdparties

2019 Business (n=762) 2020 Business (n=770)

% c

usto

mers

who h

ave h

ad d

irect

dealings v

ia this

channel

Figure 8: 2019 and 2020 channel usage

- Business

Figure 9: 2019 and 2020 most

preferred channel* – Business

32%

24%

16%

23%

3% 2%

27% 25% 22%22%

3% 1%

In person Email Online Phone Mail/ fax Thirdparties


+10% pts

+4% pts

+6% pts

7.3 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.2

6.7

7.6 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.3

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

In person Online Mail/fax Email Telephone Third parties


Avera

ge s

atisfa

ction

score

(out of 10)

+0.3+0.2

+0.3+0.2

+0.6

+0.3


Figure 10: Variation in overall satisfaction by contact method

19




Consumer Business






• Average satisfaction with the SA Public Service

‘brand’ is 7.0/10 for consumers and 6.9/10 for

businesses – a significant increase compared to

2019 (6.6/10 for both consumers & businesses)

• Both consumers and businesses rate the SA Public

Service ‘brand’ higher than all other industries and

public services (Federal government and local

councils)

• Satisfaction with SA Government services

continues to be higher than satisfaction with the

‘brand’ for both consumers and businesses. This

suggests a continued disconnect between service

delivery and ‘brand’ perceptions that are influenced

by a range of factors such as media and reputation

Figure 11: Satisfaction with SA Public Service overall compared to industries

Customers were asked “Thinking about all your experiences with each of the following Australian

industries and public services over the previous 12 months, how satisfied would you say you are

with them?”

26%

20%

19%

22%

20%

14%

11%

28%

27%

26%

24%

26%

27%

23%

46%

54%

55%

55%

54%

59%

66%

5.9

6.3

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.6

7.0

Energy retailers(n=1,898)

Telephone serviceproviders (n=1,903)

My local council(n=1,855)

Federal Government(n=1,838)

Banks (n=1,932)

Airlines (n=1,567)

SA Public Serviceoverall (n=1,942)

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)

Consumer (n=1,567)

7.57.8

+0.2+0.3

SA Government services

Average satisfaction

Consumer Business

24%

22%

21%

19%

16%

16%

11%

35%

26%

25%

29%

30%

28%

24%

41%

52%

53%

52%

53%

56%

65%

5.8

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.9

Energy retailers(n=456)

Federal Government(n=463)

My local council(n=462)

Telephone serviceproviders (n=471)

Airlines (n=400)

Banks (n=480)

SA Public Serviceoverall (n=485)


Business (n=400)

+0.4

-0.5

+0.5

+1.1

+0.3

+0.2

+0.6

+0.4

+0.5

-0.5

+0.5

+0.2

+0.2

+0.3

Key Finding 7 (Consumer & Business): Perceptions of the SA Public Service ‘brand’Average satisfaction with the SA Public Service brand has increased significantly from 2019 to 2020.

20




Consumer Business





7.9

6.67.1

7.98.0

6.87.3

8.1

Never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

I made asuggestionfor change

I gave acompliment

Satisfaction Expectation

7.7 7.66.9

7.57.87.4

6.97.8

Never givenfeedback

I made acomplaint

I made asuggestion for

change

I gave acompliment

Key Finding 8 (Consumer & Business): FeedbackOverall, a majority of consumers and businesses did not provide any feedback to SA Government services. The proportion of consumers and

businesses who complained has declined compared to 2019, with the decline being significant for businesses.

• 69% of consumers and 62% of

businesses did not give any form of

feedback

• Complaints made up 26% of all

consumer feedback received. While

this is a decline of 7% points

compared to 2019, it is not significant

• The proportion of feedback from

businesses that were complaints

went down significantly from 45% in

2019 to 20% in 2020

• Consumers who gave a compliment

had the highest overall satisfaction

score

• Businesses that made a suggestion

experienced the lowest levels of

satisfaction

Figure 12: Feedback type

Question: “When was the last time you provided feedback to a SA Government Agency or Department

about their services, processes or employees?”

Question: “What was the nature of the feedback?”

Figure 13: Satisfaction and expectation of feedback type*

Consumer (n=1,101) Business (n=352)

31%69%

Consumer n=2,004

38%62%

Business n=493

• I gave a compliment

• I made a suggestion

for change

• I made a complaint

Business (n=176)

Consumer (n=554)

Given feedbackNever given feedback/

Don’t knowGiven feedback

39%

45% 35%

35%

20%

26%


• I made a suggestion

for change


*Please note that customers may have rated different services on

satisfaction and expectation and provided feedback on a different

service. The correlation between feedback and satisfaction/

expectation is to be treated as indicative only.

0% pts

+7% pts -7% pts

+12% pts

+10% pts

-22% pts

21




Consumer Business





Consumers

• Consumers who had a good complaint handling

experience had higher overall satisfaction (7.8/10)

compared to consumers who had a poor experience

(5.6/10)

• These consumers had a satisfaction score on par with

the average satisfaction score for SA Government

services overall (7.8/10)

Businesses

• Businesses who had a good complaint handling

experience had a higher satisfaction score compared to

the average satisfaction score (8.6/10 vs. 7.5/10)

5.6

7.06.8

5.2

7.8

8.6

7.8 7.5

Consumers (n=148) Business (n=41)

Handled Poorly (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Handled Well (7-10) Average Satisfaction

Figure 14: Overall satisfaction with government services by ease of making

complaints*

Ave

rage S

atisfa

ction S

core

Key Finding 9 (Consumer & Business): FeedbackFor consumers with a good complaint handling experience, satisfaction is on par with the average. For businesses, good complaint handling is

associated with a higher than average satisfaction with SA Government services.

*Please note that customers may have rated different services on Satisfaction and Ease of

Complaint and the correlation is to be treated as indicative only.

22

Consumer Business





Key Finding 9 (Consumer & Business): FeedbackThere is an opportunity to improve the complaints resolution process to ensure the experience is positive right from making a complaint all the

way through to getting a resolution. This is particularly relevant for consumers.

Customers were asked “How difficult or easy was it to make your complaint?”

Figure 15: Variation in ease of making a complaint for consumers and businesses

34%19%

17%

19%

49% 61%

5.9 6.7

1

10

0%

50%

100%

Consumer (n=147) Business (n=41)

Difficult (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Easy (7-10) Average

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge s

core

Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f

responses

Customers were asked “How well or poorly was your most recent complaint handled?”

Figure 16: Variation in complaints handling for consumers and businesses

52%40%

16%

6%

32%

54%

4.6

6.0

1

10

0%

50%

100%

Consumers (n=138) Business (n=37)

Handled poorly (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Handled well (7-10) Average

Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f

responses

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge s

core

Consumers

For consumers, the ease of making a complaint does

not always translate into a positive experience with the

complaint handling process:

• While 49% of consumers found it easy (7-10 out of

10) to make a complaint, only 32% of consumers

said their complaint was handled well (7-10 out of 10)

Businesses

For businesses, the complaint resolution process

appears to be a more positive experience:

• 61% of businesses found it easy to make a complaint

(7-10 out of 10) and 54% said their complaint had

been handled well (7-10 out of 10).

23

OFFICIAL


Measurement Survey 2020iii Detailed Findings

24

OFFICIAL


Measurement Survey 2020

1. Overall measures and topline analysis

25

Consumer





Outcome

Measures Average score % responses

Expectation

How would you rate

your expectation of

the overall quality of

service?

Satisfaction

Thinking about your

experiences in the

last 12 months, how

satisfied would you

say you are with

each of the following

services in SA?

Ideal service

…Please imagine an

ideal service. How

well do you think

each service in SA

compares to that

ideal service?

Consumer overall performanceSA Consumers’ satisfaction has increased significantly from 7.5/10 in 2019 to 7.8/10 in 2020. Perception of ideal service has increased significantly from 7.2/10 in 2019 to 7.5/10 in 2020. Consumer expectation has remained relatively stable at 7.9/10 in 2020 compared to 7.8/10 in 2019.

• Expectation has remained

relatively stable compared to

2019, with the proportion of

consumers with high

expectations (7-10 out of 10)

increasing from 79% in 2019

to 82% in 2020

• Satisfaction has increased

significantly by 0.3 compared

to 2019, with the proportion of

satisfied consumers (7-10 out

of 10) increasing from 75% in

2019 to 79% in 2020

• Ideal service score has

increased significantly by 0.3

compared to 2019, with the

proportion of consumers

rating SA Government

Services as ‘close to ideal’ 7-

10 out of 10) increasing from

69% in 2019 to 74% in 2020

Figure 1.1: 2016-2020 overall performance - Consumers

9%

6%

7%

7%

6%

14%

14%

15%

14%

12%

77%

79%

78%

79%

82%

2016(n=3,462)

2017(n=3,433)

2018(n=3,245)

2019(n=3,241)

2020(n=3,356)

Low (1-4) Medium (5-6) High (7-10)

7.7

7.8

7.7

7.8

7.92020

2019

2018

2017

2016

-0.1

+0.1

+0.1

+0.1

10%

9%

10%

10%

8%

17%

16%

17%

16%

13%

73%

75%

74%

75%

79%

2016(n=3,507)

2017(n=3,482)

2018(n=3,307)

2019(n=3,297)

2020(n=3,391)

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)7.4

7.6

7.5

7.5

7.82020

2019

2018

2017

2016

-0.1

+0.2

-

+0.3

14%

13%

12%

13%

9%

20%

20%

20%

18%

17%

66%

66%

68%

69%

74%

2016(n=3,398)

2017(n=3,375)

2018(n=3,154)

2019(n=3,172)

2020(n=3,271)

Not close to ideal (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Close to ideal (7-10)

7.0

7.1

7.1

7.2

7.52020

2019

2018

2017

2016

+0.1

-

+0.1

+0.3

26




Business





7.0

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.5

6.7

6.9

6.8

7.2

7.3

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7• Expectation has remained

relatively stable for businesses in

2020 at 7.7/10. Expectation has

improved steadily since 2016 with

the proportion of businesses with

high expectations (7-10 out of 10)

increasing from 75% in 2019 to

82% in 2020

• Satisfaction has remained

relatively stable in 2020 at 7.5/10.

Satisfaction has also improved

steadily since 2016 with

proportions of satisfied customers

(7-10 out of 10) increasing from

72% in 2019 to 76% in 2020

• Ideal Service score has remained

relatively stable in 2020 at 7.3/10

but has been increasing steadily

since 2016. The proportion of

businesses rating SA Government

services ‘close to ideal’ (7-10 out

of 10) has increased from 69% in

2019 to 73% in 2020

Figure 1.2: 2016-2020 overall performance - Businesses

Outcome

Measures Average score % responses

Expectation

How would you rate

your expectation of

the overall quality of

service?

Satisfaction

Thinking about your

experiences in the

last 12 months, how

satisfied would you

say you are with

each of the following

services in SA?

Ideal service

…Please imagine an

ideal service. How

well do you think

each service in SA

compares to that

ideal service?

Business overall performanceWhile year-on-year changes are not significant, SA Businesses’ expectation (7.7/10), satisfaction (7.5/10) and comparison to ideal service (7.3/10) continue to show steady improvement since 2016.

+0.1

+0.1

+0.1

+0.2

+0.1

+0.1

+0.2

-0.1

+0.4

13%

9%

8%

7%

6%

15%

19%

16%

18%

12%

72%

73%

75%

75%

82%

2016(n=817)

2017(n=753)

2018(n=801)

2019(n=758)

2020(n=758)

Low (1-4) Medium (5-6) High (7-10)

+0.02020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

+0.2

16%

11%

10%

8%

7%

18%

21%

20%

20%

16%

67%

59%

70%

72%

76%

2016(n=825)

2017(n=769)

2018(n=814)

2019(n=762)

2020(n=770)


19%

16%

14%

12%

7%

19%

20%

23%

18%

20%

62%

63%

63%

69%

73%

2016(n=797)

2017(n=742)

2018(n=795)

2019(n=732)

2020(n=744)


-

27




Consumer Business





Consumers

• 82% of SA consumers have high

expectations (7-10 out of 10) of SA

Government services and 79% indicate they

are satisfied with the services they have

interacted with in the past 12 months (7-10

out of 10)

Businesses

• 82% of SA businesses have high

expectations of SA Government services (7-

10 out of 10) and 76% are satisfied with the

services they have interacted with in the past

12 months (7-10 out of 10)

High satisfaction scores are indicative of

consumers and businesses having positive

perceptions of their recent interactions with SA

Government services and high expectation

scores are indicative of previous experiences

(prior to 12 months ago) being positive as well

• What: Overall satisfaction is a measure of the perceived performance of a service as stated by customers

• How: Customers were asked “Thinking about your

experiences in the last 12 months, how satisfied would you

say you are with the following service in SA?”

Satisfaction

% respondents Avg.

Responses were recorded according to a scale

from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied):

7%

8%

16%

13%

76%

79%

Business(n=770)

Consumer(n=3,391)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

7.8

/10

7.5

/10

+0.3

+0.2

Sig.

Figure 1.4

• What: Overall expectation is a measure of the quality of services customers expect to receive from a service

• How: Customers were asked “Thinking about the following

service in SA, how would you rate your expectation of the

overall quality of service?”

Expectation

7.9

/10

7.7

/10

% respondents Avg.

6%

6%

12%

12%

82%

82%

Business(n=758)

Consumer(n=3,356)

Low (1-4)

Med (5-6)

High (7-10)

Responses were recorded according to a

scale from 1 (very low) to 10 (very high):

+0.1

+0.0

Sig.

Figure 1.3

Comparison of current SA performance to expectations

Performance of services compared to expectationsResults against the measures of satisfaction and expectation indicate positive perceptions of SA Government services.

28




Consumer Business





Consumers

• 74% of consumers rated SA

Government services as performing

close to their ideal service (7-10 out of

10)

• There has been a significant increase

of 0.3 in the average score for ‘ideal

service’ in 2020 (7.5/10) versus 2019

(7.2/10)

Businesses

• 73% of businesses rated SA

Government services as performing

close to their ideal service (7-10 out of

10)

• The average score has remained

relatively stable versus 2019

• What: Comparison to an ideal service is a measure of how much the customers feel that the service is close to the best it can be

• How: Customers were asked “Now forgetting for a moment

the specific service, please imagine an ideal service. How

well do you think the service in SA compares with that ideal

service?”

7%

9%

20%

17%

73%

74%

Business(n=744)

Consumer(n=3,271)

Not close to ideal (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Close to ideal (7-10)

Comparison to ideal

7.5

/10

7.3

/10

% respondents Avg.

Responses were recorded according to a scale from 1 (not

very close to ideal) to 10 (very close to ideal):

Sig.

Comparison of current SA performance to perceptions of an ideal service

Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6

• What: Overall satisfaction is a measure of the perceived performance of a service as stated by customers

• How: Customers were asked “Thinking about your

experiences in the last 12 months, how satisfied would you

say you are with the following service in SA?”

Satisfaction

% respondents Avg.

Responses were recorded according to a scale

from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 10 (very satisfied):

Sig.

Performance of services compared to ideal74% of consumers and 73% of businesses rate SA Government services as performing close to their ideal service.

7%

8%

16%

13%

76%

79%

Business(n=770)

Consumer(n=3,391)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

7.8

/10

7.5

/10

+0.3

+0.2

+0.3

+0.1

29




Consumer





• Consumer expectation has remained

relatively stable across jurisdictions.

SA’s ranking has improved, overtaking

VIC

• SA has seen a significant increase in

consumer satisfaction leading to an

improvement in ranking from 4th

position in 2019 to 3rd position, ahead

of VIC in 2020

• SA has seen a significant increase in

the ideal service score leading to an

improvement in ranking from 4th

position in 2019 to 3rd position, ahead

of VIC, in 2020

Comparison of SA consumers’ perceptions across jurisdictionsFrom being the lowest ranked jurisdiction in 2019, SA has improved in rankings against all three outcome measures of satisfaction, expectation and comparison to ideal score for consumers in 2020.

Outcome

measuresAvg. % respondents

Expectation

How would you

rate your

expectation of the

overall quality of

service?

Satisfaction

Thinking about

your experiences in

the last 12 months,

how satisfied would

you say you are

with each of the

following services

in [State]?

Ideal service

…Please imagine

an ideal service.

How well do you

think each service

in [State] compares

to that ideal

service?

5%

5%

6%

6%

11%

12%

12%

13%

84%

83%

82%

81%

NSW

QLD

SA

VIC

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

7.8

7.9

8.0

8.0 -

+0.1

+0.1

-0.1

7.7

7.8

7.9

8.0 +0.2

+0.1

+0.2

+0.3

7.4

7.5

7.5

7.6 +0.2

+0.1

+0.3

-

Figure 1.7: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal across jurisdictions – Consumer

6%

6%

8%

7%

12%

13%

13%

15%

83%

82%

79%

79%

NSW

QLD

SA

VIC

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

8%

8%

9%

9%

15%

16%

17%

17%

77%

76%

74%

74%

QLD

NSW

SA

VIC

Not close to Ideal(1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Close to Ideal (7-10)

30




Business





Comparison of SA businesses’ perceptions across jurisdictionsCompared to 2019, SA has improved in rankings for business satisfaction and expectation measures in 2020 and fallen in ranking for ideal service.

• Business expectation in SA has remained

relatively stable compared to 2019. A

decline (though insignificant) in QLD’s

scores have boosted SA’s ranking to 2nd

place from 3rd place in 2019

• Business satisfaction in SA has remained

relatively stable compared to 2019. While

scores are close, SA is ranked ahead of

VIC and QLD in satisfaction among

businesses in 2020, boosting its position

from 3rd place in 2019 to 2nd place in 2020

• Ideal service score has remained relatively

stable in SA. While scores are close, SA

has dropped in ranking from 2nd place in

2019 to 3rd place in 2020 driven by

significant increases in scores for VIC and

NSW

Figure 1.8: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal across jurisdictions - Business

Outcome

measuresAvg. % respondents

Expectation

How would you

rate your

expectation of the

overall quality of

service?

Satisfaction

Thinking about

your experiences

in the last 12

months, how

satisfied would you

say you are with

each of the

following services

in [State]?

Ideal service

…Please imagine

an ideal service.

How well do you

think each service

in [State]

compares to that

ideal service?

5%

6%

6%

8%

15%

12%

15%

18%

80%

82%

78%

75%

NSW

SA

VIC

QLD

Low (1-4)

Medium (5-6)

High (7-10)

7.5

7.7

7.7

7.8 +0.0

+0.0

+0.0

-0.2

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.7

7.3

7.3

7.4

7.4

+0.3

+0.2

0.0

+0.4

+0.4

+0.2

+0.1

-0.1

6%

7%

7%

8%

14%

16%

19%

16%

80%

76%

74%

76%

NSW

SA

VIC

QLD

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

8%

9%

7%

10%

18%

16%

20%

18%

74%

75%

73%

72%

VIC

NSW

SA

QLD

Not Close to Ideal(1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Close to Ideal (7-10)

31




Consumer Business





-0.30

-0.27

-0.26

-0.22

-0.11

-0.09

-0.09

-0.09

-0.4 -0.2 0.0

VIC

SA

NSW

QLD

2020 2019

Figure 1.10: 2020 and 2019 expectation gap -

Businesses

Consumers

• All jurisdictions have seen an

improvement in the expectation gap

for consumers with the gap narrowing

to around 0.1 for all jurisdictions

Businesses

• Expectation gap for businesses has

also improved across all jurisdictions

with the gap for NSW and QLD being

less than 0.1

Figure 1.9: 2020 and 2019 expectation gap -

Consumers

Gap between satisfaction and expectation for consumers and businessesWhile the gap between satisfaction and expectation has declined across jurisdictions compared to 2019, it remains negative for all jurisdictions.

-0.47

-0.34

-0.39

-0.15

-0.14

-0.10

-0.05

-0.02

-0.5 -0.3 -0.1

VIC

SA

NSW

QLD

2020 2019

32

Consumer Business





-0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

Avg

. gap b

etw

een s

atisfa

ction a

nd

exp

ecta

tio

n

Services with the highest

expectation gap

Services with the lowest/ positive

expectation gap

*Note: Small sample size (n<30), please interpret with caution

All service comparisons will be shown in greater detail in the detailed chapters of this report

For further service comparisons see Chapter 9

Figure 1.11: Satisfaction expectation gap - Consumer

Figure 1.12: Satisfaction expectation gap - Business

Consumers

• Art Galleries and Museums has the highest positive

expectation gap of 0.1

• Other services with a positive expectation gap are Child

Welfare Services (0.06), Vehicle Licensing and

Registration (0.03) and Ambulance Services (0.01)

• Of the services with statistically reliable sample sizes

(n>30), Consumer Affairs, and Major Roads have the

highest negative expectation gap of -0.6 points each

Businesses

• Of the services with statistically reliable sample sizes

(n>30), Public Schools has the highest positive

expectation gap of 0.2 and Public Transport has the

highest negative expectation gap of -0.6

Gap between satisfaction and expectation by serviceAcross most services, both consumers and businesses have a negative gap to expectation (expectation is higher than satisfaction).

0.1

Art Galleries

and

Museums

(n=177)

-0.6

Consumer

Affairs

(n=59)

-1.2 -0.7 -0.2 0.3 0.8 1.3

Avg

. gap b

etw

een s

atisfa

ction a

nd

exp

ecta

tio

n

-0.9

Child

Welfare

Services

(n=22)*

1.2

Environment

and Wildlife

Protection

(n=16)*

-0.6

Agricultural

Advice and

Funding

Services

(n=12)*

-0.6

Major Roads

(n=88)

0.2

Public

Schools

(n=45)

-0.6

Public

Transport

(n=39)

33

Consumer Business





Service

(n= for consumers, n= for business)

Reach1 Average satisfaction

(out of 10)

Average expectation score

(out of 10)Gap to expectation

Consumer Business Consumer Business Consumer Business Consumer Business

Ambulance Services. (n=203, n=34) 18% 10% 9.2 8.8 9.2 8.9 0.0 0.0

Fire Brigades (n=30, n=23*) 2% 5% 9.0 8.6 9.0 8.7 0.0 -0.1

Art Galleries and Museums (n=177, n=25*) 10% 5% 8.8 8.1 8.6 8.1 0.1 0.0

State Emergency Services (n=30, n=5*) 2% 1% 8.3 8.0 8.5 8.1 -0.1 0.0

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=864, n=142) 59% 35% 8.2 7.8 8.2 7.9 0.0 0.0

Public Hospitals (n=278, n=40) 37% 20% 8.0 7.5 8.0 7.6 0.0 0.2

Water Supply (n=250, n=47) 26% 18% 7.9 7.4 7.9 7.6 0.0 -0.2

Services for Older People (n=129, n=36) 8% 9% 7.7 7.0 8.0 7.3 -0.2 -0.4

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=43, n=16*) 2% 3% 7.7 7.7 7.9 6.5 -0.1 1.2

Documentation Services (n=48, n=29*) 3% 6% 7.6 6.7 7.9 6.7 -0.2 0.0

Police (n=207, n=51) 19% 18% 7.6 8.1 7.8 8.5 -0.2 -0.3

Public Schools (n=156, n=45) 16% 15% 7.6 7.3 7.7 7.1 -0.1 0.2

Business Advisory Services (n=32, n=21*) 2% 5% 7.4 7.3 7.9 6.6 -0.5 0.7

Public Transport (n=266, n=39) 37% 20% 7.2 7.4 7.5 8.0 -0.2 -0.6

Disability Services (n=103, n=44) 7% 12% 7.2 7.5 7.3 7.7 0.0 -0.2

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=12*, n=10*) 1% 2% 7.0 8.0 7.6 7.5 -0.6 0.5

TAFE Serv. (n=110, n=44) 8% 15% 6.9 7.3 7.0 7.9 -0.1 -0.6

Consumer Affairs (n=59, n=22*) 3% 6% 6.6 7.8 7.2 7.6 -0.6 0.2

Major Roads (n=88, n=22*) 6% 6% 6.6 6.3 7.1 6.5 -0.6 -0.2

Prison (n=31, n=7*) 2% 2% 6.5 7.2 6.9 7.3 -0.4 1.0

Child Welfare Serv. (n=41, n=22*) 2% 4% 6.4 6.7 6.4 7.5 0.1 -0.9

Public Housing (n=109, n=23*) 6% 6% 6.4 6.2 6.5 6.1 -0.2 0.2

Courts (n=90, n=11*) 5% 3% 6.3 8.2 6.7 8.0 -0.4 0.2

Figure 1.13: Summary of variation in key performance measures across services

*Interpret with caution. Very small number of responses (n<30)

1% of customers who have interacted with this service in the last 12 months | Top / bottom three in each category compared to other services

Summary of service performance by satisfaction and expectationThe top 3 services that rate high on both consumer and business satisfaction and expectation are Ambulance Services, Fire Brigades* and Art Galleries and Museums.

34

OFFICIAL


Measurement Survey 20202. Performance against customer satisfaction attributes

35

Consumer





Satisfaction DriversAverage score across respondents (out of 10 on a scale from 1, strongly disagree to 10,

strongly agree)

Employees for SA


2. Efficiency and effectiveness of

employees

3. Communication



Employees across

jurisdictions


2. Efficiency and effectiveness of

employees

3. Communication



:

7.9 7.9 7.87.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

7.3 7.2 7.1

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Deliv

er

hig

hsafe

ty s

tanda

rds

Are

honest

Pro

vid

e s

erv

ices

without

bia

s

Expla

in in

tende

dactio

ns c

learly

Are

relia

ble

Pro

vid

e g

oo

dvalu

e s

erv

ices

En

gend

er

confidence in

the

ir k

now

ledge

Com

munic

ate

well

Are

con

sis

tent

Are

held

acco

unta

ble

Get th

ings d

one

as q

uic

kly

as

possib

le

Se

e thin

gs fro

mm

y p

ers

pective

7.8 7.87.8

7.67.6 7.6 7.6

7.6 7.6

7.3

7.27.1

8.07.9

7.8 7.7 7.77.7

7.7

8.0

7.7

7.47.3

7.2

7.0

7.5

8.0

Deliv

er

hig

h s

afe

ty s

tanda

rds

Are

honest

Pro

vid

e s

erv

ices w

ithout

bia

s

Expla

in in

tende

d a

ction

s c

learly

Are

relia

ble

Pro

vid

e g

oo

d v

alu

e s

erv

ices

En

gend

er

con

fid

ence in

their

know

ledge

Com

munic

ate

well

Are

con

sis

tent

Are

held

accou

nta

ble

Get th

ings d

one a

s q

uic

kly

as

possib

le

Se

e thin

gs fro

m m

y p

ers

pe

ctive

VIC (n=2,565) SA (n=2,267) QLD (n=2,406) NSW (n=4,722)

Average:7.6/10

7.6/10

VIC:

7.6/10

NSW:

7.7/10

QLD:

Figure 2.1: Consumer perceptions of employee related attributes

• Consistent with 2019 ‘Deliver high

safety standards’ (7.9/10) and ‘Are

Honest’ (7.9/10) are the employee

attributes with the highest scores. ‘Get

things done as quickly as possible’

(7.2/10) and ‘See things from my

perspective’ (7.1/10) are attributes with

the lowest scores

• Across the categories (employee,

processes, goals and values) SA has

the highest average score for attributes

related to employees (7.6/10)

Base (n)=2,267

+0.2 +0.2

Consumers’ perceptions of employeesFor consumers in SA, there is a significant improvement from 2019 to 2020 for all employee related attributes except ‘Employees communicate

well’ which remains unchanged compared to 2019.

+0.2+0.2 +0.2 +0.2

+0.2 +0.1 +0.2

+0.2+0.2+0.3

36




Consumer






strongly agree)

Process for SA

1. Ease of processes




Process across

jurisdictions

1. Ease of processes




7.3 7.06.8 6.8

6.6

5.5

6.5

7.5

Processes are easyto understand

Employees areempowered to make

decisions

Service feelsseamless even if I

have to use multiplecontact methods (eg.online, phone, email)

I can get to the rightperson the first time

Are designed toreduce wait timesAverage:

6.9/10

7.3

7.0

6.86.8

6.6

7.4

7.3

7.06.9

6.9

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5



decisions


have to use multiplecontact methods (eg.online, phone, email)


Are designed toreduce wait times

SA (n=2,255) VIC (n=2,506) QLD (n=2,406) NSW (n=4,727)

7.0/10

VIC:

7.1/10

NSW:

7.1/10

QLD:

• Consistent with 2019, ‘Processes are

easy to understand’ (7.3/10) is the

highest rated process attribute and ‘Are

designed to reduce wait times’ (6.6/10)

is the lowest rated process attribute

• Across all jurisdictions, process

attributes have the lowest average

scores of all attribute categories

(values, goals and employees)

• Reducing wait times remains a

challenge across all jurisdictions as it is

consistently rated the lowest of all

process attributes

Figure 2.2: Consumer perceptions of process related attributes

Base (n)=2,255

Consumers’ perceptions of processesScores for process related attributes have improved significantly from 2019 to 2020.

+0.3+0.3

+0.3 +0.3+0.3

37




Consumer






strongly agree)

Goals for SA

1. Privacy

2. Transparency

3. Access


Goals across

jurisdictions

1. Privacy

2. Transparency

3. Access


7.8

7.27.0

6.9

6.2

6.0

7.0

8.0

Safeguard privacyand confidentiality

Is making it easier toaccess informationabout their services

Is making best use ofonline services to

improve convenienceand efficiency for

customers

Demonstrateopenness and

transparency indecision-making

Encourage publicparticipation in

decision-making

Average:7.0/10

7.2

7.0

6.9

6.2

7.7

7.9

7.1

6.5

7.47.3

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0





customers

Demonstrateopenness andtransparency indecision-making


decision-making


7.1/10

VIC:

7.2/10

NSW:

7.2/10

QLD:

• Consistent with 2019, ‘Safeguard

privacy and confidentiality’ is the

highest rated goal attribute with a score

of 7.8/10

• ‘Encourage public participation in

decision making’ continues to be the

lowest rated attribute across all

categories (6.2/10) consistent with

2019

• ‘Encourage public participation in

decision making’ is the lowest scoring

attribute across all jurisdictions

Figure 2.3: Consumer perceptions of goals related attributes

Base(n)=2,095

Consumers’ perceptions of goalsFor consumers, SA Government services’ performance on most goals attributes have increased significantly in 2020. Consistent with 2019, ‘Encourage public participation in decision-making’ continues to be the lowest rated attribute in 2020.

+0.3

+0.2+0.2

+0.2

+0.2

38




Consumer






strongly agree)

Values for SA

1. Service Quality

2. Accountability


Values across

jurisdictions

1. Service Quality

2. Accountability


Average:7.4/10

7.5 7.5 7.47.3

6.5

7.5

8.5

Operates with integrity Provides good service Is a body I can trust Is accountable for itsservices

7.3

7.5 7.5

7.4

7.6 7.67.5

7.4

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Provides good service Operates with integrity Is a body I can trust Is accountable for itsservices


7.5/10

NSW:

7.6/10

QLD:

7.4/10

VIC:

• Consistent with 2019, ‘Operates with

integrity’ continues to be the values

attribute with the highest score (7.5/10)

• QLD has the highest average score of

7.6/10 across attributes in this category

Figure 2.4: Consumer perceptions of values related attributes

Base (n)=2,758

-

Consumers’ perceptions of valuesSA Government services’ performance on all values attributes has improved significantly in 2020 compared to 2019.

+0.2 +0.3 +0.2+0.2

39




Business






strongly agree)

Employees for SA





5. Accountability

Average score across attributes:

Employees across

jurisdictions





5. Accountability

Average score across attributes:

Average:7.4/10

7.5/10

VIC:

7.5/10

NSW:

7.4/10

QLD:

Figure 2.5: Business perceptions of employee related attributes

Base (n)=593

Businesses’ perceptions of employeesScores for employee attributes have increased significantly compared to 2019 across three attributes relating to communication, good value services and reliability.

• Consistent with 2019, ‘Deliver high safety

standards’ and ‘Are honest’ are the

attributes with the highest score of 7.7/10

for both

7.7 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.37.1 7.0 7.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Deliv

er

hig

hsafe

ty s

tanda

rds

Are

honest

Pro

vid

e s

erv

ices

without

bia

s

Com

munic

ate

well

Pro

vid

e g

oo

dvalu

e s

erv

ices

Expla

in in

tende

dactio

ns c

learly

Are

relia

ble

Are

con

sis

tent

En

gend

er

confidence in

the

ir k

now

ledge

Get th

ings d

one

as q

uic

kly

as

possib

le

Se

e thin

gs fro

mm

y p

ers

pective

Are

held

acco

unta

ble

+0.2 +0.2+0.4 +0.3+0.3 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1

+0.3 +0.3 +0.1

+0.2

7.9 7.87.7 7.6 7.5

7.47.4 7.47.3

7.3

7.07.0

7.6

7.67.6

7.67.6

7.27.2

7.77.5 7.5 7.4

7.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

Deliv

er

hig

h s

afe

ty s

tanda

rds

Are

honest

Pro

vid

e s

erv

ices w

ithout

bia

s

Com

munic

ate

well

Pro

vid

e g

oo

d v

alu

e s

erv

ices

Expla

in in

tende

d a

ction

s c

learly

Are

relia

ble

Are

con

sis

tent

En

gend

er

con

fid

ence in

their

know

ledge

Get th

ings d

one a

s q

uic

kly

as

possib

le

Se

e thin

gs fro

m m

y p

ers

pe

ctive

Are

held

accou

nta

ble

NSW (n=1,264) SA (n=593) VIC (n=619) QLD (n=600)

40




Business






strongly agree)

Process for SA

1. Simplicity and efficiency of

processes



Process across

jurisdictions

1. Simplicity and efficiency of

processes



7.2 6.96.8 6.6 6.6

5.5

6.5

7.5



decisions



have to use multiplecontact methods


Average:6.8/10

6.8/10

QLD:

6.9/10

NSW:

7.0/10

VIC:

• Consistent with 2019, ‘Processes are

easy to understand’ is the attribute with

the highest score (7.2/10) and has

increased significantly compared to

2019

• Across jurisdictions, average ratings for

process attributes are the lowest in

comparison to other attribute

categories (employees, goals and

values)

• VIC has the highest average score of

7.0/10 across attributes in this category

Figure 2.6: Business perceptions of process related attributes

Base (n)=603

Businesses’ perceptions of processesScores for attributes pertaining to SA Government processes have increased significantly for three attributes relating to ease of understanding processes, empowered employees and reducing wait times.

+0.4

+0.1+0.3+0.4

+0.4

7.1

6.9

6.5

7.0

6.6

6.6

7.2

7.1

6.96.8

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5



decisions





QLD (n=620) NSW (n=1,309) SA (n=603) VIC (n=653)

41




Business






strongly agree)

Goals for SA

1. Privacy

2. Transparency

3. Access to information and online

services


Goals across

jurisdictions

1. Privacy

2. Transparency

3. Access to information and online

services


7.6

7.1 7.0 7.0

6.6

5.5

6.5

7.5

8.5



Demonstrateopenness and

transparency indecision-making



customers


decision-making

Average:7.1/10

7.1/10

VIC:

6.9/10

QLD:

7.2/10

NSW:

• ‘Demonstrate openness and

transparency in decision-making’ has

seen a significant increase from 6.7/10

in 2019 to 7.0/10 in 2020

• Across jurisdictions, NSW has the

highest average score of 7.2/10 for this

goals related attributes

• Consistent with 2019, ‘Encourage

public participation in decision-making’

is the lowest rated goals related

attribute across jurisdictions and QLD

has the lowest rating of 6.2/10

Figure 2.7: Business perceptions of goals related attributes

Base (n)=595

Businesses’ perceptions of goalsBusinesses’ perceptions of whether SA Government services demonstrate openness and transparency in decision making have increased significantly compared to 2019; the remaining goals attributes are unchanged.

+0.2

+0.2+0.3 +0.2

7.8

7.37.2

7.1

6.6

7.5

7.0

6.96.8

6.2

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0





customers

Demonstrateopenness andtransparency indecision-making


decision-making


+0.3

42




Business






strongly agree)

Values for SA

1. Service Quality

2. Accountability


Values across

jurisdictions

1. Service Quality

2. Accountability


Average:7.4/10

7.3/10

VIC:

7.2/10

QLD:

7.5/10

NSW:

7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Operates with integrity Provides good service Is a body I can trust Is accountable for itsservices

• ‘Integrity’ is the highest scoring value

attribute along with ‘Provides good

value service’ and ‘Is a body I can trust’

(7.4/10)

• NSW has the highest average score

across attributes in this category

(7.5/10) followed by SA at 7.4/10

Figure 2.8: Business perceptions of values related attributes

Base(n)= 689

Businesses’ perceptions of valuesBusinesses’ perceptions of whether SA Government services provide good service and are accountable for their services have increased significantly compared to 2019; the remaining values attributes remain unchanged.

+0.3 +0.3+0.3

+0.3

7.6 7.67.5

7.4

7.37.2 7.2

7.17.0

7.5

8.0

Operates with integrity Is a body I can trust Provides good service Is accountable for itsservices


43




Consumer





Employee attributes

Goals Processes Values

1Note: Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on analyses of NSW Government services,

however it is assumed that drivers of satisfaction are relatively consistent across jurisdictions and

generally across service industries broadly.

Go

als

• Engender confidence in their

knowledge

• Provide good value services

• Are honest

• Deliver high safety standards

Em

plo

yee

s

• Explain intended actions clearly

• Communicate well

Communication of employees

• Get things done as quickly as

possible

• Are consistent

• Are reliable

• Are held accountable

Efficiency and effectiveness of

employeesHonesty and integrity of employees

Ease of processes

• Processes are easy to understand

• Service feels seamless even if I have to use

multiple contact methods

Employee autonomy

• Employees are empowered to make decisions

Accountability and service quality

• Is a body that I can trust

• Operates with integrity

• Provides good value services

• Is accountable for its services

Pro

ce

sse

sV

alu

es

• Safeguard privacy and confidentiality

PrivacyTransparency

• Demonstrate openness and transparency in

decision making

• Encourage public participation in decision

making

Access to information and online services

• Is making it easier to access information

about their service

• Is making best use of online services to

improve efficiency for customers

• See things from my

perspective

• Provide services without bias

Fairness and empathy of

employees

Groupings of drivers of customer satifaction1

The groupings of drivers have changed in 2020 – Ease and Speed of processes are unique drivers of consumer satisfaction.

Speed of processes

• Are designed to reduce wait times

• I can get to the right person the first time

44

Consumer





KEY

• Employee related attributes are seen to have the

highest relative importance as drivers of satisfaction

with ‘Honesty and Integrity’ being the most important

driver. This is a strength that the SA Government

services can build on to improve consumer

satisfaction

• Access to information and online services is

identified as a primary opportunity to drive higher

consumer satisfaction

Note: Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on





1Note: Analysis displayed is based on NSW consumer data however similar results are observed for businesses. Calculation is based on the relativity of parameters in the statistical analysis of drivers against satisfaction.

Employee attributes

Goals Processes

Figure 2.9: Importance (NSW) versus performance (SA) against each of the drivers of satisfaction

Prioritisation of drivers of satisfaction1

Access to information and online services is a primary opportunity to increase consumer satisfaction. Employee related drivers are strengths to build on to grow and maintain consumer satisfaction.

Honesty and IntegrityEfficiency and

Effectiveness

Communication

Fairness and Empathy

Access to information and online services

Privacy

Transparency Speed

Ease

Employee Autonomy

Rel

ativ

e Im

po

rtan

ce

Average scores across attributes (out of 10)

Primary

Opportunities

High

HighLow

1

Strengths to ‘build on’

Relatively lower impact the

satisfaction score

Secondary

Opportunities

Median Importance score

Median Attributes score

45

OFFICIAL


Measurement Survey 20203. Performance across contact methods

46

Consumer Business





Contact methods used and preferredWhile ‘'In person'’ continues to be the most used method of contact, preference for online has increased significantly for bo th consumers and businesses from 2019 to 2020.

47%

40%

27% 29%

15%

6%

47%

43%37%

33%

17%

10%

In person Phone Email Online Mail/ fax Thirdparties


% c

usto

mers

who h

ave h

ad d

irect

dealin

gs v

ia t

his

channel

Figure 3.3: 2019 and 2020 channel

usage - Business

Figure 3.4: 2019 and 2020 most

preferred channel* – Business

32%

24%

16%

23%

3% 2%

27% 25% 22%22%

3% 1%

In person Email Online Phone Mail/ fax Thirdparties



58%

34%

26%

16%

10%5%

52%

33% 31%

18%

11%

5%

In person Phone Online Email Mail/ fax Thirdparties


% c

usto

mers

who h

ave h

ad d

irect

dealin

gs v

ia t

his

channel

Figure 3.1: 2019 and 2020 channel

usage - Consumer

Figure 3.2: 2019 and 2020 most

preferred channel* - ConsumerConsumers

• Though ‘'In person'’ has declined significantly from

58% in 2019 to 52% in 2020, it continues to be the

most used as well as the most preferred contact

method among consumers

• Both use and preference for online has increased

significantly: usage has increased from 26% in

2019 to 31% in 2020, and preference has

increased from 21% in 2019 to 26% in 2020

• Preference for phone as a contact method has

declined significantly from 24% in 2019 to 20% in

2020

Businesses

• While ‘in person’ remains the most used contact

method (stable at 47% compared to 2019), there

is a decline in preference, from 32% in 2019 to

27% in 2020. However this decline is insignificant

• Usage of online channels has seen an

insignificant increase from 29% in 2019 to 33% in

2020. However, preference for online has

increased significantly from 16% in 2019 to 22% in

2020

• Use of ‘email’ has increased significantly from

27% in 2019 to 37% in 2020

33%

21%24%

16%

4%2%

33%

26%

20%16%

4% 2%

In person Online Phone Email Mail/ fax Thirdparties


-6% pts

+5% pts

+5% pts

-4% pts

+10% pts

+4% pts

+6% pts

47




Consumer Business





Customers were asked, “Which of the following contact methods have you used to carry out your direct dealings with the following services in [State] in the last 12 months?”

Figure 3.5: Contact methods used to interact with government services across jurisdictions

52%

37%

30%

20%

9%

4%

49%

31%

35%

25%

11%

6%

53%

33% 33%

23%

12%

5%

52%

31%33%

18%

11%

5%

In person Online Phone Email Mail/Fax Third parties

NSW (n=6,783) VIC (n=3,446)

QLD (n=3,427) SA (n=3,391)

Consumer

Business

Consumers

• ‘In person’ is the most widely used contact

method by consumers to interact with

government services across all jurisdictions

• NSW has the highest use of online and VIC

has the highest use of phone

• SA has lower adoption of online compared to

NSW and the lowest adoption of email as a

contact method by consumers

Businesses

• SA businesses have the highest adoption of

‘in person’ to contact government services

• QLD businesses have the highest adoption of

phone, VIC businesses have the highest use

of email and NSW businesses lead in the use

of online to contact government services

43% 44%

37% 39%

14%

7%

36%

44% 44%

36%

16%

12%

46%48%

37%35%

17%

9%

47%43%

37%33%

17%

10%

In person Phone Email Online Mail/ fax Third parties

NSW (n=1,548) VIC (n=782)QLD (n=776) SA (n=757)

Contact methods used across jurisdictionsSA is lagging in adoption of online compared to NSW and email compared to VIC for interactions with both consumers and businesses.

48

Consumer Business





23%

26%25%

21%

3%

1%

22%

28%

24%22%

3%2%

29%

25%

22%

18%

3%2%

27%25%

22% 22%

3%1%

In person Email Online Phone Mail/Fax Third parties

NSW (n=1,530) VIC (n=770)

QLD (n=765) SA (n=759)

33%

30%

18% 17%

3%1%

30%

25%

19%

22%

4%

1%

31%

28%

17%

19%

3%1%

33%

26%

16%

20%

4%2%

In person Online Email Phone Mail/Fax Third parties

NSW (n=6,579) VIC (n=3,335)

QLD (n=3,303) SA (n=3,295)

Contact methods preferred across jurisdictions‘In person’ is the most preferred contact method across all jurisdictions for consumers, followed by online. Businesses across all jurisdictions show a

preference for a variety of channels of interaction, primarily ‘in person’, email, online and phone.

Customers were asked, “Generally, which contact method do you most prefer when dealing directly with each of the following services in…?”

Figure 3.6: Contact method preferred to interact with government services across jurisdictions

Consumer

Business

Consumers

• ‘In person’ is the most preferred method of

contact for consumers across all jurisdictions

• SA consumers have the highest preference

for ‘in person’ contact among jurisdictions,

on par with NSW

• Consumers in NSW show the highest

preference for online channels compared to

other jurisdictions

Businesses

• Businesses prefer a variety of methods to

contact government services

• Compared to other jurisdictions, SA

businesses are on par with VIC in their

preference for phone

• Businesses in QLD have the highest

preference for ‘in person’ interactions,

businesses in VIC have the highest

preference for email and NSW businesses

have the highest preference for online

channels

49

Consumer Business





7.3 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.2

6.7

7.6 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.3

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

In person Online Mail/fax Email Phone Third parties


Avera

ge s

atisfa

ction

score

(out of 10)

7.5 7.77.3 7.4

7.0 7.1

7.9 7.87.5 7.5 7.4 7.3

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0



Avera

ge s

atisfa

ction

score

(out of 10)


Figure 3.7: Variation in overall satisfaction by contact method

+0.1

+0.3

+0.2

+0.2+0.3

+0.2

+0.2+0.6

Consumers

• Satisfaction among consumers who

interacted with SA Government

services ‘in person’ have seen a

significant improvement, from 7.5/10 in

2019 to 7.9/10 in 2020

• Consumers using email have also

experienced a significant improvement

in satisfaction from 7.0/10 in 2019 to

7.4/10 in 2020

• Satisfaction among users of all other

channels has also increased, though

not significantly

Businesses

• Business satisfaction has increased

across all methods of contact, though

the increases are not significant

• Businesses using ‘in person’ and

online contact methods experience the

highest satisfaction of 7.6/10

+0.1

+0.3

+0.3

+0.4

Variation in customer satisfaction by contact methodConsumers and businesses who interact with SA Government services ‘in person’ or online experience the highest overall satisfaction.

Consumer

Business

50




Consumer Business





7.7

7.57.6

7.5

7.87.7

7.67.5 7.5

7.4

7.9 7.97.8 7.8

7.5

7.87.9 7.8

7.5 7.57.4

7.3


NSW (n=6,783) VIC (n=3,446) QLD (n=3,427) SA (n=3,391)

7.8 7.8

7.6

7.3

7.6

8.1

7.6 7.6

7.17.2

7.5

7.1

7.5

7.7

7.1

7.2

7.5

7.1

7.6 7.67.5

7.4 7.37.3

In person Online Mail/fax Email Phone Third parties

NSW (n=1,548) VIC (n=782) QLD (n=776) SA (n=757)

Figure 3.8: Overall satisfaction with government services by contact method(s) used across jurisdictions

Ave

rage s

atisfa

ction s

core

(out of 10)

Ave

rage s

atisfa

ction s

core

(out of 10)

Consumer

Business

Consumers

• Across jurisdictions, consumers

who use ‘in person’ and online

channels have the highest overall

satisfaction with their respective

government services

• SA is on par with VIC for

satisfaction among consumers who

use ‘in person’ as a contact method

• SA lags behind NSW and VIC for

satisfaction among consumers who

use online channels

Businesses

• In VIC, QLD and SA, businesses

that use online and ‘in person’

channels have the highest

satisfaction with their respective

government services

• In NSW, businesses that use third

party channels have the highest

satisfaction with NSW Government

services

Variation in customer satisfaction by contact method across jurisdictionsConsumers who use ‘in person’ and online channels experience higher satisfaction across all jurisdictions compared to other channels of interaction; business satisfaction by contact method varies across jurisdictions.

8.0 8.0

51

Consumer Business





7.37.1

7.06.9

6.6

7.3

6.86.8

6.96.8

7.0

6.8

6.66.5

6.3

7.1 7.1

6.7

7.07.1

7.06.8

6.56.7

6.5

7.0 6.9

6.56.6

6.4



decisions





In person(n=1,197) Online (n=730) Phone (n=826)

Third parties (n=144) Email (n=523) Mail/ fax (n=281)

7.37.0

6.96.7

6.5

7.1

6.9

6.6

6.96.86.9 6.8

6.5 6.5

6.0

7.06.8 6.7 6.8 6.76.8 6.8

6.26.5 6.5

7.0

7.3

6.8 6.8

6.5



decisions





In person (n=293) Online (n=236)

Phone (n=281) Third parties (n=72)

Email (n=253) Mail/fax (n=112)

Figure 3.10: Perceptions of processes by channel(s) used - Business

Figure 3.9: Perceptions of processes by channel(s) used - Consumers

Ave

rag

e s

co

re (o

ut o

f 1

0)

Ave

rag

e s

co

re (o

ut o

f 1

0)

• The attribute ‘processes are easy to understand’ is rated

highest by consumers and businesses who use ‘in

person’ or online channels to contact SA Government

services

• The attribute ‘employees are empowered to make

decisions’ is rated highest by consumers who use ‘in

person’ or third party contact methods and businesses

who use mail/fax to contact SA Government services

• The attribute ‘I can get to the right person the first time’ is

rated highest by consumers and businesses who use ‘in

person’ contact methods

• The attribute ‘service feels seamless even if I have to use

multiple contact methods’ is rated highest by consumers

who use third party contact methods and businesses who

use online channels of contact

• The attribute ‘are designed to reduce wait times’ is rated

highest by consumers who use third party contact

methods and businesses who go online to contact SA

Government services

Perceptions of processes by contact methodConsumers and businesses have different perceptions of processes based on the channels they have used to interact with SA Government

services.

52




Consumer Business





8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.5

1.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

The content wascurrent and

accurate

I trust myinformation was

handledsecurely throughthe website/app

I achieved theoutcome by

using servicesavailable online

The format ofcontent met my

accessrequirements

I was satisfiedwith the overallexperience of

using thewebsite/app tocomplete the

task

The website/appwas useful andallowed me todo everything Ineeded to do

Content andsupport provided

online wassufficient toanswer myquestions

I found thewebsite/appsimple and it

was easy to findwhat I waslooking for

Disagree (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Agree (7-10) Average

Customers were asked “Thinking about your experiences interacting with SA services online in the last 12 months, to what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?”

Figure 3.11: Satisfaction with attributes of online services

8.1 8.1 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.7

1.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

The content wascurrent and

accurate

I trust myinformation was

handled securelythrough thewebsite/app

The format ofcontent met my

accessrequirements

I achieved theoutcome by

using servicesavailable online

I was satisfiedwith the overallexperience of

using thewebsite/app tocomplete the

task

The website/appwas useful and

allowed me to doeverything I

needed to do

Content andsupport provided

online wassufficient toanswer myquestions

I found thewebsite/appsimple and it

was easy to findwhat I waslooking for

Disagree (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Agree (7-10) Average

Axis

2 : A

ve

rage

Sco

re

Consumer (n=1,110)

Business (n=282)

Axis

1 : P

erc

enta

ge

of

respo

nse

s

Axis

2 : A

ve

rage

Sco

reAxis

1 : P

erc

enta

ge

of

respo

nse

s

Consumers

• Consumers had an average satisfaction of

7.9/10 with the overall experience of using the

website/app to complete the task; this rating

has stayed stable since 2017

• Consumers showed the highest levels of

agreement with statements pertaining to

accuracy of content, trusting that information

was handled securely and the format of

content meeting access requirements

Businesses

• Businesses had an average satisfaction of

7.8/10 with the overall experience of using the

website/app to complete the task; this is

consistent with 2019

• Businesses showed the highest level of

agreement with statements pertaining to

accuracy of content which has improved (not

significantly) from 7.8/10 in 2019 to 8.0/10 in

2020

+0.2 +0.1

Satisfaction with online services overallBoth consumer and business satisfaction with the overall experience of using online services has remained stable from 2019 to 2020.

-0.2 +0.2

+0.0 +0.0 +0.0 -0.1 +0.0 +0.0 -0.1 -0.1

+0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0

53

Consumer Business





Customers were asked “You mentioned that you did not go online to access the service in the last 12 months. Please select all statements that apply in relation to these service(s) in SA. I did not complete this interaction online because….”

Figure 3.12: Reasons for not going online: I did not go online …

Consumer (n=2,224)

Business (n=477)

51%

24%

17%13% 11% 10% 10% 7% 5%

The service wasn’t possible

to be undertaken online

The service wasnot available

online

I was not able tofind what I was

looking for

There was noonline support to

answer anyquestions I may

have such aswebchat

The format ofcontent on thewebsite did notmeet my access

requirements

No incentive wasprovided, suchas a discount

I was not sure ifmy informationwould remainconfidential

I didn’t have access to a

computer or an online device

The content wasnot current

and/or accurate

Consumers

• The main reason for consumers not using

online to access services was that the

services couldn’t be undertaken online

(51%) or were not available online (24%)

Businesses

• As with consumers, the inability to

undertake services online (43%) is the

main reason for businesses not going

online to access services

• For 24% of businesses who did not access

services online, it was because they could

not find what they were looking for

43%

24%21%

15% 14%9% 9% 9% 9%

The service wasn’t possible

to be undertaken online

I was not able tofind what I was

looking for

The service wasnot available

online

I was not sure ifmy informationwould remainconfidential

There was noonline support to

answer anyquestions I may

have such aswebchat

The content wasnot current

and/or accurate

I didn’t have access to a

computer or an online device

The format ofcontent on thewebsite did notmeet my access

requirements

No incentive wasprovided, suchas a discount

Reasons for not adopting online methods to interact with SA Government servicesThe main reason for consumers and businesses not using online channels to access services is a lack of online service availability.

% r

espo

nde

nts

% r

espo

nde

nts

54

Consumer Business





78%

17%5%

I chose to go online I was directed to or was prompted to go online There was no other option available

/10

/10

/10

Avg.

/10

/10

/10

Avg.

Customers were asked “Did you choose to go online or were you directed to go online?”

Figure 3.13: Choice to go online

% respondents % respondents

Consumer Business

65%

23%12%

Figure 3.14: Satisfaction with using website/app by choice to go online

Customers were asked “How satisfied were you with the overall experience of using the website/app to complete the task?”

n=1,167 n=293

Consumer (n=1,155) Business (n=291)

↑2% pts

8%

Consumers

• 78% of consumers who used online methods chose to

go online while 5% said there was no other option

available to them. 17% were prompted to go online

• Consumers who chose to go online were more

satisfied with the overall experience of using the

website/app to complete the task (8.1/10)

Businesses

• Businesses saw a 9% point decrease in those

choosing to go online (from 74% in 2019 to 65% in

2020). There was a corresponding 8% point increase

in those saying they had no other option available

(from 4% in 2019 to 12% in 2020) and 1% point

increase in those saying they were directed to or were

prompted to go online (22% in 2019 to 23% in 2020)

• Businesses who were directed or chose to go online

were more satisfied with the overall experience of

using the website/app to complete the task (8.1/10 and

7.8/10 respectively) compared to those who stated

there was no other option available to them (7.2/10)

Customer choice to use online services78% of consumers and 65% of businesses chose to go online to access government services and they have the highest satisfaction.

↑1% pts

↓2% pts ↑8% pts↑1% pts

↓9% pts

12%

15%

6%

12%

23%

11%

76%

63%

83%

7.8

6.9

8.1

There wasno otheroption

available

I wasdirected to

or wasprompted

to goonline

I chose togo online

Strongly disagree (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Strongly agree (7-10)

19%

5%

8%

17%

18%

73%

83%

77%

7.2

8.1

7.8

There wasno otheroption

available

I wasdirected to

or wasprompted to

go online

I chose togo online

55

Consumer Business





49% 47%

37%

18%

60% 59%

48%

24%

Smartphone Laptop computer Desktop computer Tablet/iPad

Consumer (n=1,167)

Business (n=293)

Customers were asked “What devices did you use to access the online content? Please select all contact methods that apply”.

Figure 3:15 Devices used when dealing with SA Government services online

Figure 3.16 Satisfaction with online services by device used

Customers were asked “How satisfied were you with the overall experience of using the website/app to complete the task?”

% r

esp

on

den

ts

7.7

7.87.9

7.67.6

7.4

7.7

7.6

Smartphone Laptop computer Desktop computer Tablet/iPad

Consumer (n=1,155)Business (n=293)

Avera

ge s

atisfa

ction

(ou

t of

10

)

Consumers

• While most consumers (49%) used smartphones

to access online content, their satisfaction levels

with their experience was lower (7.7/10)

compared to those who used desktops (7.9/10)

or laptops (7.8/10) to access online content

Businesses

• Most businesses used smartphones (60%) or

laptop computers (59%) to access online content,

however desktop users had a higher overall

satisfaction (7.7/10) compared to laptop

computer (7.4/10) and smartphone users (7.6/10)

Device used by customers for online servicesSmartphones are the most used device to access online content by both consumers and businesses. The satisfaction with overall experience of

using website/apps is lower for consumers and businesses who use smartphones compared to laptops and desktops.

56

OFFICIAL


Measurement Survey 20204. Public Service overall

57

Consumer Business






• Average satisfaction with the SA Public Service

‘brand’ is 7.0/10 for consumers and 6.9/10 for

businesses – a significant increase compared to

2019 (6.6/10 for both consumers & businesses)

• Both consumers and businesses rate the SA Public

Service ‘brand’ higher than all other industries and

public services (Federal government and local

councils)

• Satisfaction with SA Government services

continues to be higher than satisfaction with the

‘brand’ for both consumers and businesses. This

suggests a continued disconnect between service

delivery and ‘brand’ perceptions that are influenced

by a range of factors such as media and reputation

Figure 4.1: Satisfaction with SA Public Service overall compared to industries

Customers were asked “Thinking about all your experiences with each of the following Australian

industries and public services over the previous 12 months, how satisfied would you say you are

with them? ”

26%

20%

19%

22%

20%

14%

11%

28%

27%

26%

24%

26%

27%

23%

46%

54%

55%

55%

54%

59%

66%

5.9

6.3

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.6

7.0

Energy retailers(n=1,898)

Telephone serviceproviders (n=1,903)

My local council(n=1,855)

Federal Government(n=1,838)

Banks (n=1,932)

Airlines (n=1,567)

SA Public Serviceoverall (n=1,942)


Consumer (n=1,567)

7.57.8

+0.2+0.3

SA Government services

Average satisfaction

Consumer Business

24%

22%

21%

19%

16%

16%

11%

35%

26%

25%

29%

30%

28%

24%

41%

52%

53%

52%

53%

56%

65%

5.8

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.9

Energy retailers(n=456)

Federal Government(n=463)

My local council(n=462)

Telephone serviceproviders (n=471)

Airlines (n=400)

Banks (n=480)

SA Public Serviceoverall (n=485)


Business (n=400)

+0.4

-0.5

+0.5

+1.1

+0.3

+0.2

+0.6

+0.4

+0.5

-0.5

+0.5

+0.2

+0.2

+0.3

Perceptions of the SA Public Service ‘brand’Average satisfaction with the SA Public Service brand has increased significantly from 2019 to 2020.

58




Consumer Business





Public Service ‘brand’ comparison by jurisdictionAcross all jurisdictions, the Public Service ‘brand’ has the highest satisfaction compared to other industries and public services (both Federal

government and local councils).

Consumers

• NSW Public Service ‘brand’ has the most positive

perception amongst consumers (7.3/10), followed

by QLD (7.2/10)

• Both VIC and SA consumers rated the Public

Service ‘brand’ 7.0/10

Business

• NSW Public Service ‘brand’ has the most positive

perception among businesses (7.3/10) followed

by VIC (7.0/10)

• QLD and SA businesses rated the Public Service

‘brand’ 6.9/10

Figure 4.2: Comparison of Public service brand perceptions across jurisdictions

Customers were asked “Thinking about all your experiences with each of the following [jurisdiction]

industries and public services over the previous 12 months, how satisfied

would you say you are with them? ”

Business

Consumer

Lowest

Highest

NSW

NSW Public

Service: 7.3

Airline: 6.8

Telco’s: 6.5

Energy: 6.3

Local council : 6.3

Banks: 6.5

Fed Govt.: 6.6

QLD

Fed Govt.: 6.6

QLD Public Service: 7.2

VIC SA

Airlines: 6.6

Local council : 6.4

SA Public Service: 7.0

Energy: 5.9

Fed Govt.: 6.4

Telco’s: 6.3

Banks: 6.4

Airlines: 6.6

Telco’s: 6.4

VIC Public Service: 7.0

Energy: 6.1

Fed Govt.: 6.4

Local council : 6.2

Banks : 6.5

Telco’s: 6.5

Energy: 6.3

Local council : 6.5

Banks: 6.4

Airlines: 6.6

NSW

NSW Public Service: 7.3

Airline: 6.8

Local council : 6.5

Telco’s: 6.5

Energy: 6.4

Fed Govt.: 6.7

Banks: 6.8

QLD

Fed Govt.: 6.7

QLD Public Service: 6.9

VIC SA

Banks : 6.6

Local council : 6.3

SA Public Service: 6.9

Energy: 5.8

Telco’s.: 6.4

Fed Govt.: 6.2

Airlines: 6.5

Fed Govt.: 6.8

Telco’s: 6.4

VIC Public Service: 7.0

Energy: 6.2

Banks: 6.6

Local council : 6.3

Airlines: 6.7

Local council : 6.4

Energy: 6.1

Banks : 6.5

Telco’s: 6.3

Airlines: 6.5

Lowest

Avg

. satisfa

ction (

consum

ers

)Highest

Lowest

Avg

. satisfa

ction (

busin

ess)

59

Consumer





Respondents were asked to select from a list of positive

and negative descriptors of SA Public Service

• The top five descriptors of the SA Public Service

overall were all positive and consistent with 2019:

‘helpful’, ‘friendly’, ‘capable’, ‘knowledgeable’ and

‘respectful’

• Compared to 2019, the proportion of consumers

describing SA Government services negatively have

decreased for all negative descriptors except

‘Outdated in digital services’ which is unchanged

from 2019

Customers were asked “Thinking now about the SA Public Service overall, and all of

the services and agencies which fall under it, which of the following words would you

use to describe the SA Public Service? ”

Figure 4.3: Positive Descriptors of the SA Public Service overall - Consumer

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Innovative

Motivated

Flexible

Modern

Accountable

Caring

HonestEfficient

Respectful

Knowledgeable

Capable

Friendly

Helpful

2019 Consumer (n=1,998)

2020 Consumer (n=2,004)

Top 5 descriptors

Figure 4.4: Negative Descriptors of the SA Public Service overall - Consumer

0%

10%

20%

30%Lazy

Patronising

Controlling

Difficult

Wasteful

Outdated indigital services

Complacent

Inflexible

Impersonal

Inefficient

2019 Consumer (n=1,998)

2020 Consumer (n=2,004)

Consumer descriptions of the SA Public Service ‘brand’The top 5 descriptors used by consumers to describe SA Public Service are ‘helpful’, ‘friendly’, ‘capable’, ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘respectful’.

60

Business





0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%Innovative

Motivated

Flexible

Modern

Accountable

Caring

HonestEfficient

Capable

Knowledgeable

Respectful

Friendly

Helpful

2019 Business(n=502)


• In contrast to 2019, businesses have described SA Public

Service more positively in 2020

• All positive attributes have seen an increase in proportion

of responses vs. 2019

• The top 5 descriptors are ‘helpful’, ‘friendly’, ‘respectful’,

‘knowledgeable’ and ‘capable’

• All negative attributes have seen a decrease in proportion

of responses compared to last year except for ‘patronising’

and ‘outdated in digital services’

Businesses were asked “Thinking now about the SA Public Service overall, and all of

the services and agencies which fall under it, which of the following words would you

use to describe the SA Public Service? ”

Figure 4.5: Positive descriptors of the SA Public Service overall - business

Figure 4.6: Negative descriptors of the SA Public Service overall - business

Top 5 descriptors

0%

10%

20%

30%Patronising

Lazy

Controlling

Outdated indigital services

Wasteful

Inflexible

Difficult

Impersonal

Complacent

Inefficient



Business descriptions of the SA Public Service ‘brand’The top 5 descriptors used by businesses to describe SA Public Service are ‘helpful’, ‘friendly’, ‘respectful’, ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘capable’.

61

OFFICIAL



5. Feedback

62

Consumer Business





40%

6%

54%

Handled poorly (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Handled well (7-10)

Complaint handling experienceThe proportion of consumers and businesses who have complained has declined compared to 2019, with the decline being significant for

businesses.

Figure 5.1/5.3: Complaint handling of consumers and businesses

Question: “How well or poorly was your most recent complaint handled?

Figure 5.2: Proportion of feedback types for consumers and businesses

Question: “What was the nature of your feedback?”

52%

16%

32%

Handled poorly (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Handled well (7-10)

Consumers

• Most consumers who gave feedback (39%)

gave a compliment

• Complaints make up 26% of all feedback

received. While this is a decline of 7% points

compared to 2019, it is not significant

• Of consumers who complained, 52% said

their complaint was handled poorly. This is

an increase from last year where 41% had

said their feedback was handled poorly, but

this increase is not significant

Businesses

• In contrast, the proportion of feedback from

businesses that were complaints went down

significantly from 42% in 2019 to 20% in

2020

• Of this, 54% said their feedback was handled

well. This is an increase over 2019, however

the increase is not significant

35%

45%35%


• I made a suggestion for change


Consumer

(n=554)

Business

(n=176)

Base: n=138 consumers

who made a complaint

Base: n=37 businesses

who made a complaint

Base: n=554 consumers and n=176

businesses who ever provided feedback

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3Figure 5.1

Note – Respondents who answered Don’t Know are excluded from the sample

-22% pts

-18% pts

- 0%pts

+7% pts

-7% pts

+12% pts

+10% pts

+22% pts

-4% pts

-7% pts

-4% pts

+11% pts

20%26%

39%

63




Consumer Business





Jurisdictional comparison of nature of feedbackAcross jurisdictions, compliments form the largest proportion of consumer feedback. Suggestions for change form the largest proportion of

business feedback.Figure 5.4: Proportion of feedback type across jurisdictions for consumers and businesses

Consumers

• SA received the least compliments as a

proportion of total feedback (39%)

• QLD received the most complaints as a

proportion of total feedback (28%) and

it also received the most compliments

(42%)

• NSW received the most ‘suggestions

for change’ as a proportion of total

feedback received (38%)

Businesses

• Suggestions form the highest

proportion of all feedback received from

businesses across jurisdictions

• SA received the most compliments as a


• VIC received the most complaints as a


• NSW received the most suggestions as

a proportion of total feedback (50%)

17%24% 20% 20%

50%49%

45% 45%

33%27%

34% 35%

NSW (n=409) VIC (n=203) QLD (n=191) SA (n=176)

Complaint Suggestion for change Compliment

22% 24% 28% 26%

38% 35% 30% 35%

40% 40% 42% 39%

NSW (n=1,214) VIC (n=554) QLD (n=549) SA (n=554)

Complaint Suggestion for change Compliment%

offe

edback e

ver

receiv

ed

% o

f fe

edback e

ver

receiv

ed

Consumer (Base: Consumers in each jurisdiction who ever provided feedback)

Business (Base: Businesses in each jurisdiction who ever provided feedback)

64

Consumer Business





Nature of feedback and feedback channelsFor both consumers and businesses, compliments relate mainly to employees and complaints relate mainly to processes.

Consumers

• 38% of all compliments given by consumers

are related to interactions with employees

• 33% of all suggestions and 44% of all

complaints made by consumers are related

to processes

• ‘In person, face to face or via the phone’ are

the preferred channels for giving

compliments or making suggestions.

Complaints are mostly made via email

Businesses

• 42% of compliments and 32% of all

suggestions given by businesses are related

to interactions with employees

• 45% of complaints received are related to

processes

• Compliments and complaints are mainly

delivered through ‘In person, face to face or

via the phone’. Suggestions for change are

made via email

Figure 5.5: Nature of feedback by feedback type

Question: “What did your feedback primarily relate to? ”

Consumer Business

31% 35%45%

54% 45%36%

11% 16% 16%2% 1% 2%3% 3% 2%

I gave acompliment

(n=215)


change(n=191)

I made acomplaint(n=148)

28%44%

35%

51%27%

54%

21%

21%

10%

0%

5%

4% 0%

I gave acompliment

(n=66)


change(n=69)

I made acomplaint

(n=41)

• Other

• Information

available to you

• The outcomes of

your interaction

• The employees you

interacted with

• The processes

Figure 5.6: Nature of feedback and feedback channels

Question: “How did you provide your feedback?”

Consumer Business

18%33%

44%

38%18%

18%

31%

18%13%

10%

26% 15%

3%5% 10%

I gave acompliment

(n=215)


change(n=191)

I made acomplaint(n=148)

16%27%

45%

42%32%

6%

30% 25%

11%

12% 16%

38%

0% 0% 0%

I gave acompliment

(n=66)


change(n=69)

I made acomplaint

(n=41)

• Other

• Via postal letter

• Via service’s

website

• In person, face to

face or via the

phone

• Via email

65

Consumer Business





Comparison of performance in complaint handling across jurisdictionsSA ranks the lowest in complaint handling for consumers and ranks the highest for businesses.

Customers were asked “How well or poorly was your most recent complaint handled?”

Figure 5.7: Variation in complaints handling across jurisdictions

Consumer

Business

40% 42% 44%52%

17%

23% 22%16%

43%36% 34% 32%

5.4

5.0 4.8

4.6

1

10

0%

50%

100%

QLD(n=142)

NSW(n=248)

VIC(n=127)

SA(n=138)


Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f

responses

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge s

core

40% 35% 32% 38%

6% 13% 22%

19%

54%52% 46% 43%

6.05.8 5.6

5.3

1

10

0%

50%

100%

SA(n=37)

VIC(n=49)

QLD(n=31)

NSW(n=72)


Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f

responses

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge s

core

Responses were provided according to a scale from 1 (handled very poorly) to 10

(handled very well)

Consumers

• SA has the highest proportion of poorly

handled complaints among all jurisdictions

(52%) and correspondingly has the lowest

complaint handling score of 4.6/10

• QLD has the highest proportion of well handled

complaints (43%) and correspondingly the high

complaint handling score of 5.4/10

Businesses

• With 54% of all complaints being handled well,

SA has the highest complaint handling score of

6.0/10 for businesses

• NSW has the lowest complaint handling score

of 5.3/10 and the lowest proportion of

complaints being handled well (43%)

66

Consumer Business





Comparison of performance in ease of making a complaint across jurisdictionsSA ranks third among all jurisdictions in ease of making complaints.

Customers were asked “How difficult or easy was it to make your complaint?”

Figure 5.8: Variation in ease of making a complaint across jurisdictions

Consumer

Business

23% 27% 34% 35%

22% 17%17% 23%

55% 56% 49%42%

6.5 6.35.9

5.5

1

10

0%

50%

100%

NSW(n=263)

QLD(n=153)

SA(n=147)

VIC(n=129)

Easy (7-10) Neutral (5-6) Difficult (1-4) Average

13%20% 19% 23%

17%15% 19% 14%

70% 65% 61% 64%

7.3 7.1 6.7 6.7

1

10

0%

50%

100%

QLD(n=33)

VIC(n=50)

SA(n=41)

NSW(n=73)

Easy (7-10) Neutral (5-6) Difficult (1-4) Average

Responses were provided according to a scale from 1 (very difficult) to 10 (very easy)

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge s

core

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge s

core

Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f

responses

Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f

responses

Consumers

• 49% of consumers in SA who made a complaint said it

was easy to do so and the average rating for ease of

making complaints was 5.9/10

• QLD has the highest proportion of consumers saying it

was easy to make a complaint (56%)

• NSW has the highest average rating for ease of making

complaints (6.5/10) driven by the lowest proportion of

consumers finding it difficult to make a complaint (23%)

Businesses

• 61% of businesses in SA who made a complaint said it

was easy to do so and the average rating for ease of

making complaints was 6.7/10

• QLD has the highest proportion of businesses who found

it was easy to make a complaint (70%) with the highest

average rating of 7.3/10

67

Consumer Business





1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

4%

4%

4%

5%

5%

5%

5%

6%

6%

6%

7%

7%

8%

10%

Other (n=3*)

Courts (n=2*)

Child Welfare Services (n=6*)

Fire Brigades (n=4*)

Business Adv. Serv. (n=6*)

Documentation Services (n=6*)

Serv. for Older People (n=6*)

State Emergency Services (n=7*)

Agri. Advice and Funding (n=3*)

Public Housing (n=4*)

Environ. Protectn. (n=6*)

Consumer Affairs (n=6*)

Art Galleries (n=8*)

Public Hospitals (n=10*)

Water Supply (n=11*)

Ambulance Services (n=7*)

Major Roads (n=10*)

Disability Services (n=10*)

Police (n=8*)

Vehicle Licensing & Reg. (n=16*)

Public Schools (n=13*)

Public Transport (n=12*)

TAFE Services (n=18*)

Variation in feedback received across SA Government servicesPublic Transport received the highest proportion of feedback from consumers. TAFE Services* received the highest proportion of feedback from

businesses.

6%

0%

0%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

4%

4%

5%

6%

7%

9%

10%

10%

12%

Other (n=42)

Prisons (n=2*)



Courts (n=9*)

Agricultural Advice and FundingServices (n=9*)


Business Advisory Services (n=10*)


Environment and Wildlife Protection(n=14*)

Major Roads (n=14*)

Consumer Affairs (Fair Trading) (=15*)


Disability Services (n=20*)

Public Schools (n=18*)

Art Galleries and Museums (n=22*)

Ambulance Services (n=23*)

TAFE Services (n=28*)

Services for Older People (n=34)

Police (n=36)

Water Supply (n=59)

Vehicle Licensing & Reg. (n=62)

Public Hospitals (n=67)

Public Transport (n=72)

Figure 5.9: Volume of complaints across services

Customers that had made a complaint in the past were asked “Which SA Government Department or Agency did you most recently complain to?”

% respondents % respondentsConsumer Business**

Consumers

• Six services accounted for over half of all

feedback received (54%) from consumers.

These are Public Transport, Public Hospitals,

Vehicle Licensing and Registration, Water

Supply, Police and Services for Older People

Businesses

• Seven services accounted for over half of all

feedback received (51%) from businesses.

These are TAFE, Public Transport, Public

Schools, Vehicle Licensing and Registration,

Police, Disability Services and Major Roads

*Note, interpret with caution when sample size is lower than n=30

**All businesses results have been provided for indicative purposes

only as the sample size for all services is <30

68

OFFICIAL


Measurement Survey 2020iv Appendix

69

OFFICIAL



Appendix 1: Analysis by service

The data in this appendix compares the perceptions of SA Government services. Where sample sizes for

segments are low (<30), data is provided for indicative purposes only.

70

Consumer





Variation in consumers’ satisfaction across servicesOf the services with sufficient sample size (n>30), the top three services with the highest consumer satisfaction are Ambulance Services, Art

Galleries and Museums and State Emergency Services.

*Note – Interpret with caution. Very small number of responses (n<=30)

9.2 9.08.8

8.3 8.28.0 7.9

7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.16.9

6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Am

bula

nce S

erv

ices (

n=

203

)

Fire B

rigad

es (

n=

30*)

Art

Galle

ries a

nd M

use

um

s (

n=

178

)

Sta

te E

merg

en

cy S

erv

ices (

n=

31)

Ve

hic

le L

icen

sin

g a

nd R

egis

tra

tion

(n

=871)

Pu

blic

Hosp

itals

(n

=278)

Wate

r S

upply

(n=

25

5)

Se

rvic

es for

Old

er

Peop

le (

n=

130)

En

viro

nm

en

t and

Wild

life

Pro

tection (

n=

44

)

Docum

enta

tion S

erv

ice

s (

n=

49)

Po

lice (

n=

209)

Pu

blic

Schools

(n=

159)

Bu

sin

ess A

dvis

ory

Serv

ice

s (

n=

32)

Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rt (

n=

267)

Dis

ab

ility

Se

rvic

es (

n=

107)

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral A

dvic

e a

nd F

undin

g S

erv

ices (

n=

12*)

TA

FE

Serv

ices (

n=

110)

Con

sum

er

Affa

irs (

n=

60)

Ma

jor

Roa

ds (

n=

94)

Pri

son

s (

n=

31*)

Child

Welfare

Serv

ices (

n=

41

)

Pu

blic

Housin

g (

n=

109)

Cou

rts (

n=

91)

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10) Average

Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f re

sponses

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge S

core

Figure 1: Variation in consumers’ satisfaction across SA Government services

Customers were asked “Thinking about your experiences in the last 12 months, how satisfied would you say you are with each of the following services in SA?”

Average SA consumer satisfaction – 7.8 (n=3,391)

71

Consumer





9.2 9.08.7

8.58.2

8.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.57.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.5 6.4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Am

bula

nce S

erv

ices (

n=

203

)

Fire B

rigad

es (

n=

30*)

Art

Galle

ries a

nd M

use

um

s (

n=

177

)

Sta

te E

merg

en

cy S

erv

ices (

n=

30*)

Ve

hic

le L

icen

sin

g a

nd R

egis

tra

tion

(n

=864)

Pu

blic

Hosp

itals

(n

=278)

Se

rvic

es for

Old

er

Peop

le (

n=

129)

Wate

r S

upply

(n=

25

0)

Bu

sin

ess A

dvis

ory

Serv

ice

s (

n=

32)

En

viro

nm

en

t and

Wild

life

Pro

tection (

n=

43

*)

Docum

enta

tion S

erv

ice

s (

n=

48)

Po

lice (

n=

207)

Pu

blic

Schools

(n=

156)

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral A

dvic

e a

nd F

undin

g S

erv

ices (

n=

12*)

Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rt (

n=

266)

Dis

ab

ility

Se

rvic

es (

n=

103)

Con

sum

er

Affa

irs (

n=

59)

Ma

jor

Roa

ds (

n=

88)

TA

FE

Serv

ices (

n=

110)

Pri

son

s (

n=

31*)

Cou

rts (

n=

90)

Pu

blic

Housin

g (

n=

109)

Child

Welfare

Serv

ices (

n=

41

)

Low (1-4) Medium (5-6) High (7-10) Average

Variation in consumers’ expectation across servicesConsistent with satisfaction scores, consumers have higher expectations of overall service quality from Ambulance Services, Art Galleries and

Museums and Vehicle Licensing and Registration.


Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f re

sponses

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge S

core

Figure 2: Variation in customers’ expectation across SA Government services

Customers were asked “Thinking about each of the following services in SA, how would you rate your expectation of overall quality of service?”

Average SA

consumer

expectation –

7.9 (n=3,356)

72

Consumer





9.08.5 8.5 8.4

7.97.6 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.2

7.0 6.9 6.8 6.76.5

6.0 6.05.7 5.7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Am

bula

nce S

erv

ices (

n=

197

)

Sta

te E

merg

en

cy S

erv

ices (

n=

29*)

Fire B

rigad

es (

n=

29*)

Art

Galle

ries a

nd M

use

um

s (

n=

174

)

Ve

hic

le L

icen

sin

g a

nd R

egis

tra

tion

(n

=834)

En

viro

nm

en

t and

Wild

life

Pro

tection (

n=

42

)

Wate

r S

upply

(n=

24

7)

Pu

blic

Hosp

itals

(n

=267)

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral A

dvic

e a

nd F

undin

g S

erv

ices (

n=

12*)

Docum

enta

tion S

erv

ice

s (

n=

45)

Po

lice (

n=

206)

Bu

sin

ess A

dvis

ory

Serv

ice

s (

n=

32)

Se

rvic

es for

Old

er

Peop

le (

n=

125)

Pu

blic

Schools

(n=

155)

Con

sum

er

Affa

irs (

n=

58)

Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rt (

n=

258)

Dis

ab

ility

Se

rvic

es (

n=

104)

TA

FE

Serv

ices (

n=

108)

Ma

jor

Roa

ds (

n=

89)

Cou

rts (

n=

86)

Pu

blic

Housin

g (

n=

103)

Child

Welfare

Serv

ices (

n=

41

)

Pri

son

s (

n=

30*)

Not close to ideal (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Very close to ideal (7-10) Average

Variation in consumers’ comparison to an ideal across servicesOf the services with sufficient sample size (n>30), consumers perceive Ambulance Services, Art Galleries and Museums and Vehicle Licensing

and Registration as the top 3 services performing closest to an ideal service.


Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f re

sponses

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge S

core

Figure 3: Consumers’ comparison to an ideal service across SA Government services

Customers are asked “Now forgetting for a moment these specific services, please imagine an ideal service. How well do you think each service in SA compares with that ideal

service?”

Average SA consumer ideal – 7.5 (n=3,271)

73

Consumer





Variation in consumers’ ‘expectation gap’ across servicesFor most of the services, consumers have a negative ‘expectation gap’, with the exception of Art Galleries and Museums, Child Welfare

Services, Vehicle Licensing and Registration and Ambulance Services.


Figure 4: Consumer gap to expectation by services

The gap between satisfaction and expectation provides an understanding of how customers perceive their recent experience compares to expectations. The gap to expectation is

calculated individually for each customer as: Gap = satisfaction score – expectation score.

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.4

-0.2

-0.2

-0.2

-0.2

-0.2

-0.1

-0.1

-0.1

-0.1

-0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

-1 -0.5 0 0.5

Consumer Affairs (n=59)

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=12*)

Major Roads (n=88)

Business Advisory Services (n=32)

Courts (n=90)

Prisons (n=31)

Documentation Services (n=48)



Police (n=207)

Public Housing (n=109)

TAFE Services (n=110)


Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=43)

Public Schools (n=156)

Disability Services (n=103)

Water Supply (n=250)



Ambulance Services (n=203)

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=864)

Child Welfare Services (n=41)

Art Galleries and Museums (n=177)

74

Business





Variation in businesses’ satisfaction across servicesOf the services with sufficient sample size (n>30), Ambulance Services, Police and Vehicle Licensing and Registration are the top three services

with the highest satisfaction.

8.88.6

8.2 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.77.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2

7.06.7 6.7

6.3 6.2

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Am

bula

nce S

erv

ices (

n=

34)

Fire B

rigad

es (

n=

23*)

Cou

rts (

n=

11*)

Art

Galle

ries a

nd M

use

um

s (

n=

25*)

Po

lice (

n=

53)

Sta

te E

merg

en

cy S

erv

ices (

n=

5*)

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral A

dvic

e a

nd F

undin

g S

erv

ices (

n=

10*)

Ve

hic

le L

icen

sin

g a

nd R

egis

tra

tion

(n

=143)

Con

sum

er

Affa

irs (

n=

22*)

En

viro

nm

en

t and

Wild

life

Pro

tection (

n=

17

*)

Dis

ab

ility

Se

rvic

es (

n=

44)

Pu

blic

Hosp

itals

(n

=41)

Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rt (

n=

41)

Wate

r S

upply

(n=

47

)

TA

FE

Serv

ices (

n=

44)

Pu

blic

Schools

(n=

47)

Bu

sin

ess A

dvis

ory

Serv

ice

s (

n=

21*)

Pri

son

s (

n=

9*)

Se

rvic

es for

Old

er

Peop

le (

n=

37*)

Docum

enta

tion S

erv

ice

s (

n=

29*)

Child

Welfare

Serv

ices (

n=

22

*)

Ma

jor

Roa

ds (

n=

22*)

Pu

blic

Housin

g (

n=

23*)

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10) Average

Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f re

sponses

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge S

core

Figure 5: Variation in businesses’ satisfaction across SA Government services

Customers were asked “Thinking about your experiences in the last 12 months, how satisfied would you say you are with each of the following services in SA?”

Average SA business satisfaction – 7.5 (n=770)


75

Business





8.9 8.78.5

8.1 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.97.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.3

7.16.7 6.6 6.5 6.5

6.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Am

bula

nce S

erv

ices (

n=

34)

Fire B

rigad

es (

n=

23*)

Po

lice (

n=

51)

Art

Galle

ries a

nd M

use

um

s (

n=

25*)

Sta

te E

merg

en

cy S

erv

ices (

n=

5*)

Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rt (

n=

39)

Cou

rts (

n=

11*)

Ve

hic

le L

icen

sin

g a

nd R

egis

tra

tion

(n

=142)

TA

FE

Serv

ices (

n=

44)

Dis

ab

ility

Se

rvic

es (

n=

44)

Con

sum

er

Affa

irs (

n=

22*)

Wate

r S

upply

(n=

47

)

Pu

blic

Hosp

itals

(n

=40)

Child

Welfare

Serv

ices (

n=

22

*)

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral A

dvic

e a

nd F

undin

g S

erv

ices (

n=

10*)

Se

rvic

es for

Old

er

Peop

le (

n=

36)

Pri

son

s (

n=

7*)

Pu

blic

Schools

(n=

45)

Docum

enta

tion S

erv

ice

s (

n=

29*)

Bu

sin

ess A

dvis

ory

Serv

ice

s (

n=

21*)

En

viro

nm

en

t and

Wild

life

Pro

tection (

n=

16

*)

Ma

jor

Roa

ds (

n=

22*)

Pu

blic

Housin

g (

n=

23*)

Low (1-4) Medium (5-6) High (7-10) Average

Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f re

sponses

Variation in businesses’ expectation across servicesOf the services with sufficient sample size (n>30), Ambulance Services, Police and Public Transport are the top three services with the highest

expectation scores.

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge S

core

Figure 6: Variation in businesses’ expectation across SA Government services

Customers were asked “Thinking about each of the following services in SA, how would you rate your expectation of overall quality of service?”

Average SA business expectation – 7.7 (n=758)


76

Business





8.5 8.58.2 8.2 8.1

7.7 7.67.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Am

bula

nce S

erv

ices (

n=

34)

Art

Galle

ries a

nd M

use

um

s (

n=

24*)

Fire B

rigad

es (

n=

20*)

Cou

rts (

n=

11*)

Po

lice (

n=

51)

Con

sum

er

Affa

irs (

n=

22*)

Ve

hic

le L

icen

sin

g a

nd R

egis

tra

tion

(n

=142)

Pu

blic

Hosp

itals

(n

=40)

Dis

ab

ility

Se

rvic

es (

n=

43)

Sta

te E

merg

en

cy S

erv

ices (

n=

5*)

Wate

r S

upply

(n=

45

)

Pu

blic

Schools

(n=

45)

TA

FE

Serv

ices (

n=

44)

Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rt (

n=

38)

Pri

son

s (

n=

8*)

Bu

sin

ess A

dvis

ory

Serv

ice

s (

n=

21*)

Se

rvic

es for

Old

er

Peop

le (

n=

34)

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral A

dvic

e a

nd F

undin

g S

erv

ices (

n=

10*)

Child

Welfare

Serv

ices (

n=

19

*)

Pu

blic

Housin

g (

n=

23*)

En

viro

nm

en

t and

Wild

life

Pro

tection (

n=

16

*)

Ma

jor

Roa

ds (

n=

21*)

Docum

enta

tion S

erv

ice

s (

n=

28*)

Not close to ideal (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Very close to ideal (7-10) Average

Variation in businesses’ comparison to an ideal service across servicesOf the services with sufficient (n>30) sample sizes, Ambulance Services, Police and Vehicle Licensing and Registration are the top three

services with the highest comparison to ideal service scores.

Axi

s 1

: P

erc

enta

ge o

f re

sponses

Axis

2 : A

vera

ge S

core

Figure 7: Businesses’ comparison to an ideal service across services

Customers are asked “Now forgetting for a moment these specific services, please imagine an ideal service. How well do you think each service in SA compares with that ideal

service?”

Average SA business comparison to ideal service – 7.3

(n=744)


77

Business





Variation in businesses’ “expectation gap” across servicesFor businesses, several services have a positive ‘expectation gap’. However, the sample sizes are low and observations are only indicative.

Figure 8: Business gap to expectation by services

The gap between satisfaction and expectation provides an understanding of how customers perceive their recent experience compares to expectations. The gap to expectation

is calculated individually for each customer as: Gap = satisfaction score – expectation score.


-0.9

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.2

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.7

1.0

1.2

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5





Police (n=51)

Major Roads (n=22*)

Water Supply (n=47)



Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=142)



Ambulance Services (n=34)

Art Galleries and Museums (n=25*)





Courts (n=11*)

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=10*)

Business Advisory Services (n=21*)

Prisons (n=7*)

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=16*)

78

Consumer





Variation in consumers’ views of employee performance across servicesAmbulance Services, Art Galleries and Museums, State Emergency Services and Fire Brigades perform well against employee attributes.


Customers are asked “Thinking now about its employees, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [a particular government

service] in SA?”

Figure 9: Performance of SA Government services against each of the employee attributes

Responses were provided according to a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). The average score against each attribute by service is tabulated. Note this analysis represents consumer data only.

Average score higher/lower compared to overall SA average

Services

Honesty and integrity of employees Efficiency and effectiveness Communication of employeesFairness and empathy of

employees

Are

honest

Engender

confidence in

their

knowledge

Deliver

high safety

standards

Provide good

value

services

Are reliable

Get things

done as

quickly as

possible

Held

accountableAre consistent

Explain

intended

actions clearly

Communicate

well

Provide

services

without bias

See things

from my

perspective

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=12)* 8 7.9 7.9 7 8.3 8.2 7 7.8 8.2 7.9 8.3 7.3

Ambulance Services (n=203) 9.2 9.1 9.2 8.9 9.1 8.8 9 8.9 9.1 9 9.1 8.7

Art Galleries and Museums (n=178) 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.1

Business Advisory Services (n=32) 8.1 7.7 8.2 7.9 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.6 8.2 7.5

Child Welfare Services (n=41) 6.4 6.3 6.8 6.1 6 5.4 5.9 5.9 6.1 6.1 5.8 5.8

Consumer Affairs (n=60) 7.4 6.8 7.3 6.7 6.7 6.1 6.3 6.9 7.2 6.9 7.2 6.6

Courts (n=91) 6.8 6.4 6.9 5.9 6.5 5.7 5.6 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.6 5.7

Disability Services (n=107) 7 6.5 7 6.9 6.4 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.8 6.2

Documentation Services (n=49) 7.7 7.3 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.6 7.9 7.9 7.1

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=44) 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.5 7.6 7.1 7 7.6 7.7 7.4 8 7.5

Fire Brigades (n=30) 9.1 8.9 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 8.9 8.8 8.6 8.9 9 8.2

Major Roads (n=94) 6.8 7 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.8 7.3 6.5

Police (n=209) 7.6 7.5 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.3 6.9

Prisons (n=31) 6.1 5.8 6.1 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.9

Public Hospitals (n=278) 8.2 7.9 8.4 8.1 7.8 7.2 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.8 8.2 7.5

Public Housing (n=109) 6.4 5.9 6.1 6.2 6 5.4 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.1 6.7 5.8

Public Schools (n=159) 7.8 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.6 6.9 7 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 6.9

Public Transport (n=267) 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.9 7 7.2 6.9 7.4 6.7

Services for Older People (n=130) 8.1 7.5 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.2 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.6 8 7.4

State Emergency Services (n=31) 8.5 8.4 9.1 8.3 8.6 8.8 8 8.8 8.6 8.7 8.3 7.9

TAFE Services (n=110) 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.2 7.2 6.5 7 7.4 7 7 7.7 7

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=871) 8 7.7 8 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.3 7.8 7.9 7.8 8.1 7.3

Water Supply (n=255) 7.7 7.4 7.8 7.4 7.6 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.9 7.2

Overall average 7.9 7.6 7.9 7.6 7.6 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.8 7.1

79

Consumer





Variation in consumers’ views of performance against values across servicesServices (with sufficient sample size) that have high scores across headline measures (satisfaction, expectation and ideal service) also perform

well against values related attributes. These services are Ambulance Services, Art Galleries and Museums, State Emergency Services and Fire

Brigades.


Customers are asked “Thinking about the values that they uphold, to what extent would you agree with each of the following statements when thinking about [a particular

government service] in SA?”

Figure 10: Performance of SA Government services against values



ServicesAccountability and service quality

Is a body I can trust Operates with integrity Is accountable for its services Provides good values services

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=12)* 7.9 8.0 7.8 7.7

Ambulance Services (n=203) 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.2

Art Galleries and Museums (n=178) 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.7

Business Advisory Services (n=32) 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8

Child Welfare Services (n=41) 5.5 5.6 5.4 5.8

Consumer Affairs (n=60) 6.9 7.3 6.7 6.9

Courts (n=91) 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.3

Disability Services (n=107) 6.3 6.6 6.5 6.7

Documentation Services (n=49) 7.4 7.1 6.9 7.3

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=44) 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.4

Fire Brigades (n=30) 9.3 9.1 9.0 9.3

Major Roads (n=94) 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.3

Police (n=209) 7.6 7.5 7.3 7.6

Prisons (n=31) 5.8 6.1 6.1 5.9

Public Hospitals (n=278) 7.6 7.8 7.3 7.7

Public Housing (n=109) 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8

Public Schools (n=159) 7.3 7.3 7.0 7.3

Public Transport (n=267) 6.9 7.0 6.8 7.0

Services for Older People (n=130) 7.3 7.7 7.4 7.4

State Emergency Services (n=31) 8.4 8.5 8.2 8.6

TAFE Services (n=110) 6.8 7.0 6.9 6.8

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=871) 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.6

Water Supply (n=255) 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.5

Overall average 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.5

80

Consumer





Variation in consumers’ views of performance against process attributes across servicesServices (with sufficient sample size) that have high scores across headline measures (satisfaction, expectation and ideal service) also perform well against process attributes. These services are Ambulance Services, Art Galleries and Museums, State Emergency Services and Fire Brigades.


Customers are asked “Thinking now about its processes), to what extent do you agree or disagree the following statements describes [a particular government service] in

SA?”

Figure 11: Performance of SA Government services against process attributes



Services

Ease of processes Speed of processes Employee autonomy

Processes are easy to

understand

Services feel seamless across

channels

Processes are designed to

reduce wait times

I can get to the right person the first

time

Employees are empowered to make

decisions

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services

(n=12)*7.7 7.5 8.1 7.6 7.7

Ambulance Services (n=203) 8.8 8.4 8.2 8.4 8.6

Art Galleries and Museums (n=178) 8.2 8.1 7.9 8.1 7.9

Business Advisory Services (n=32) 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.1 7.4

Child Welfare Services (n=41) 5.2 5.2 4.7 4.6 5.3

Consumer Affairs (n=60) 6.3 5.7 5.7 5.6 6.1

Courts (n=91) 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.6

Disability Services (n=107) 5.7 5.8 5.3 5.7 6

Documentation Services (n=49) 7.2 7.1 7.1 6.9 7.2

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=44) 7.4 6.9 6.7 7.1 7.2

Fire Brigades (n=30) 8.8 9 9.1 8.7 8.9

Major Roads (n=94) 6.2 6.2 6 6 6

Police (n=209) 7.1 6.6 6.4 6.9 7.4

Prisons (n=31) 5.5 4.8 4.9 5.2 5.6

Public Hospitals (n=278) 7.3 6.7 6 6.8 7.1

Public Housing (n=109) 5.8 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.6

Public Schools (n=159) 7.2 6.7 6.6 7 7

Public Transport (n=267) 7.1 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.6

Services for Older People (n=130) 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.8

State Emergency Services (n=31) 8.2 8 8.2 7.9 8.1

TAFE Services (n=110) 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.2 6.6

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=871) 7.8 7.3 7 7.2 7.1

Water Supply (n=255) 7.5 7.1 7 7 7.2

Overall Average 7.3 6.8 6.6 6.8 7

81

Consumer





Variation in consumers’ views of performance against goals across servicesServices (with sufficient sample size) that have high scores across headline measures (satisfaction, expectation and ideal service) also perform well against goals attributes. These services are Ambulance Services, Art Galleries and Museums, State Emergency Services and Fire Brigades.


Customers are asked “Thinking about the services they provide overall, how would rate [a particular government service] in SA on the following?”

Figure 12: Performance of SA Government services against goals



Services

Transparency Access to information Privacy

Demonstrate openness and

transparency in decision

making

Encourage public participation

in decision making

Is making it easier to access

information about their

services

Is making best use of online

services to improve efficiency

for customers

Safeguard privacy and

confidentiality

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=12)* 7.0 7.8 7.5 7.6 7.5


Art Galleries and Museums (n=178) 7.9 7.5 8.2 8.0 8.1

Business Advisory Services (n=32) 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.4 8.2

Child Welfare Services (n=41) 5.6 4.9 5.6 6.0 6.8

Consumer Affairs (n=60) 6.8 5.9 6.5 6.1 7.5

Courts (n=91) 6.0 5.1 6.2 5.7 6.9

Disability Services (n=107) 5.9 5.5 5.9 6.3 7.5

Documentation Services (n=49) 6.7 6.3 7.1 6.9 7.6

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=44) 7.0 6.7 7.2 7.0 7.5

Fire Brigades (n=30) 8.4 8.1 8.5 8.1 9.1

Major Roads (n=94) 6.2 5.8 6.4 6.4 7.2

Police (n=209) 6.5 5.9 7.1 6.7 7.7

Prisons (n=31) 5.0 4.0 5.5 5.4 6.9

Public Hospitals (n=278) 7.0 6.1 7.0 6.5 8.0

Public Housing (n=109) 5.5 5.0 5.6 5.3 6.8

Public Schools (n=159) 6.8 6.8 7.0 6.8 7.6



State Emergency Services (n=31) 7.9 7.3 8.1 7.7 8.5

TAFE Services (n=110) 6.7 6.2 6.8 6.6 7.2

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=871) 7.0 6.0 7.6 7.7 8.0

Water Supply (n=255) 6.9 6.3 7.3 7.3 7.8

Overall Average 6.9 6.2 7.2 7.0 7.8

82

Business





Variation in businesses’ views of employee performance across servicesDue to low sample sizes for most services, data is to be viewed as indicative only.


Customers are asked “Thinking now about its employees, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [a particular


Figure 13: Performance of SA Government services against each of the employee attributes



Services

Honesty and integrity of employeesSpeed of

serviceAccountability Communication and consistency

Fairness and empathy of

employees

Are

honest

Deliver high

safety

standards

Provide

good value

services

Are reliable

Engender

confidence

in their

knowledge

Get things

done as

quickly as

possible

Held

accountable

Explain

intended

actions

clearly

Are

consistent

Communicate

well

Provide

services

without bias

See things

from my

perspective

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=10)*6.9 7 7 7.3 7 5.3 6.7 6.8 7.7 8.3 7.1 7.6

Ambulance Services (n=34) 9 8.6 8.8 7.8 8.8 9.2 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.2 8.8 8.4

Art Galleries and Museums (n=25)* 7.9 8.5 8 8.2 8.1 7.5 8.3 8 8.3 8.1 8.1 7.4

Business Advisory Services (n=21)* 7.5 6.9 7.3 7.1 6.5 6.8 6.1 7 6.8 7 7.1 6.3

Child Welfare Services (n=22)* 6.2 5.7 6.1 5.2 5.5 5.2 5.1 5.7 5.2 5.2 6.1 6.1

Consumer Affairs (n=22)* 7.9 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.3 7 7.8 7.4 7.3 7.6 8 6.9

Courts (n=11)* 7.8 8 7.3 8.4 8.2 7.4 8.2 8.4 8.2 8.5 8 7

Disability Services (n=44) 7.1 7.6 7.5 7.5 6.9 6.8 6.7 7.2 7.1 7.1 6.8 6.8

Documentation Services (n=29)* 7.2 7.7 7.2 6.7 6.8 6.3 7.1 7 7.3 7.1 7.4 6.2

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=17)* 6.9 8.3 7.6 6.6 7.2 6.7 7.6 8 7.5 6.9 7.9 7

Fire Brigades (n=23)* 8.8 8.8 8.2 9 8.1 8.3 8.4 7.6 7.9 7.9 8.6 8

Major Roads (n=22)* 6.5 7 6.8 6.3 6.7 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.3 6.9 6.7 5.7

Police (n=53) 7.8 8 7.8 7.6 7.4 7 7 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.5

Prisons (n=9)* 7.9 7 7.3 6.6 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.3 7.5 7.4 7.2 6.9

Public Hospitals (n=41) 8.7 8.5 8.1 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.6 8.3 8 8.1 7.8 8.1

Public Housing (n=23)* 7.1 7.3 7.1 7.3 6.7 6.3 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.5 7.5 6.2

Public Schools (n=47) 7 7.1 7 7.2 6.9 6.4 6.4 7.1 6.6 7.2 6.7 6.5

Public Transport (n=41) 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.4 6.9 7.2 6.8 6.9 6.7 8 7.8 6.6

Services for Older People (n=37) 7.3 7 7 6.8 7.3 6.6 6.4 6.9 6.7 7.2 7.3 7

State Emergency Services (n=5)* 8.9 7.9 8.9 9.8 9 9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.1 10

TAFE Services (n=44) 7.1 6.8 6.9 6.9 7 6.3 5.9 6.9 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.6

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=143) 7.8 7.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.9 7.1

Water Supply (n=47) 7.7 7.9 7.1 7.5 6.8 7.4 6.9 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.1 7

Overall average 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.1 7 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.5 7

83

Business





Variation in businesses’ views of performance against values across servicesDue to low sample sizes for most services, data is to be viewed as indicative only.


Customers are asked “Thinking about the values that they uphold, to what extent would you agree with each of the following statements when thinking about [a particular


Figure 14: Performance of SA Government services against values



ServicesAccountability and service quality

Is a body I can trust Operates with integrity Is accountable for its services Provides good values services

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=10)* 6.6 6.6 6.1 6.9

Ambulance Services (n=34) 8.8 8.8 8.4 9.0

Art Galleries and Museums (n=25)* 8.0 8.7 7.9 8.8

Business Advisory Services (n=21)* 7.1 7.1 6.8 7.2

Child Welfare Services (n=22)* 5.0 5.5 5.4 5.2

Consumer Affairs (n=22)* 7.3 7.2 7.5 7.4

Courts (n=11)* 8.0 7.5 8.7 7.9

Disability Services (n=44) 6.7 7.3 7.1 7.0

Documentation Services (n=29)* 6.8 7.0 6.7 6.6

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=17)* 7.7 7.1 8.0 6.6

Fire Brigades (n=23)* 8.4 8.6 7.6 8.4

Major Roads (n=22)* 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.8

Police (n=53) 7.4 7.6 7.4 7.4

Prisons (n=9)* 7.0 7.0 6.3 6.3

Public Hospitals (n=41) 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4

Public Housing (n=23)* 6.4 6.7 6.0 6.5

Public Schools (n=47) 7.2 7.2 6.9 7.1

Public Transport (n=41) 7.7 8.0 7.5 7.3

Services for Older People (n=37) 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.6

State Emergency Services (n=5)* 8.9 8.7 7.8 9.7

TAFE Services (n=44) 6.9 6.9 6.7 7.0

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=143) 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.5

Water Supply (n=47) 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.2

Overall average 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4

84

Business





Variation in businesses’ views of performance against process attributes across servicesDue to low sample sizes for most services, data is to be viewed as indicative only.


Customers are asked “Thinking now about its processes), to what extent do you agree or disagree the following statements describes [a particular government service] in

SA?”

Figure 15: Performance of SA Government services against process attributes



Services

Ease of access Speed of processes Employee autonomy

Processes are easy to

understand

I can get to the right person the

first time

Services feel seamless across

channels

Processes are designed to

reduce wait times

Employees are empowered to

make decisions



Art Galleries and Museums (n=25)* 8.1 7.7 8 6.9 7.3

Business Advisory Services (n=21)* 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.6 6.3

Child Welfare Services (n=22)* 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.3 5.5

Consumer Affairs (n=22)* 7.2 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.8

Courts (n=11)* 8.4 7.6 7.9 7.5 7.9


Documentation Services (n=29)* 6.5 6 6.1 5.9 6.1

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=17)* 6.5 6.5 6.3 6 6.2

Fire Brigades (n=23)* 7.5 7.1 7.3 6.7 7.1

Major Roads (n=22)* 6.4 5.7 6 5.7 5.6

Police (n=53) 7.5 7.4 6.8 6.7 8.1

Prisons (n=9)* 6.5 6.1 6.5 7.1 6.1


Public Housing (n=23)* 6.7 6.4 6.2 5.9 6.3

Public Schools (n=47) 6.8 6.7 6.4 6.7 6.7

Public Transport (n=41) 7.5 7 6.3 6.7 7.2


State Emergency Services (n=5)* 8 7.1 7.9 9 8

TAFE Services (n=44) 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.3 6.8

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=143) 7.5 7 7.1 6.8 7.1

Water Supply (n=47) 7.1 6.8 6.4 6.8 6.9


85

Business





Variation in businesses’ views of performance against goals across servicesDue to low sample sizes for most services, data is to be viewed as indicative only.


Customers are asked “Thinking about the services they provide overall, how would rate [a particular government service] in SA on the following?”

Figure 16: Performance of SA Government services against goals



Services

Transparency Access to information Privacy

Demonstrate openness and


making

Encourage public participation

in decision making

Is making it easier to access

information about their

services

Is making best use of online

services to improve efficiency

for customers

Safeguard privacy and

confidentiality



Art Galleries and Museums (n=25)* 8.3 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.2

Business Advisory Services (n=21)* 5.8 6.1 6.6 6.2 7.4

Child Welfare Services (n=22)* 5.7 4.8 5.8 5.7 6.9

Consumer Affairs (n=22)* 7.3 6.8 7.0 7.4 7.2

Courts (n=11)* 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 9.2


Documentation Services (n=29)* 6.6 5.7 6.4 6.1 6.8

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=17)* 6.5 7.4 6.5 6.6 7.1

Fire Brigades (n=23)* 7.1 6.9 6.6 6.4 8.5

Major Roads (n=22)* 6.3 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.1

Police (n=53) 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.5

Prisons (n=9)* 6.6 6.8 6.9 5.9 7.0


Public Housing (n=23)* 6.1 5.8 5.9 6.4 7.0

Public Schools (n=47) 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 7.5



State Emergency Services (n=5)* 7.9 7.9 9.8 9.8 8.9

TAFE Services (n=44) 6.4 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.3

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=143) 7.2 6.1 7.6 7.6 7.8

Water Supply (n=47) 6.9 6.5 7.1 7.3 7.2


86

OFFICIAL



Appendix 2: Contact method preference by service



87

Consumer





Preferred contact methods to interact with SA Government services


Consumers have different contact preferences for different types of services. Vehicle Licensing and Registration, Documentation Services and

Environment and Wildlife Protection are the top 5 services (with n>30) where online is the preferred contact method. Vehicle Licensing and

Registration has seen a significant increase in preference for online compared to 2019.

Figure 17: Breakdown of most preferred contact methods across services

Note: Each respondent could select any number of contact methods

Base: 2020 Consumers (n=3,295) 2019 Consumers (n=3,170) Legend: top 5 services for each contact method

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services* 46% 55% 17% 0% 0% 19%

Vehicle Licensing and Registration 43% 53% 27% 21% 8% 5%

Documentation Services 38% 51% 17% 10% 10% 7%

Environment and Wildlife Protection 21% 36% 27% 20% 19% 25%

Water Supply 27% 33% 4% 7% 37% 30%

Public Transport 27% 31% 35% 36% 17% 11%

Major Roads 29% 26% 19% 26% 19% 20%

Business Advisory Services 22% 26% 21% 19% 15% 16%

TAFE Services 20% 22% 21% 21% 17% 11%

Courts 11% 18% 44% 47% 23% 15%

Consumer Affairs 26% 17% 13% 12% 26% 49%

Art Galleries and Museums 18% 16% 60% 55% 6% 5%

Child Welfare Services 14% 15% 19% 30% 43% 37%

Ambulance Services 13% 15% 23% 21% 45% 50%

Disability Services 9% 15% 32% 32% 37% 30%

State Emergency Services 6% 14% 31% 23% 39% 45%

Services for Older People 11% 12% 28% 37% 46% 38%

Police 10% 11% 47% 55% 30% 22%

Public Housing 7% 10% 39% 25% 39% 46%

Public Schools 9% 8% 42% 45% 20% 21%

Fire Brigades* 8% 7% 44% 57% 29% 26%

Prisons 11% 7% 40% 33% 27% 45%

Public Hospitals 6% 6% 53% 60% 29% 19%

ServicesOnline In person, face-to-face

Phone (landline or mobile phone

calls, text message)

+10% pts

+15% pts

+13% pts

88

Business






Preferred contact methods to interact with SA Government servicesPreference for online has increased significantly for those who interacted with Vehicle Licensing and Registration, while preference for ‘in person’

has decreased. Public Transport has also seen a significant increase in preference for online, while preference for ‘in person’ has decreased.

Figure 18: Breakdown of most commonly preferred contact methods across services

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020



Business Advisory Services* 19% 36% 19% 21% 26% 28%

Documentation Services* 52% 28% 23% 38% 0% 13%

Child Welfare Services* 0% 28% 24% 19% 38% 34%

Consumer Affairs* 30% 25% 6% 16% 23% 17%

Courts* 0% 25% 61% 49% 9% 1%

Major Roads* 49% 22% 48% 7% 1% 8%

Water Supply 20% 22% 3% 11% 27% 34%

TAFE Services 6% 20% 23% 20% 18% 9%

Public Housing* 0% 15% 83% 29% 15% 35%

Environment and Wildlife Protection* 12% 14% 13% 1% 9% 28%



Art Galleries and Museums* 0% 9% 17% 25% 41% 18%

Public Schools 4% 9% 45% 45% 26% 14%



Police 7% 4% 56% 51% 29% 37%

Fire Brigades* 0% 1% 2% 11% 78% 21%


Prisons* 0% 0% 34% 0% 34% 65%

State Emergency Services* 0% 0% 58% 0% 14% 95%

Online In person, face-to-facePhone (landline or mobile phone

calls, text message)Services

Note: Each respondent could select one preferred contact method

Base: 2020 Business (n=759) 2019 Business (n=743)

Legend: top 5 services for each contact method

89

+16% pts

+14% pts

Consumer





Contact methods used to interact with SA Government services


Environment and Wildlife Protection, TAFE Services and Disability Services have seen the highest growth in usage of online channels compared

to 2019, though the shifts are not significant.

Figure 19: Breakdown of most used contact methods across services

Note: Each respondent could select any number of contact methods

Base: 2020 Consumers (n=3,391) 2019 Consumers (n=3,297)

Services

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020

TAFE Services 50% 61% 54% 46% 43% 41%


Business Advisory Services 60% 61% 60% 31% 50% 66%


Documentation Services 58% 51% 51% 23% 31% 29%

Environment and Wildlife Protection 18% 50% 60% 36% 28% 30%

Water Supply 34% 41% 4% 9% 51% 45%


Consumer Affairs 34% 37% 25% 17% 63% 58%


Courts 26% 32% 80% 69% 44% 45%

Public Schools 25% 31% 80% 71% 44% 55%


Art Galleries and Museums 18% 23% 77% 79% 8% 10%

Child Welfare Services 14% 22% 57% 42% 64% 65%

Major Roads 21% 22% 30% 32% 23% 17%

Fire Brigades* 3% 16% 74% 72% 19% 38%

Public Housing 12% 15% 62% 47% 66% 74%


Police 6% 10% 80% 78% 39% 40%

Prisons 20% 9% 59% 54% 41% 65%

State Emergency Services 14% 9% 62% 38% 46% 47%


Online In person, face-to-facePhone (landline or mobile phone


Legend: top 5 services for each contact method

+32% pts

90

+11% pts

+11% pts

Business






Contact methods used to interact with SA Government servicesVehicle Licensing and Registration has seen a significant increase in the use of online methods of contact. Other services that have seen large

increase in use of online services have sample size of less than 30 and not statistically reliable.

Figure 20: Breakdown of most used contact methods across services

Legend: top 5 services for each contact methodNote: Each respondent could select one preferred contact method

Base: 2020 Business (n=757) 2019 Business (n=762)

Services

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020

State Emergency Services* 0% 89% 58% 11% 45% 95%

Courts* 28% 75% 74% 50% 57% 26%

Documentation Services* 65% 66% 23% 39% 1% 59%


Consumer Affairs* 50% 50% 6% 25% 39% 58%

Business Advisory Services* 43% 50% 36% 21% 45% 65%

TAFE Services 34% 43% 47% 51% 30% 40%


Water Supply 29% 37% 11% 11% 47% 61%


Child Welfare Services* 26% 33% 50% 26% 62% 60%

Public Schools 7% 30% 62% 68% 42% 42%

Environment and Wildlife Protection* 54% 30% 54% 57% 71% 57%

Major Roads* 2% 28% 45% 43% 5% 44%

Public Housing* 42% 23% 57% 37% 16% 65%





Art Galleries and Museums* 17% 17% 75% 74% 57% 34%

Prisons* 17% 2% 83% 2% 50% 98%

Fire Brigades* 0% 0% 23% 80% 97% 79%

Police 7% 0% 85% 84% 41% 44%

Online In person, face-to-faceTelephone (landline or mobile phone


91

+18% pts

Consumer Business





Contact methods used and preferred to interact with SA Government servicesFor many services, the most frequently used channel for interacting with that service is also the most preferred channel.

Figure 21: Most common contact methods used and preferred by 2020 consumers and businesses across services

Services

Consumers Businesses

Most used channel(s) Preferred channel Most used channel(s) Preferred channel

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services Online, 'In person' Online Online, Phone 'In person'

Ambulance Services Phone, 'In person' Phone Phone, 'In person' Phone

Art Galleries and Museums Online, 'In person' 'In person' Phone, 'In person' 'In person'

Business Advisory Services Online, Phone Online Online, Phone Online

Child Welfare Services Phone, 'In person' Phone Online, Phone Phone

Consumer Affairs Online, Phone Phone Online, Phone Online

Courts Phone, 'In person' 'In person' Online, 'In person' 'In person'

Disability Services Phone, 'In person' 'In person' Online, Phone 'In person'

Documentation Services Online, 'In person' Online Online, Phone 'In person'

Environment and Wildlife Protection Online, 'In person' Online Phone, 'In person' Phone

Fire Brigades Phone, 'In person' 'In person' Phone, 'In person' Phone

Major Roads Online, 'In person' Online Phone, 'In person' Online

Police Phone, 'In person' 'In person' Phone, 'In person' 'In person'

Prisons Phone, 'In person' Phone Phone, 'In person' Phone

Public Hospitals Phone, 'In person' 'In person' Phone, 'In person' 'In person'

Public Housing Phone, 'In person' Phone Phone, 'In person' Phone

Public Schools Phone, 'In person' 'In person' Phone, 'In person' 'In person'

Public Transport Online, 'In person' Online Phone, 'In person' Online

Services for Older People Phone, 'In person' Phone Phone, 'In person' 'In person'

State Emergency Services Phone, 'In person' Phone Online, Phone Phone

TAFE Services Phone, 'In person' Online Online, 'In person' 'In person'

Vehicle Licensing and Registration Online, 'In person' Online Online, 'In person' Online

Water Supply Online, Phone Online Online, Phone Phone

92

Consumer





Consumer satisfaction of online attributes across services


Of the services with sufficient sample size, Vehicle Licensing and Registration has the highest average satisfaction score with the overall

experience of using the website or app for consumers.

Figure 22: Performance of SA Government services against each of the online attributes

Customers were asked “Thinking about your experience interacting with SA [service] online in the last 12 months, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the

following statements?” on a scale of 1, strongly disagree to 10 strongly agree

Services

Consumer

The content

was current and

accurate

I trust my

information was

handled

securely

The format of

content met my

access

requirements

Useful and

allowed me to

do everything I

needed to do

Content and

support was

sufficient to

answer my

questions

Easy to find

what I was

looking for

I was satisfied

with the overall

experience of

using the

website/ app

I achieved the

outcome by

using the

services

available online

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=7*) 8.6 8.0 8.4 7.6 7.9 8.6 8.3 7.9

Ambulance Services (n=21*) 9.1 8.4 8.8 8.8 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.8

Art Galleries and Museums (n=21*) 8.8 8.5 8.3 8.5 8.3 8.3 8.8 8.6

Business Advisory Services (n=18*) 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.1 8.0 7.8 8.1 8.1

Child Welfare Services (n=8*) 8.0 8.9 7.8 8.1 7.1 7.6 7.5 7.9

Consumer Affairs (n=21*) 7.8 8.2 7.8 7.2 6.7 6.8 7.3 6.8

Courts (n=31) 6.9 7.4 6.9 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.8 6.9

Disability Services (n=41) 6.8 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.5 6.1 6.7 6.0

Documentation Services (n=26*) 7.3 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.9

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=22*) 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.1 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.6

Fire Brigades (n=4*) 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.6 8.3

Major Roads (n=22*) 8.2 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.5 7.9 7.9

Police (n=16*) 8.3 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.5

Prisons (n=3*) 5.5 6.3 6.1 4.8 6.0 4.8 5.9 5.5

Public Hospitals (n=15*) 7.2 7.6 6.7 6.4 6.8 6.8 6.4 6.7

Public Housing (n=14*) 6.0 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.0 6.3 6.3 5.8

Public Schools (n=46) 7.4 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.1

Public Transport (n=62) 7.8 7.9 8.1 7.6 7.5 7.1 7.5 7.9

Services for Older People (n=45*) 7.2 7.3 7.0 6.9 6.5 6.6 6.8 7.0

State Emergency Services (n=4*) 9.4 9.1 9.1 9.4 8.7 9.4 9.1 9.1

TAFE Services (n=58) 7.3 7.8 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=462) 8.7 8.5 8.6 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.4 8.6

Water Supply (n=87) 8.3 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.8 8.1 8.2 8.3

Total 8.1 8.1 8.1 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.9 8

93

Business





Business satisfaction of online attributes across services


Of the services with sufficient sample size, Vehicle Licensing and Registration has the highest average satisfaction score with the overall

experience of using the website or app for businesses.

Figure 23: Performance of SA Government services against each of the online attributes

Customers were asked “Thinking about your experience interacting with SA [service] online in the last 12 months, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the

following statements?” on a scale of 1, strongly disagree to 10 strongly agree

Services

Business

The content was

current and

accurate

I trust my

information was

handled

securely

The format of

content met my

access

requirements

Useful and

allowed me to

do everything I

needed to do

Content and

support was

sufficient to

answer my

questions

Easy to find

what I was

looking for

I was satisfied

with the overall

experience of

using the

website/ app

I achieved the

outcome by

using the

services

available online

Agricultural Advice and Funding Services (n=3*) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 8.5 8.5

Ambulance Services (n=2*) 7.5 8.5 6.5 4.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 5.5

Art Galleries and Museums (n=4*) 6.5 5.2 6.5 6.5 6.9 7.0 6.5 6.0

Business Advisory Services (n=12*) 8.0 8.3 8.0 7.7 8.4 6.7 8.0 8.0

Child Welfare Services (n=8*) 6.4 7.0 7.2 6.4 6.6 7.0 6.8 7.4

Consumer Affairs (n=10*) 8.0 8.0 7.9 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.9

Courts (n=6*) 8.4 8.0 7.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 6.9 8.0

Disability Services (n=14*) 8.0 8.3 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.6

Documentation Services (n=20*) 7.8 8.1 7.7 7.5 7.1 7.4 8.1 7.6

Environment and Wildlife Protection (n=8*) 7.4 6.6 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.3 7.9 8.8

Fire Brigades (n= 1*) 5.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 9.0 6.0

Major Roads (n=6*) 8.2 8.0 7.7 7.0 7.8 7.5 7.8 7.2

Police (n=3*) 9.0 10 5.7 5.3 6.0 6.7 6.3 5.7

Public Hospitals (n=7*) 9.3 6.7 7.0 7.9 7.0 6.3 6.3 6.7

Public Housing (n=5*) 7.3 6.8 6.1 6.5 7.3 5.9 6.9 6.8

Public Schools (n=14*) 7.2 7.4 7.7 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.4

Public Transport (n=8*) 8.0 9.2 7.0 7.9 7.0 8.0 8.3 7.3

Services for Older People (n=8*) 6.5 6.4 7.2 5.9 7.4 6.3 7.0 8.0

State Emergency Services (n=1*) 10.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 7.0 9.0

TAFE Services (n=22*) 7.5 7.0 7.4 7.1 6.6 6.6 7.1 7.4

Vehicle Licensing and Registration (n=82) 8.6 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.6 8.6

Water Supply (n=21*) 7.8 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.8 7.6 7.8

Total 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.8 7.9

94

OFFICIAL



Appendix 3: Jurisdictional comparison



95

Consumer





Consumers’ satisfaction by services across jurisdictionsFire Brigades*, Art Galleries and Museums, Environment and Wildlife Protection and Police in SA have the highest average satisfaction scores

compared to all other jurisdictions.


Figure 24: Average customer satisfaction by service across jurisdictions

6.8

6.3

6.9

6.0

7.3

7.5

7.6

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.8

7.9

7.5

8.2

7.4

7.8

8.1

8.0

8.7

8.7

8.5

8.9

9.0

8.0

Courts (n=152)


Child Protection Services(n=67)

Prisons (n=47)

Major Roads (n=334)



Agricultural Advice andFunding Services (n=27*)



Business AdvisoryServices (n=26*)


Police (n=338)

Documentation Services(n=109)

Environment and WildlifeProtection (n=80)

Services for Older People(n=261)



Car and Boat Registration(n=1,058)

State Emergency Services(n=88)

State owned Art Galleriesand Museums (n=209)

Fire Brigades (n=120)

Ambulance Services(n=330)

Total (n=6,783)

7.4

6.3

5.2

3.7

6.7

6.6

7.7

8.0

7.4

7.3

8.7

7.6

7.0

8.2

7.1

7.7

7.8

8.0

8.2

8.0

8.4

8.2

9.0

7.7

Courts (n=18*)



Prisons (n=9*)

Major Roads (n=125)








Police (n=63)

Documentation Services(n=2*)

Environment and WildlifeProtection (n=19*)




Car and Boat Registration(n=353)

State EmergencyServices (n=10*)




Total (n=3,446)

8.5

6.6

5.9

7.2

6.8

8.0

7.4

8.0

6.9

7.7

6.0

7.7

7.1

8.0

7.5

7.7

8.1

8.0

8.2

7.9

8.4

7.8

9.3

7.9

Courts (n=17*)



Prisons (n=7*)

Major Roads (n=109)








Police (n=58)

Documentation Services(n=1*)

Environment and WildlifeProtection (n=23*)


Water Supply (n=79)







Total (n=3,427)

SA NSW VIC QLD

Highest satisfaction across jurisdictions

6.3

6.4

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.9

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.6

7.6

7.6

7.7

7.7

7.9

8.0

8.2

8.3

8.8

9.0

9.2

7.8

Courts (n=91)


Child Welfare Services(n=41)

Prisons (n=31)

Major Roads (n=94)






Business AdvisoryServices (n=32)


Police (n=209)

Documentation Services(n=49)

Environment and WildlifeProtection (n=44)




Vehicle Licensing andRegistration (n=871)

State Emergency Services(n=31)

Art Galleries andMuseums (n=178)



Total (n=3,391)

96

Business





Businesses’ satisfaction by services across jurisdictionsDue to low sample sizes for most of the services, data is to be viewed as indicative only.


Figure 25: Average customer satisfaction by service across jurisdictions

6.2

6.3

6.7

6.7

7.0

7.2

7.3

7.3

7.3

7.4

7.4

7.5

7.5

7.7

7.8

7.8

8.0

8.0

8.1

8.1

8.2

8.6

8.8

7.5


Major Roads (n=22*)

Child Welfare Services(n=22*)

Docu Services (n=29*)


Prisons (n=9*)




Water Supply (n=47)




Environment and Wildlife(n=17*)


Vehicle Licensing andRegistration (n=143)

Agri. Advice & Funding(n=10*)

State Emergency Services(n=5*)

Police (n=53)

Art Galleries & Museums(n=25*)

Courts (n=11*)



Total (n=770)

6.6

7.8

6.0

8.3

7.4

6.3

7.5

7.5

7.7

7.8

7.6

7.4

7.4

7.3

7.5

8.5

8.2

8.0

7.6

7.7

7.5

8.6

8.7

7.7


Major Roads (n=49)


Docu Services (n=58)


Prisons (n=18*)

Business AdvisoryServices (n=55)











State Emergency Services(n=20*)

Police (n=89)

(State) Art Galleries &Museums (n=26*)

Courts (n=46)

Fire Brigades (n=40)


Total (n=1,548)

5.0

6.1

6.0

6.9

7.0

7.7

7.9

8.0

8.0

8.1

7.3

7.4

6.1

7.5

7.7

7.8

7.7

6.9

7.8

8.4

7.4

8.0

8.3

7.5


Major Roads (n=16*)

Child Protection Services(n=23*)



Prisons (n=14*)




Water Supply (n=57)



Disability Services(n=27*)






Police (n=57)


Courts (n=35)



Total (n=782)

7.1

7.6

6.1

7.7

7.0

7.1

7.6

7.5

7.9

8.0

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.0

7.6

7.8

7.0

6.3

7.1

6.3

5.9

7.3

9.3

7.5


Major Roads (n=37)

Child Protection Services(n=27*)



Prisons (n=9*)




Water Supply (n=41)







Agri. Advice & FundingServices (n=21*)


Police (n=56)


Courts (n=22*)



Total (n=776)

SA NSW VIC QLD

Highest satisfaction across jurisdictions 97

OFFICIAL



Appendix 4: Demographics



98

Consumer






Figure 26: Satisfaction, expectation, and ideal service by age – Consumer

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

+0.2

+0.3

Please imagine an ideal service. How well do you think each

service compares to that ideal service?

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

6%

8%

11%

9%

11%

11%

10%

17%

19%

19%

19%

21%

84%

74%

70%

72%

70%

68%

8.2

7.6

7.2

7.3

7.2

7.1

65+(n=877)

55-64(n=626)

45-54(n=447)

35-44(n=494)

25-34(n=560)

18-24(n=267)


/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

Satisfaction Expectation Ideal service

Thinking about your experiences in the last 12 months, how

satisfied would you say you are with each of the following

services?

How would you rate your expectation of the overall quality of

service?

% respondents Avg.% respondents Avg.% respondents Avg.

Base: Consumers

(n=3,391)Base: Consumers

(n=3,356)

Base: Consumers

(n=3,271)

+0.2

+0.1

-

+0.3

+0.2

+0.1

+0.3

5%

6%

8%

9%

10%

10%

6%

12%

16%

16%

12%

21%

89%

82%

76%

75%

78%

69%

8.5

8.0

7.6

7.5

7.5

7.3

65+(n=906)

55-64(n=653)

45-54(n=467)

35-44(n=507)

25-34(n=581)

18-24(n=277)


4%

6%

7%

6%

9%

8%

6%

10%

13%

16%

11%

19%

91%

83%

79%

78%

81%

73%

8.5

8.1

7.7

7.6

7.7

7.4

65+(n=896)

55-64(n=647)

45-54(n=463)

35-44(n=504)

25-34(n=579)

18-24(n=267)

Low(1-4) Neutral (5-6) High (7-10)

+0.4

+0.3

-

+0.2

+0.1

-0.2

+0.1

+0.1

+0.5

+0.4

Expectation gap (satisfaction – expectation)Base: Consumers

(n=3,356)

-0.06

-0.08

-0.03

-0.16

-0.16

-0.08

65+ (n=896)

55-64 (n=647)

45-54 (n=463)

35-44 (n=504)

25-34 (n=579)

18-24 (n=267)

Change

since 2019

+0.25

+0.21

+0.13

+0.20

+0.12

+0.17

Top-line performance – consumers by ageSatisfaction scores have increased significantly for 25-34 years and 65+ year old consumers. Ideal service scores have increased significantly for

35-44 years and 65+ year old consumers. All three headline measures have remained statistically stable across the remaining age cohorts.

Younger cohorts (below the age of 44) are less satisfied than the older cohorts.

99




Consumer





/10

/10

/10

/10-0.1

+0.2

Top-line performance – consumers by genderAll three headline measures for consumers have seen significant increase across both the genders with the exception of expectation score for

females.


Figure 27: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal service by gender - Consumer

/10

/10



9%

9%

18%

15%

73%

76%

7.5

7.5

Female(n=1,750)

Male(n=1,521)


Neutral (5-6)





services?


service?

% respondents% respondents Avg.

Base: Consumers


(n=3,356)

Base: Consumers

(n=3,271)

8%

8%

12%

14%

80%

79%

7.9

7.7

Female(n=1,823)

Male(n=1,568)


6%

7%

12%

11%

82%

82%

7.9

7.9

Female(n=1,803)

Male(n=1,553)


+0.3


(n=3,356)

Change

since 2019

+0.09

+0.26

Avg. Avg.% respondents

+0.4

+0.2 +0.2

-0.02

-0.17

Female(n=1,803)

Male(n=1,553)

100




Consumer





/10

/10

/106%

8%

6%

14%

5%

12%

81%

87%

81%

8.0

8.2

7.8

Rural(n=279)

Regional(n=359)

Metro(n=2,718)


Top-line performance – consumers by regionSatisfaction score and ideal service score have seen a significant increase amongst consumers in metro areas.


Figure 28: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal service by region - Consumer






services?


service?


Base: Consumers


(n=3,356)

Base: Consumers

(n=3,271)

-

+0.1

+0.3


(n=3,356)

Change

since 2019

+0.17

+0.01

+0.37


+0.4

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

/107%

7%

10%

21%

14%

17%

72%

79%

74%

7.6

7.6

7.4

Rural(n=269)

Regional(n=346)

Metro(n=2,656)


Neutral (5-6)


+0.4

+0.1

+0.1

-+0.3

-0.1

-0.05

-0.07

-0.10

Rural (n=279)

Regional (n=359)

Metro (n=2,718)

8%

7%

8%

13%

7%

14%

79%

86%

78%

7.9

8.1

7.7

Rural(n=283)

Regional(n=364)

Metro(n=2,744)


101




Consumer







services?


service?

Base: Consumers

(n=2,847)


(n=2,847)

Change

since 2019

-0.01

-0.12

-0.13

$150,000+ (n=360)

$50,001 to $150,000 (n=1,331)

Up to $50,000 (n=1,156)

/10

/10

/105%

5%

7%

14%

11%

12%

81%

84%

81%

7.8

7.9

7.9

$150,000+(n=360)

$50,001 to$150,000(n=1,331)

Up to$50,000

(n=1,156)


Top-line performance – consumers by incomeSatisfaction score and ideal service score have seen a significant increase amongst consumers in income group ‘Up to $50,000’ .


** Base size excludes ‘don’t know’ and ‘prefer not to say’

Figure 29: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal service by income - Consumer





Base: Consumers

(n=2,865)**Base: Consumers

(n=2,785)

-

+0.1

+0.3

+0.19

+0.10

+0.29


+0.4

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

/109%

8%

10%

19%

17%

17%

72%

76%

73%

7.3

7.5

7.5

$150,000+(n=344)

$50,001 to$150,000(n=1,311)

Up to $50,000(n=1,130)


Neutral (5-6)


+0.4

+0.1

+0.1

-

+0.3

+0.2

8%

7%

9%

10%

12%

14%

82%

81%

77%

7.8

7.8

7.8

$150,000+(n=360)

$50,001 to$150,000(n=1,338)

Up to$50,000

(n=1,167)

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

102




Consumer





10%

14%

11%

5%

9%

14%

10%

12%

8%

8%

5%

16%

17%

15%

7%

16%

6%

15%

14%

16%

17%

14%

74%

70%

74%

88%

76%

81%

75%

74%

76%

74%

81%

7.4

7.1

7.5

8.4

7.8

7.9

7.4

7.5

7.8

7.5

7.7

Unemployed (n=214)

Student (n=178)

Self-employed/business owner (n=186)

Retired (n=903)

Other (n=175)

On maternity/paternity leave(n=44)

Not working (n=183)

Full time domestic duties(n=276)

Employed part time (n=321)

Employed on a casual basis(n=181)

Employed full time (n=636)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

Top-line performance – consumers by employment statusSatisfaction score and ideal service score have seen a significant increase amongst consumers who are employed full time.


Figure 30: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal service by employment status - Consumer






services?


service?

% respondents Avg.

Base: Consumers


(n=3,356)

Base: Consumers

(n=3,271)

+0.2

+0.3

8%

10%

10%

4%

11%

14%

14%

8%

6%

8%

4%

15%

15%

12%

7%

10%

2%

11%

14%

17%

14%

12%

77%

75%

78%

89%

79%

84%

76%

78%

77%

78%

84%

7.6

7.4

7.7

8.4

7.8

7.9

7.4

7.6

7.8

7.7

7.8

Unemployed (n=238)

Student (n=157)


Retired (n=928)

Other (n=151)

On maternity/paternity leave (n=26)

Not working (n=101)


Employed parttime (n=356)

Employed on a casualbasis (n=215)

Employed fulltime (n=822)

Low(1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

High (7-10)

% respondents Avg.

10%

13%

15%

7%

12%

9%

12%

8%

10%

12%

7%

24%

22%

15%

10%

20%

19%

20%

17%

19%

22%

17%

65%

65%

70%

84%

67%

71%

68%

75%

71%

66%

76%

7.1

7.0

7.2

8.1

7.3

7.4

6.9

7.4

7.4

7.1

7.5

Unemployed (n=235)

Student (n=153)


Retired (n=910)

Other (n=145)


Not working (n=94)


Employed parttime (n=342)

Employed on a casualbasis (n=208)

Employed fulltime (n=807)


Neutral (5-6)


% respondents Avg.

+0.3

+0.2

+0.2

+0.1

+0.1

+0.3

+0.9

+0.2

-

-0.3

+0.8

+0.2

+0.1

-

-0.1

-0.2

-0.7

+0.3

-0.1

-0.1

+0.4

-

-

+0.5

-0.3

+0.3

+0.6

+0.3

+0.2

+0.8

-


(n=3,356)

Change

since 2019

-0.18-0.27

-0.18

-0.06

0.09

0.01

0.01

-0.07

-0.03

-0.13

-0.11

Unemployed (n=238)

Student (n=157)


Retired (n=928)

Other (n=151)


Not working (n=101)

Full time domestic duties (n=164)

Employed part time (n=356)

Employed on a casual basis (n=215)

Employed full time (n=822) +0.10

+0.10

+0.25

+0.24

+0.44

+0.27

+0.31

+0.06

+0.79

+0.16

+0.10

103




Business





Top-line performance – businesses by industryExpectation and ideal service scores for business have increased significantly for ‘Professional, scientific and technical se rvices’ and ‘Financial

and insurance services’.

Figure 31: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal service by industry - Business






services?


service?

% respondents

Base: Business

(n=770)Base: Business


(n=744)

% respondentsAvg.

% respondents

*Note: Very small number of responses (n<=30) and therefore significance testing has not been

undertaken as statistical validity could not be maintained. This data has been included for illustrative

purposes only and shouldn’t be used to make business or strategic decisions

Avg.

+2.3+2.1

+1.0

76%

13%

7%

5%

17%

0%

0%

1%

15%

32%

0%

10%

9%

9%

3%

14%

1%

2%

18%

9%

8%

0%

14%

20%

55%

71%

55%

100%

70%

85%

78%

82%

80%

78%

98%

98%

82%

90%

92%

100%

86%

93%

5.0

5.8

6.8

6.9

7.1

7.4

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.6

7.8

7.9

7.9

8.0

8.0

8.3

8.4

8.4

Electricity, gas, water and wasteservices (n=14*)

Mining (n=11*)

Transport, postal andwarehousing (n=24*)

Manufacturing (n=41)

Public administration and safety(n=9*)

Health care and social assistance(n=117)

Administrative and supportservices (n=43)

Agriculture, forestry and fishing(n=21*)

Accommodation and foodservices (n=67)

Information media andtelecommunications (n=9*)

Education and training (n=76)

Wholesale Trade (n=14)

Professional, scientific andtechnical services (n=40)

Construction (n=44)

Retail Trade (n=92)

Others (n=68)

Arts and recreation services(n=24*)

Financial and insurance services(n=32)

Rental, hiring and real estateservices (n=12*)

Low (1-4) Neutral (5-6)

High (7-10)

+0.8

Avg.

+2.0

47%

2%

20%

13%

13%

20%

7%

4%

1%

6%

4%

81%

0%

14%

37%

19%

10%

31%

6%

24%

0%

15%

21%

7%

26%

12%

3%

17%

15%

49%

17%

80%

59%

50%

69%

70%

60%

84%

69%

100%

85%

74%

92%

73%

82%

97%

82%

85%

6.0

6.5

6.6

6.8

6.8

6.9

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.3

7.5

7.8

7.9

8.0

8.2

8.2

Mining (n=11*)



Transport, postal and warehousing(n=24*)


Education and training (n=72*)



Administrative and support services(n=42)

Accommodation and food services(n=65)



Retail Trade (n=93)

Wholesale Trade (n=14*)

Construction (n=44)


Professional, scientific andtechnical services (n=38)

Others (n=65)

Arts and recreation services(n=24*)


8%

13%

0%

7%

12%

0%

1%

8%

1%

13%

7%

45%

9%

17%

6%

10%

34%

34%

32%

3%

8%

9%

3%

8%

15%

0%

1%

79%

80%

55%

91%

76%

81%

97%

82%

60%

64%

57%

53%

84%

91%

97%

92%

80%

73%

99%

7.5

7.2

7.4

8.3

7.8

7.4

8.1

8.4

7.0

7.7

7.1

6.2

7.9

7.8

7.1

8.5

7.6

6.3

8.0

Accommodation and food services(n=67)

Administrative and support services(n=43)


Arts and recreation services (n=24*)

Construction (n=44)

Education and training (n=76)






Mining (n=11*)

Others (n=70)

Professional, scientific and technicalservices (n=40)



Retail Trade (n=96)

Transport, postal and warehousing(n=24*)

Wholesale Trade (n=14*)


Satisfied (7-10)

104




Business





+0.4

-0.3

+0.2

+0.5

/10

/10

/10

/1010%

6%

7%

6%

18%

23%

20%

15%

72%

71%

73%

79%

7.2

7.3

7.3

7.7

NotSpecified

Up to$50,000(n=205)

$50,001 to$500,000(n=198)

$500,001+(n=137)


Neutral (5-6)


+0.1

+0.1

-0.2

+0.2

/10

/10

/10

/10

Top-line performance – businesses by organisation revenueSmaller businesses (up to $50,000 in revenue) have the lowest satisfaction and expectation compared to larger businesses.


Figure 32: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal service by organisation revenue - Business






services?


service?


Base: Business


(n=758)

Base: Business

(n=744)


-0.1

+0.4

+0.3

+0.6

/10

/10

/10

/107%

6%

3%

7%

9%

13%

16%

8%

84%

82%

81%

85%

7.8

7.6

7.7

7.8

NotSpecified(n=208)

Up to$50,000(n=207)

$50,001 to$500,000(n=205)

$500,001 +(n=138)

Low (1-4) Neutral (5-6) High (7-10)

9%

7%

5%

8%

18%

15%

19%

9%

73%

78%

76%

83%

7.4

7.5

7.6

8.0

NotSpecified(n=218)

Up to$50,000(n=209)

$50,001 to$500,000(n=205)

$500,001 +(n=138)


-0.33

-0.06

-0.15

0.17

Not specified (n=208)

Up to $50,000 (n=207)

$50,001 to $500,000 (n=205)

$500,001+ (n=138)

Expectation gap (satisfaction – expectation)Base: Business

(n=758)

105




Business





Top-line performance – businesses by organisation sizeBusinesses with 200+ employees have the highest satisfaction, expectation and comparison to ideal service scores.


Figure 33: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal service by organisation size - Business






services?


service?


Base: Business


(n=758)

Base: Business

(n=744)


/10

/10

/10

/10

Expectation gap (satisfaction – expectation)Base: Business

(n=758)

+0.7

+0.8

+0.5

+0.2

/10/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

/10

+0.3

+0.4

+0.1

+0.4

+0.4

-0.1

+0.7

5%

6%

6%

4%

13%

11%

14%

15%

82%

83%

80%

80%

7.6

7.8

7.8

7.9

5 or less(n=177)

6-19(n=193)

20-199(n=224)

200+(n=164)


9%

5%

8%

10%

23%

18%

16%

18%

68%

76%

76%

72%

7.3

7.3

7.4

7.4

5 or less(n=172)

6-19(n=190)

20-199(n=219)

200+(n=163)

Not close to ideal (1-4)Neutral (5-6)Close to ideal (7-10)

-0.12

-0.08

-0.13

-0.12

5 or less (n=177)

6-19 (n=193)

20-199 (n=224)

200+ (n=164)

9%

6%

5%

6%

14%

18%

15%

16%

76%

76%

79%

78%

7.5

7.6

7.6

7.8

5 or less(n=178)

6-19(n=197)

20-199(n=228)

200+(n=167)


Satisfied (7-10)

+0.1

106




Business





/10

/10

/10 +0.4

-0.2

+0.3

Top-line performance – businesses by regionAll three headline measures have remained statistically stable across all the regions. Businesses in the rural regions have a positive expectation

gap in 2020.


Figure 34: Satisfaction, expectation and ideal service by region - Business






services?


service?


Base: Business


(n=758)

Base: Business

(n=744)


Expectation gap (satisfaction – expectation)Base: Business (n=758)

6%

10%

7%

17%

23%

15%

77%

67%

78%

7.7

7.5

7.5

Rural(n=65)

Regional(n=62)

Metro(n=643)

Dissatisfied (1-4)

Neutral (5-6)

Satisfied (7-10)

/10

/10

/10

+0.4

-

+0.5

/10

/10

/10

-0.3

-0.1

+0.1

4%

9%

5%

17%

12%

11%

79%

79%

84%

Rural(n=62)

Regional (n=60)

Metro(n=636)


6%

12%

7%

13%

9%

23%

81%

79%

70%

7.3

7.7

7.3

Rural(n=61)

Regional(n=59)

Metro(n=624)


Neutral (5-6)


0.1

-0.3

-0.1

Rural (n=62)

Regional (n=60)

Metro (n=636)

Change

since 2019

+0.20

+0.24

+0.49

107




OFFICIAL



Appendix 5: Cluster dashboards

108





Consumer Respondent Profile

Gender: Age: Region:

Consumers (n=197)

Consumer Interaction

Contact method used (N.B. Can use more than one) Contact method preferred

Summary: 2020 results in focus – Key Profiling

Region:

Business (n=26*)

Annual turnover:

Business Interaction


Business size:

Business Respondent Profile

Arts & LeisureServices: Art Galleries and MuseumsReach: 10% of consumers and 5% of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Arts and Leisure in the last 12 months

YoY - C YoY - BProfiling

Most common interactions (Not Applicable)


*Note: Small sample size (n<30), should be interpreted with caution

74%

1%

34% 27%17%

0%

Face to face Mail/Fax Telephone Email Online Third parties

25%

0%

18%

48%

9%0%


Under 20 staff97%

20+ staff3%

58%

25%1%

16%

Up to $50K $50K-$500K $500K+ Not specified

Metro90%

Regional10%

Rural0%

79%

4% 10% 17% 23%4%


54%

2% 4%

22%16%

0%


Male60%

Female40%

38%26%

17% 19%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+Metro83%

Regional8%

Rural9%

109





Cluster: Arts and LeisureReach: 10% of consumers in 2020 and 13% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Art Galleries and Museums in the last 12 months

Employee

attributesGoalsProcessesLegend:

Driver Performance & Importance (Year-on-Year) – For Consumers

Values

Overall Performance1

Dashboard 1 of 2: Comparison of results year-on-year - ConsumersC

on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re

Satisfaction: (out of 10)Sample: Expectation: (out of 10) Comparison to ideal: (out of 10)

Co

nsu

mer

2020 - 1972019 - 1212018 - 129

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government

drivers of satisfaction

Profiling

Art Galleries and Museums


Range of historicValues(2016-20)

Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1

Significant increase

Significant decrease

Last year

Significance of differences vs. last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed.

PrivacyEmployee Autonomy

Access to Information and Online Services

Transparency Accountability and Service QualityEfficiency and Effectiveness Honesty and IntegrityCommunicationFairness and

EmpathyEase Speed

7.9 8.1 8.2 8.17.9

8.17.9

7.5

8.28.0

8.58.1

8.5 8.5 8.5 8.3 8.28.5 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.7

8.48.6 8.5

8.7

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

4% 96%Consumer

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)0.1 0.1-0.1 0.3

5% 95%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

8% 91%Consumer

% respondents

Not close to ideal (1-4) Neutral (5-6)


8.8 8.7 8.5

2020 2019 2018

8.4 8.3 8.2

2020 2019 2018

0.1 0.2

8.7 8.8 8.5

2020 2019 2018

110





Cluster: Arts and LeisureReach: 5% of businesses in 2020 and 3% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Art Galleries and Museums in the last 12 months

Employee


Driver Performance & Importance (Year-on-Year) – For Businesses

Values


Dashboard 2 of 2: Comparison of results year-on-year - BusinessesB

usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 - 26 *2019 – 13*2018 – 14*

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling

Art Galleries and Museums



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


PrivacyEase of AccessEmployee Autonomy


Transparency Accountability and Service QualityAccountability

Honesty and IntegrityCommunication and

ConsistencyFairness and

EmpathySpeed of Process

Speed of Service

7.3

8.08.1

7.7

6.97.2

8.3

7.8 7.9 7.7 8.1

7.4

8.0 8.1 8.3 8.3

7.5

8.2 8.1 7.9

8.0

8.5

7.9 8.0

8.7 8.8

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

8% 92%Business

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-0.3 -0.5

8% 92%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9% 91%Business

% respondents



8.1 8.2 8.1

2020 2019 2018

8.1 8.4 9.0

2020 2019 2018

8.5 8.0 7.1

2020 2019 2018

-0.1 0.1


0.5 1.0

111







Consumers (n=45)




Region:

Business (n=36)

Annual turnover:



Business size:


Business Industry

Trade Services

Services: Agricultural Advice and Funding Services, Business Advisory ServicesReach: 2% of consumers and 7% of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Business Industry Trade Services in the last 12 months


Most common interactions (Business Advisory Services)

Most common interactions (Business Advisory Services)

1. Seek information or advice: 100%

1. Seek information or advice: 100%2. Receive support and training for developing key business

skills or networks: 42%3. Receive funding and/or grant support: 7%


21% 15%

57% 63%46%

0%


14%

0%

19%

38%

24%

4%


Under 20 staff99%

20+ staff1%

28% 28%

14%

30%


Metro69%

Regional11%

Rural20%

32% 26%

64%52%

61%

19%


14%

0%

17%

28%34%

7%


Male29%

Female71%

31% 36%

22%11%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro61%

Regional22%

Rural17%

112





Cluster: Business Industry Trade ServicesReach: 1% of consumers in 2020 and 1% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Agricultural Advice and Funding Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 12*2019 – 13*2018 – 9*

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling




Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

*Note: Small sample size (n<30), should be interpreted with cautionSignificance of differences vs. last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed.




EmpathyEase Speed

7.7 7.57.7 7.6

8.17.5

7.0

7.87.5 7.6

8.3

7.3

8.27.9 7.8

7.0

8.2 8.37.9 8.0

7.0

7.9 7.8 7.9 8.07.7

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

5% 36% 58%Consumer

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)0.2 0.40.6 -0.4

15% 9% 76%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5% 23% 72%Consumer

% respondents



7.1 6.8 7.1

2020 2019 2018

7.6 7.0 7.4

2020 2019 2018

7.5 7.3 6.9

2020 2019 2018

0.3 -0.3

113





Cluster: Business Industry Trade ServicesReach: 2% of businesses in 2020 and 2% of businesses in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Agricultural Advice and Funding Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 - 12*2019 – 10*2018 – 9*



Whole-of-government




Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year








Speed of Service

5.85.5 5.5

5.14.7

5.9

6.66.2 6.2

6.77.1

7.6

6.8

8.3

7.7

6.7

5.3

7.37.0 6.9 7.0 7.0

6.16.6 6.6

6.9

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

27% 73%Business

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-0.4 0.60.0 0.2

12% 88%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

59% 41%Business

% respondents



8.0 6.1 7.5

2020 2019 2018

7.5 7.4 7.2

2020 2019 2018

6.7 7.1 6.5

2020 2019 2018

1.9 -1.4

114





Cluster: Business Industry Trade ServicesReach: 2% of consumers in 2020 and 1% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Business Advisory Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 - 332019 – 17*2018 – 18*

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling

Business Advisory Services



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year





EmpathyEase Speed

7.4 7.67.3 7.1

7.6

8.2

7.8 7.77.5 7.4

8.2

7.57.7 7.6 7.7

7.6 7.6 7.5

7.78.1

7.98.2

7.9 8.0 7.9 7.8

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

10% 17% 73%Consumer

% respondents


2% 19% 79%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

6% 16% 78%Consumer

% respondents



7.4 7.3 7.1

2020 2019 2018

7.9 7.3 6.0

2020 2019 2018

7.4 7.6 6.3

2020 2019 2018

0.1 0.1

115





Cluster: Business Industry Trade ServicesReach: 5% of businesses in 2020 and 11% of businesses in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Business Advisory Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 - 24*2019 - 352018 – 42

Business Advisory Services


Whole-of-government




Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year








Speed of Service

6.3

5.8

5.8

5.65.6

7.4

5.8

6.1

6.66.2

7.1

6.3

7.0 7.06.8

6.1

6.8

7.1

6.5

7.5

7.3 6.96.8 7.1 7.1 7.2

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

14% 9% 77%Business

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-0.2 0.0-1.0 -0.2

29% 70%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

22% 77%Business

% respondents



7.3 7.2 7.3

2020 2019 2018

6.6 7.5 7.8

2020 2019 2018

6.9 7.1 7.1

2020 2019 2018

0.1 -0.2

116







Consumers (n=117)




Region:

Business (n=58)

Annual turnover:



Business size:


Consumer Information




Services: Consumer Affairs, Documentation ServicesReach: 6% consumers and 11% businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Consumer Information in the last 12 months


32%17%

59% 52% 58%

22%


27%

4%

15%20%

27%

3%


Under 20 staff97%

20+ staff3% 29%

31% 28%

11%


Metro94%

Regional0%

Rural6%

20%12%

45% 43% 44%

6%


11%4%

30%

21%

32%

1%


Male44%

Female56%

27%34%

18% 21%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro78%

Regional17%

Rural5%

117





Cluster: Customer ServiceReach: 3% of consumers in 2020 and 4% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Consumer Affairs in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 - 642019 - 382018 - 45


Consumer Affairs



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government





EmpathyEase Speed

6.1 5.7

6.3

5.6 5.7

7.5

6.8

5.9

6.5

6.1

7.2

6.6

7.2

6.96.9

6.36.1

6.7 6.87.4

6.7

7.36.7 6.9

7.36.9

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

22% 15% 64%Consumer

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)0.3 -0.4-0.5 -0.4

17% 14% 69%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17% 22% 61%Consumer

% respondents



6.7 7.3 7.8

2020 2019 2018

7.2 7.7 8.1

2020 2019 2018

7.0 6.7 7.1

2020 2019 2018

-0.7 -0.4

118





Cluster: Customer ServiceReach: 6% of consumers in 2020 and 8% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Consumer Affairs in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 - 29*2019 - 27*2018 –12*

Consumer Affairs




Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government








Speed of Service

6.86.9 7.2

6.8 6.7

7.2 7.3

6.87.0

7.4

8.0

6.97.4 7.6

7.37.8

7.0

7.6 7.3

7.97.6

7.3

7.5

7.3 7.2

7.4

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

8% 92%Business

% respondents


8% 92%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

8% 91%Business

% respondents



7.8 7.5 7.8

2020 2019 2018

7.6 7.7 8.5

2020 2019 2018

7.7 6.9 7.7

2020 2019 2018

0.3 -0.3

119





Cluster: Customer ServiceReach: 3% of consumers in 2020 and 4% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Documentation Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 - 532019 - 422018 - 46


Documentation Services



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government





EmpathyEase Speed

7.2 7.1 7.26.9 7.1

7.6

6.7

6.3

7.16.9

7.9

7.17.6

7.9 7.77.3 7.3

7.6 7.37.7

7.47.7

6.9

7.47.1 7.3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

13% 7% 80%Consumer

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)0.1 0.30.2 0.1

10%8% 82%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13% 11% 76%Consumer

% respondents



7.6 7.3 7.4

2020 2019 2018

7.9 7.6 7.6

2020 2019 2018

7.5 7.4 7.0

2020 2019 2018

0.3 -0.1

120





Cluster: Customer ServiceReach: 6% of consumers in 2020 and 9% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Documentation Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 - 29*2019 - 17*2018 - 21*

Documentation Services




Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government








Speed of Service

6.1 6.16.5

6.05.9

6.8 6.6

5.76.4

6.1

7.4

6.2

7.0 7.17.3

7.1

6.3

6.76.8

7.2 7.27.7

6.76.8 7.0

6.6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

13% 25% 62%Business

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-1.4 2.7-1.6 2.0

7% 38% 55%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

14% 34% 52%Business

% respondents



6.7 8.0 6.0

2020 2019 2018

6.7 8.3 6.3

2020 2019 2018

6.4 7.8 5.1

2020 2019 2018

-1.3 2.0

121







Consumers (n=467)




Region:

Business (n=146)

Annual turnover:



Business size:


Education and TrainingServices: Public Schools, TAFE ServicesReach: 21% consumers and 27% businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Education and Training in the last 12 months


Most common interactions (TAFE Services)

Most common interactions (TAFE Services)

1. Participate in course: 50%2. Seek information (e.g. course or subject information):

46%3. Enroll in a course: 35%

1. Seek or request information: 45%2. Provide a service (e.g. undertake consultancy work): 30%3. Engage in registering/tendering to be a contractor: 27%


60%

11%

41%60%

36%

15%


33%

3%11%

35%

15%

3%


Under 20 staff96%

20+ staff4%

42%

20% 14%24%


Metro71%

Regional12%

Rural17%

63%

13%

51% 54%41%

6%


37%

2%

17%

29%

12%

2%


Male60%

Female40%

40% 46%

8% 6%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro75%

Regional11%

Rural14%

122





Cluster: Education and TrainingReach: 16% of consumers in 2020 and 19% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Schools in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re

Sample:

Co

nsu

mer

2020 - 3122019 - 2282018 - 198


Public Schools



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Satisfaction: (out of 10) Expectation: (out of 10) Comparison to ideal: (out of 10)

Whole-of-government





EmpathyEase Speed

7.0

6.7

7.27.0

6.6

7.6

6.8 6.87.0

6.8

7.4

6.9

7.47.3 7.3

7.0 6.9

7.67.4

7.8 7.7 7.6

7.07.3 7.3 7.3

4

5

6

7

8

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

8% 18% 74%Consumer

% respondents


4%

20% 76%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7% 23% 71%Consumer

% respondents



7.6 7.6 7.4

2020 2019 2018

7.7 7.9 7.7

2020 2019 2018

7.2 7.3 7.1

2020 2019 2018

0.0 0.2

123





Cluster: Education and TrainingReach: 15% of businesses in 2020 and 14% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Schools in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re

Sample:

Bu

sin

ess

2020 - 722019 - 512018 - 57


Public Schools



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year



Whole-of-government








Speed of Service

6.7 6.4 6.8 6.7 6.7

7.5

6.66.6

6.5 6.46.7

6.5

7.1 7.2

6.6 6.46.4

7.26.9 7.0

7.0 7.1

6.97.2 7.2 7.1

4

5

6

7

8

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

12% 16% 72%Business

% respondents


12% 20% 68%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12% 20% 68%Business

% respondents



7.3 6.6 7.0

2020 2019 2018

7.1 7.0 7.5

2020 2019 2018

7.0 6.5 6.4

2020 2019 2018

0.7 -0.5

124





Cluster: Education and TrainingReach: 8% of consumers in 2020 and 11% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with TAFE Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re

Sample:

Co

nsu

mer

2020 - 1552019 - 1262018 - 159


TAFE Services



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year



Whole-of-government





EmpathyEase Speed

6.6

6.36.5

6.26.4

7.2

6.7

6.2

6.8 6.6

7.7

7.0 7.0 7.0

7.4

7.06.5

7.27.5 7.6

7.2

7.7

6.9

6.8

7.06.8

4

5

6

7

8

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

16% 17% 67%Consumer

% respondents


14% 16% 70%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

17% 21% 62%Consumer

% respondents



6.9 7.0 6.7

2020 2019 2018

7.0 7.2 7.3

2020 2019 2018

6.7 6.9 6.7

2020 2019 2018

-0.1 0.3

125





Cluster: Education and TrainingReach: 15% of businesses in 2020 and 9% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with TAFE Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re

Sample:

Bu

sin

ess


TAFE Services

2020 - 742019 - 362018 - 51



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year



Whole-of-government








Speed of Service

6.8 6.8 6.8

6.56.3

7.3

6.4

6.9 6.97.1 7.1

6.6

6.96.7

6.7

5.9

6.3

6.9 7.07.1

6.9 6.8 6.76.9

6.9 7.0

4

5

6

7

8

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

7%

7% 86%Business

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-0.1 0.41.0 -0.2

1%

99%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7% 27% 67%Business

% respondents



7.3 6.7 6.8

2020 2019 2018

7.9 6.8 7.1

2020 2019 2018

7.0 7.0 6.6

2020 2019 2018

0.6 -0.1

126







Consumers (n=307)




Region:

Business (n=108)

Annual turnover:



Business size:


Family and Community Services

Services: Child Welfare Services, Disability Services and Public & Community Housing Reach: 13% of consumers and 18% of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Family and Community Services in the last 12 months





34% 29%

57% 62%

32%14%


25%

2%

29% 31%

13%

0%


Under 20 staff97%

20+ staff3%

40% 29%

5%

27%


Metro86%

Regional9%

Rural5%

49%

24%

72%

40%26%

9%


29%

6%

37%

13% 13%

2%


Male65%

Female35%

22%

43%

20%14%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro72%

Regional9%

Rural19%

127





Cluster: Family and Community ServicesReach: 2% of consumers in 2020 and 3% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Child Welfare Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 - 482019 - 522018 - 62


Child Welfare Services



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government





EmpathyEase Speed

5.3 5.2 5.2

4.64.7

6.8

5.6

4.9

5.6

6.05.8 5.8

6.1 6.1 5.9 5.9

5.4

6.0

6.3 6.4

6.1

6.8

5.4 5.5 5.65.8

3

4

5

6

7

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

20% 27% 53%Consumer

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)1.3 -1.11.2 -0.6

19% 34% 48%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

23% 37% 41%Consumer

% respondents



6.4 4.5 5.5

2020 2019 2018

6.4 5.2 5.8

2020 2019 2018

5.7 4.4 5.5

2020 2019 2018

2.0 -1.0

128





Cluster: Family and Community ServicesReach: 4% of businesses in 2020 and 3% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Child Welfare Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess


Child Welfare Services

2020 - 22*2019 - 20*2018 - 28*



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government








Speed of Service

5.5 5.6 5.65.3 5.3

6.9

5.74.8

5.8 5.76.1 6.1

5.7

5.25.2

5.1

5.2 5.2

5.5

6.2 6.15.7

5.45.0

5.5

5.2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

7% 28% 66%Business

% respondents


19% 80%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7% 36% 56%Business

% respondents



6.7 7.0 6.1

2020 2019 2018

7.5 7.5 6.4

2020 2019 2018

6.7 6.6 6.0

2020 2019 2018

-0.4 0.9

129





Cluster: Family and Community ServicesReach: 7% of consumers in 2020 and 9% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Disability Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer


Disability Services

2020 - 1332019 - 1002018 - 126



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government






EmpathyEase Speed

6.05.8 5.7 5.7

5.3

7.5

5.9

5.5

5.9

6.3

6.8

6.2

6.4

6.56.3

6.15.9

6.4

6.57.0 6.9

7.0

6.56.3

6.66.7

4

5

6

7

8

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

14% 17% 70%Consumer

% respondents


13% 11% 76%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18% 18% 64%Consumer

% respondents



7.2 6.6 5.8

2020 2019 2018

7.3 7.0 6.3

2020 2019 2018

6.8 6.4 5.4

2020 2019 2018

0.5 0.8

130





Cluster: Family and Community ServicesReach: 12% of consumers in 2020 and 10% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Disability Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess


Disability Services

2020 - 582019 - 342018 - 32



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government









Speed of Service

6.2

6.8 6.96.5 6.6

7.2

6.5 6.5 6.6 6.56.8 6.8

7.2 7.1 7.1

6.7 6.8

7.56.9 7.1

7.5 7.6

7.16.7

7.37.0

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

11%10% 79%Business

% respondents


11%10% 79%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

16% 5% 78%Business

% respondents



7.5 7.4 6.3

2020 2019 2018

7.7 7.9 6.8

2020 2019 2018

7.3 6.9 5.7

2020 2019 2018

0.1 1.1

131





Cluster: Family and Community ServicesReach: 6% of consumers in 2020 and 9% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Public and Community Housing in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer


Public and Community Housing

2020 - 1262019 - 872018 - 136



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government






EmpathyEase Speed

5.6

5.2

5.8

5.2

4.9

6.8

5.5

5.0

5.65.3

6.7

5.8

6.4

6.1 6.1

5.7

5.4

6.0 5.9

6.46.2 6.1

5.8

5.75.9

5.8

4

5

6

7

8

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

30% 10% 59%Consumer

% respondents


22% 18% 60%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

31% 16% 53%Consumer

% respondents



6.4 6.3 6.8

2020 2019 2018

6.5 6.7 7.1

2020 2019 2018

6.0 5.9 6.6

2020 2019 2018

0.1 -0.5

132





Cluster: Family and Community ServicesReach: 6% of consumers in 2020 and 5% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Public and Community Housing in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess


Public and Community Housing

2020 - 28*2019 - 16*2018 - 22*



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government









Speed of Service

6.36.2

6.7

6.4

5.9

7.0

6.15.8 5.9

6.4

7.5

6.2

6.86.5

6.86.7 6.3

7.3

6.7

7.1 7.1

7.3

6.06.4

6.76.5

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

14% 35% 51%Business

% respondents


21% 28% 50%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

8% 49% 44%Business

% respondents



6.2 5.5 7.6

2020 2019 2018

6.1 7.0 8.0

2020 2019 2018

6.5 5.9 7.1

2020 2019 2018

0.8 -2.1

133







Consumers (n=1,266)




Region:

Business (n=195)

Annual turnover:



Business size:


HealthServices: Ambulance Services, Public Hospitals and Service for Older PeopleReach: 47% of consumers and 32% of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Health in the last 12 months





55%

20%

48%

35%

18%9%


33%

0%

33%

20%

9%

0%


Under 20 staff97%

20+ staff3%

30%23%

5%

43%


Metro66%

Regional6%

Rural28%

72%

11%

41%

12% 11% 3%


43%

3%

29%

11% 9%1%


Male57%

Female43%

22%30%

17%

32%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro68%

Regional14%

Rural18%

134





Cluster: HealthReach : 18% of consumers in 2020 and 17% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Ambulance Services in the last 12 months


Dashboard 1 of 6: Comparison of results year-on-year - Consumers


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 3532019 – 2082018 – 186


Ambulance Services

Employee



Values

Co

nsu

mer

Ave

rage

sco

re



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government






EmpathyEase Speed

8.6 8.48.8

8.4 8.2

8.98.6

7.5

8.37.9

9.18.7

9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 8.89.1 9.1 9.2

8.99.2 9.0 9.2 9.3 9.2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

3%2% 95%Consumer

% respondents


2%3% 95%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

3%3% 94%Consumer

% respondents



9.2 8.7 8.9

2020 2019 2018

9.2 9.0 9.1

2020 2019 2018

9.0 8.5 8.7

2020 2019 2018

0.5 -0.3

135





Cluster: HealthReach: : 10% of consumers in 2020 and 7% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Ambulance Services in the last 12 months

Employee



Values


Dashboard 2 of 6: Comparison of results year-on-year - Businesses


Bu

sin

ess


Ambulance Services

2020 – 512019 – 24*2018 – 36


Bu

sin

ess

Ave

rage

sco

re



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government








Speed of Service

8.6

7.2

7.8

8.2

6.3

8.5

7.97.5

8.2

7.4

8.88.4

8.8 9.28.9

8.7

9.2

7.8

8.8 9.08.8 8.6

8.48.8

8.8 9.0

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

5% 95%Business

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-0.2 -0.7-0.1 -0.2

100%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

16% 84%Business

% respondents



8.8 9.1 9.1

2020 2019 2018

8.9 9.0 9.1

2020 2019 2018

8.5 8.7 9.4

2020 2019 2018

-0.2 -0.1

136





Cluster: HealthReach: : 37% of consumers in 2020 and 41% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Hospitals in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer


Public Hospitals

2020 – 7432019 – 4122018 – 425



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government





EmpathyEase Speed

7.16.7

7.3

6.8

6.0

8.0

7.0

6.1

7.0

6.5

8.2

7.5

7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8

7.2

7.8 7.98.2 8.1

8.4

7.37.6 7.8 7.7

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

6%

12% 82%Consumer

% respondents


5%

9% 85%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5%

20% 75%Consumer

% respondents



8.0 7.4 7.4

2020 2019 2018

8.0 7.7 7.7

2020 2019 2018

7.6 6.9 6.9

2020 2019 2018

0.6 0.0

137





Cluster: HealthReach: : 20% of consumers in 2020 and 18% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Hospitals in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess


Public Hospitals

2020 – 982019 – 762018 – 70



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government








Speed of Service

6.9

6.4

7.6

6.8

7.4

8.4

7.8

6.8

7.4

6.2

7.88.1

8.3 8.18.0

7.6 7.57.9

7.7

8.7

8.1

8.58.2

7.88.0

8.4

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

5%

23% 72%Business

% respondents


6%

7% 88%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

1%

18% 81%Business

% respondents



7.5 6.9 7.2

2020 2019 2018

7.6 7.2 7.4

2020 2019 2018

7.4 6.6 6.6

2020 2019 2018

0.6 -0.3

138





Cluster: HealthReach: : 8% of consumers in 2020 and 9% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Services for Older People in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer


Services for Older People

2020 - 1702019 - 1142018 - 151



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government





EmpathyEase Speed

6.8 6.8 6.96.7

6.5

8.0

7.0

6.2

7.1

6.6

8.0

7.4

7.87.6 7.6 7.5

7.2

7.77.5

8.17.8 7.8

7.4 7.37.7

7.4

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

6%17% 77%Consumer

% respondents


5%

15% 81%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12% 17% 71%Consumer

% respondents



7.7 7.3 7.1

2020 2019 2018

7.9 7.7 7.6

2020 2019 2018

7.4 6.7 6.7

2020 2019 2018

0.5 0.1

139





Cluster: HealthReach: : 9% of consumers in 2020 and 7% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Services for Older People in the last 12 months

Employee



Values



usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess


Services for Older People

2020 – 462019 – 28*2018 - 38



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year


Whole-of-government








Speed of Service

6.86.5

6.76.1

5.8

7.9

6.76.3

6.9

6.7

7.37.0 6.9

7.2

6.7

6.4

6.66.8

7.3 7.37.0

7.0 7.2 7.2 7.47.6

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

13% 21% 66%Business

% respondents


5%

21% 75%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

15% 15% 70%Business

% respondents



7.0 7.1 6.6

2020 2019 2018

7.3 7.5 7.4

2020 2019 2018

6.7 7.0 6.1

2020 2019 2018

-0.1 0.5

140







Consumers (n=578)




Region:

Business (n=141)

Annual turnover:



Business size:


JusticeServices: Courts, Fire Brigades, Police, Prisons and State Emergency ServicesReach: 24% consumers and businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Justice in the last 12 months


Most common interactions (Courts)

Most common interactions (Courts)


72%

23%

53%

22%11% 7%


39%

0%

34%

21%

5%0%


Under 20 staff96%

20+ staff4% 25%

41%

19% 15%


Metro74%

Regional15%

Rural11%

72%

11%

42%

16% 14%5%


49%

3%

23%

9% 12%1%


Male42%

Female58%

30%38%

17% 16%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro69%

Regional14%

Rural17%

1. Lodge legal documentation (i.e. Appeals/ Court Forms): 37%

2. Participate in a trial as a Prosecutor/ Defendant/ Witness: 25%

3. Participate in dispute resolution (i.e. Mediation): 25%

1. Lodge legal documentation (i.e. Appeals/ Court Forms): 75%

2. Participate in a trial as a Prosecutor/ Defendant/ Witness: 24%

3. Receive legal information or advice: 50%

141





Cluster: JusticeReach: 5% of consumers in 2020 and 6% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Courts in the last 12 months




on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 96 2019 - 942018 - 104


Courts



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government


Significance of differences vs. last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed.Employee attributes

GoalsProcessesLegend: Values




EmpathyEase Speed

5.6

5.3

5.5

5.35.2

6.9

6.0

5.1

6.2

5.7

6.6

5.7

6.3 6.36.2

5.6 5.7

6.5 6.46.8

5.9

6.9

6.2 6.16.3 6.3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

26% 19% 55%Consumer

% respondents


24% 8% 68%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

28% 22% 49%Consumer

% respondents



6.3 6.3 6.0

2020 2019 2018

6.7 7.0 6.7

2020 2019 2018

6.0 5.9 5.5

2020 2019 2018

0.0 0.3

142





Cluster: JusticeReach: 3% of businesses in 2020 and 4% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Courts in the last 12 months




usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 – 14*2019 - 19*2018 – 29*


Courts

3




Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government










Speed of Service

7.9 7.9

8.4

7.6 7.5

9.2

7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0

7.0

8.4 8.58.2 8.2

7.4

8.48.2

7.87.3

8.0

8.7

8.07.5

7.9

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

1%99%Business

% respondents


1%99%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

1%

1%98%Business

% respondents



8.2 7.4 6.0

2020 2019 2018

8.0 7.9 7.0

2020 2019 2018

8.2 7.5 6.3

2020 2019 2018

0.8 1.3

143





Cluster: JusticeReach: 2% of consumers in 2020 and 1% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Fire Brigades in the last 12 months




on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 322019 - 24*2018 – 28*


Fire Brigades

4



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government


*Note: Small sample size (n<30), should be interpreted with cautionSignificance of differences vs. last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed

Employee attributes





EmpathyEase Speed

8.9 9.0 8.8 8.79.1 9.1

8.48.1

8.58.1

9.0

8.2

8.68.9 8.8 8.9 9.1 9.1 8.9 9.1 9.1 9.1

9.09.3

9.1 9.3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

4%2% 94%Consumer

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-0.2 -0.4-0.3 0.1

4%96%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

4%

5% 90%Consumer

% respondents



9.0 9.1 9.1

2020 2019 2018

9.0 9.3 9.2

2020 2019 2018

8.5 8.6 9.0

2020 2019 2018

-0.1 0.0

144





Cluster: JusticeReach: 5% of businesses in 2020 and 2% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Fire Brigades in the last 12 months




usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 – 23*2019 - 15*2018 - 18*


Fire Brigades

5



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government



Employee attributes








Speed of Service

7.17.3 7.5

7.16.7

8.5

7.1 6.96.6

6.4

8.6

8.07.6

7.9

7.9

8.4 8.3

9.0

8.1

8.8

8.2

8.8

7.6

8.4

8.6

8.4

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

100%Business

% respondents


100%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12% 88%Business

% respondents



8.6 9.1 10.0

2020 2019 2018

8.7 9.1 10.0

2020 2019 2018

8.2 9.5 9.0

2020 2019 2018

-0.5 -0.8

145





Cluster: JusticeReach: 19% of consumers in 2020 and 21% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Police in the last 12 months




on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 3862019 - 217 2018 - 176


Police

6



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government







EmpathyEase Speed

7.4

6.67.1

6.96.4

7.7

6.5

5.9

7.16.7

7.36.9

7.6 7.67.4

7.2 7.1

7.7 7.5 7.6 7.77.9

7.37.6 7.5 7.6

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

8% 18% 74%Consumer

% respondents


8% 13% 79%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

11% 14% 74%Consumer

% respondents



7.6 7.5 7.7

2020 2019 2018

7.8 7.8 8.2

2020 2019 2018

7.4 7.5 7.2

2020 2019 2018

0.1 -0.2

146





Cluster: JusticeReach: 18% of businesses in 2020 and 9% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Police in the last 12 months




usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 – 902019 - 352018 - 56


Police

7



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government










Speed of Service

8.1

6.8

7.5 7.4

6.7

7.5

7.37.1

7.47.1

7.67.5

7.8

7.7 7.7

7.0

7.0

7.6 7.4 7.8 7.88.0

7.47.4

7.67.4

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

19% 81%Business

% respondents


11% 89%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

20% 80%Business

% respondents



8.1 8.0 7.9

2020 2019 2018

8.5 8.1 8.3

2020 2019 2018

8.1 8.0 7.8

2020 2019 2018

0.1 0.0

147





Cluster: JusticeReach: 2% of consumers in 2020 and 2% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Prisons in the last 12 months




on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 312019 - 23*2018 - 27*


Prisons

8



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government



Employee attributes





EmpathyEase Speed

5.6 4.85.5 5.2

4.9

6.9

5.04.0

5.5 5.45.8 5.9

5.55.8

5.7

5.7 5.4

5.6 5.8

6.1

5.9 6.1 6.15.8

6.1 5.9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

29% 22% 49%Consumer

% respondents


21% 24% 55%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

30% 29% 41%Consumer

% respondents



6.5 5.4 3.6

2020 2019 2018

6.9 6.7 4.9

2020 2019 2018

5.7 5.4 3.5

2020 2019 2018

1.1 1.7

148





Cluster: JusticeReach: 2% of businesses in 2020 and 2% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Prisons in the last 12 months




usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 – 9*2019 - 14*2018 - 14*


Prisons

9



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government



Employee attributes








Speed of Service

6.16.5

6.5 6.17.1 7.0

6.6 6.8 6.9

5.9

7.26.9

6.3

7.4 7.5

6.3 6.26.6 6.6

7.97.3

7.0 6.3 7.0 7.06.3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

1%34% 65%Business

% respondents


3%4% 94%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

1%

33% 66%Business

% respondents



7.2 7.9 5.3

2020 2019 2018

7.3 8.3 6.1

2020 2019 2018

6.9 7.3 4.2

2020 2019 2018

-0.7 2.6

149





Cluster: JusticeReach: 2% of consumers in 2020 and 3% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with State Emergency Services in the last 12 months




on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 332019 - 472018 - 43


State Emergency Services

10



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government







EmpathyEase Speed

8.1 8.0 8.2 7.98.2 8.5

7.9

7.3

8.1

7.7

8.3

7.9

8.6 8.7 8.8

8.0

8.88.6

8.4 8.5

8.3

9.18.2

8.4 8.5 8.6

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

5%5% 90%Consumer

% respondents


3%12% 85%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

18% 82%Consumer

% respondents



8.3 9.0 8.5

2020 2019 2018

8.5 9.1 8.6

2020 2019 2018

8.5 9.0 8.2

2020 2019 2018

-0.6 0.5

150





Cluster: JusticeReach: 1% of businesses in 2020 and 3% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with State Emergency Services in the last 12 months




usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 – 5*2019 - 13*2018 - 15*

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling

State Emergency Services

11



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government



Employee attributes








Speed of Service

8.0 7.9 8.0

7.1

9.0 8.9

7.97.9

9.8 9.8

8.1

10.0

8.8 8.9 8.88.8

9.0

9.8

9.0 8.9 8.9

7.97.8

8.9 8.79.7

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

3% 97%Business

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-1.3 -0.1-0.7 0.6

100%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

3% 97%Business

% respondents



8.0 8.7 8.7

2020 2019 2018

8.1 8.7 8.2

2020 2019 2018

7.2 8.5 8.6

2020 2019 2018

-0.7 0.1

151







Consumers (n=46)




Region:

Business (n=17*)

Annual turnover:



Business size:


Planning and Environment

Services: Environment and Wildlife ProtectionReach: 2% of consumers and 3% of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Planning and Environment in the last 12 months





57%

2%

57%44%

30%15%


1% 0%

28%

57%

14%

0%


Under 20 staff95%

20+ staff5%

41%42%

14%2%


Metro99%

Regional0%

Rural1%

36%

13%

30%38%

50%

8%


20%

2%

25%17%

36%

0%


Male45%

Female55%

26% 29%18%

28%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro71%

Regional19%

Rural10%

152





Cluster: Planning and EnvironmentReach: 2% of consumers in 2020 and 3% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Environment and Wildlife Protection in the last 12 months




on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 462019 - 382018 - 36

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling

Environment and Wildlife Protection

2



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year






EmpathyEase Speed

7.26.9

7.47.1

6.7

7.57.0

6.7

7.27.0

8.0

7.5

7.7

7.4 7.6

7.0 7.17.6

7.8 7.87.5

7.9

7.17.3 7.3 7.4

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

9% 15% 76%Consumer

% respondents


12%7% 81%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12% 7% 81%Consumer

% respondents



7.7 7.3 8.1

2020 2019 2018

7.9 7.5 8.3

2020 2019 2018

7.6 6.6 8.1

2020 2019 2018

0.4 -0.8

153





Cluster: Planning and EnvironmentReach: 3% of businesses in 2020 and 4% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Environment and Wildlife Protection in the last 12 months




usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 – 17*2019 - 19*2018 - 16*

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling

Environment and Wildlife Protection

3



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Employee attributes

GoalsProcessesLegend: Values*Note: Small sample size (n<30), should be interpreted with cautionSignificance of differences vs. last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed







Speed of Service

6.26.3 6.5 6.5 6.0

7.1

6.5

7.4

6.5

6.6

7.9

7.0

8.0

6.9

7.5 7.6

6.7 6.6

7.2

6.9

7.6

8.38.0

7.77.1

6.6

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

14% 14% 72%Business

% respondents


28% 14% 59%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

41% 1% 57%Business

% respondents



7.7 7.4 6.6

2020 2019 2018

6.5 7.8 7.9

2020 2019 2018

6.5 7.8 6.8

2020 2019 2018

0.3 0.8

154







Consumers (n=2,053)




Region:

Business (n=298)

Annual turnover:



Business size:


TransportServices: Vehicle Licensing & Registration, Major Roads & Public TransportReach: 76% consumers and 47% businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Transport in the last 12 months





43%

14%22% 21%

47%

10%


18%

5% 6%17%

43%

1%


Under 20 staff97%

20+ staff3%

27% 26%

9%

38%


Metro75%

Regional14%

Rural11%

44%

8%14% 9%

44%

6%


26%

4% 8%14%

43%

2%


Male48%

Female52%

30% 29%

16%25%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro75%

Regional13%

Rural12%

155





Cluster: TransportReach: 59% of consumers in 2020 and 56% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Vehicle Licensing and Registration in the last 12 months


Overall Performance


on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 1,1872019 – 5802018 – 501


Vehicle Licensing and Registration



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government







EmpathyEase Speed

7.1 7.3

7.8

7.27.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

7.6 7.78.1

7.3

7.9 7.8 7.8

7.37.6

7.8 7.78.0

7.5

8.0

7.47.6 7.7 7.6

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

3%8% 88%Consumer

% respondents


4%8% 88%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

5%

14% 81%Consumer

% respondents



8.2 8.0 7.9

2020 2019 2018

8.2 8.2 8.0

2020 2019 2018

7.9 7.7 7.6

2020 2019 2018

0.2 0.1

156





Cluster: TransportReach: 35% of businesses in 2020 and 43% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Vehicle Licensing and Registration in the last 12 months


Overall Performance


usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling

Vehicle Licensing and Registration

2020 – 1722019 – 1352018 – 93

3



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year









Speed of Service

7.1 7.17.5

7.0 6.8

7.8

7.2

6.1

7.6 7.67.9

7.1

7.7 7.7 7.7

7.2 7.37.6 7.7 7.8

7.57.9

7.37.6

7.4 7.5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

8% 13% 79%Business

% respondents


5%

11% 83%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

9% 17% 75%Business

% respondents



7.8 7.1 7.3

2020 2019 2018

7.9 7.5 7.4

2020 2019 2018

7.6 7.3 6.7

2020 2019 2018

0.7 -0.2

157





Cluster: TransportReach: 6% of consumers in 2020 and 8% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Major Roads in the last 12 months


Overall Performance


on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer


Major Roads

2020 – 1292019 – 862018 – 63

4



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government







EmpathyEase Speed

6.0 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.0

7.2

6.25.8

6.4 6.4

7.3

6.56.7 6.8 6.6

6.46.1

6.77.0 6.8 6.8 6.9

6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

15% 24% 61%Consumer

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)0.7 -0.40.0 0.0

9% 20% 71%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

13% 29% 58%Consumer

% respondents



6.6 6.5 6.6

2020 2019 2018

7.1 7.1 7.2

2020 2019 2018

6.5 5.7 6.1

2020 2019 2018

0.2 -0.1

158





Cluster: TransportReach: 6% of businesses in 2020 and 3% of businesses in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Major Roads in the last 12 months


Overall Performance


usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling

Major Roads

2020 – 29*2019 – 11*2018 – 20*

5



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

*Note: Small sample size (n<30), should be interpreted with cautionSignificance of differences vs. last year is a function of sample size and standard deviation of the data being analysed.Employee

attributesGoalsProcessesLegend: Values







Speed of Service

5.66.0

6.45.7 5.7

6.1 6.3 6.0

6.2

6.4

6.7

5.76.1

6.96.3 6.3

6.2

6.3 6.7 6.56.8

7.0

6.3 6.3 6.26.8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

27% 29% 44%Business

% respondents

Dissatisfied (1-4) Neutral (5-6) Satisfied (7-10)-0.5 -0.2-1.0 -0.1

8% 34% 58%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

8% 41% 50%Business

% respondents



6.3 7.4 7.9

2020 2019 2018

6.5 7.5 7.6

2020 2019 2018

6.4 6.9 7.2

2020 2019 2018

-1.1 -0.5

159





Cluster: TransportReach: 37% of consumers in 2020 and 38% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Transport in the last 12 months


Overall Performance


on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer


Public Transport

2020 – 7372019 – 3902018 – 401

6



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government







EmpathyEase Speed

6.6 6.5

7.1

6.4 6.5

7.3

6.46.2

6.9 6.9

7.4

6.7

7.26.9 7.0 6.9 6.9 6.9

7.27.5

7.27.4

6.8 6.9 7.0 7.0

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

8% 21% 71%Consumer

% respondents


5%

18% 77%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

12% 24% 64%Consumer

% respondents



7.3 7.4 7.4

2020 2019 2018

7.5 7.6 7.5

2020 2019 2018

6.9 6.9 6.9

2020 2019 2018

-0.1 0.0

160





Cluster: TransportReach: 20% of businesses in 2020 and 13% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Public Transport in the last 12 months


Overall Performance


usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

YoY - C YoY - B

Whole-of-government


Profiling

Public Transport

2020 – 972019 – 472018 – 67

7



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year









Speed of Service

7.2

6.3

7.5

7.06.7

7.87.6

7.17.6 7.7 7.8

6.66.9

8.0

6.7 6.87.2

7.4

6.9

7.5 7.57.3

7.57.7

8.0

7.3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

7% 21% 72%Business

% respondents


15% 84%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

8% 32% 60%Business

% respondents



7.4 7.2 7.2

2020 2019 2018

8.0 7.6 7.3

2020 2019 2018

7.0 7.3 7.3

2020 2019 2018

0.1 0.1

161







Consumers (n=530)




Most common interactions

Region:

Business (n=88)

Annual turnover:


Contact method used (N.B. Can use more than one) Contact method preferredMost common interactions

Business size:


UtilitiesServices: Water SupplyReach: 26% of consumers and 18% of businesses identify they have had direct dealings with Utilities in the last 12 months



11% 14%

61%

29% 37%

0%


11%5%

34%

24% 22%

0%


Under 20 staff97%

20+ staff3%

30%35%

14%22%


Metro56%Regional

13%

Rural31%

9% 11%

45%

19%

41%

3%


7% 5%

29%23%

32%

1%


Male47%

Female53% 21%

34%

19%27%

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Metro80%

Regional10%

Rural10%

1. Receive water supply or sewage services: 63%2. Report an incident: 22%3. Seek information: 21%

1. Pay for goods or services received: 69%2. Seek information or make an enquiry: 42%3. Provide a service (e.g. undertake consultancy work): 18%

162





Cluster: UtilitiesReach: 26% of consumers in 2020 and 24% of consumers in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Water Supply in the last 12 months




on

sum

er

Ave

rage

sco

re


Co

nsu

mer

2020 – 5302019 - 2402018 - 238


Water Supply



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government







EmpathyEase Speed

7.2 7.17.5

7.0 7.0

7.8

6.9

6.3

7.3 7.3

7.9

7.2

7.7 7.7 7.67.4

7.1

7.67.4

7.77.4

7.8

7.2 7.2 7.37.5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

5%

10% 85%Consumer

% respondents


6%

9% 85%Consumer

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7% 13% 80%Consumer

% respondents



7.9 7.6 7.4

2020 2019 2018

7.9 7.8 7.5

2020 2019 2018

7.6 7.1 7.1

2020 2019 2018

0.4 0.2

163





Cluster: UtilitiesReach: 18% of businesses in 2020 and 23% of business in 2019 identify they have had direct dealings with Water Supply in the last 12 months




usi

nes

s

Ave

rage

sco

re


Bu

sin

ess

2020 – 882019 - 672018 - 53


Water Supply



Legend:7.7

7.9

7.1



Last year

Whole-of-government










Speed of Service

6.9

6.4

7.16.8 6.8

7.26.9

6.5

7.17.3

7.1

7.07.3 7.3 7.4

6.97.4 7.5

6.8

7.7

7.1

7.9

7.4 7.3 7.2 7.2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Emp

ow

ere

d e

mp

loye

es

Seam

less

se

rvic

e a

cro

ss c

han

nel

s

Easy

to

un

de

rsta

nd

Ge

t to

th

e r

igh

t p

erso

n f

irst

tim

e

Pro

cess

es

red

uce

wai

t ti

me

s

Safe

guar

d p

riva

cy

Op

en a

nd

tra

nsp

aren

t

Pu

blic

-par

tici

pat

ion

in d

eci

sio

n m

akin

g

Easy

to

acc

ess

info

rmat

ion

Mak

e b

est

use

of

on

line

ser

vice

s

Wit

ho

ut

bia

s

Cu

sto

mer

pe

rsp

ecti

ve

Cle

ar e

xpla

nat

ion

s

Co

mm

un

icat

e w

ell

Co

nsi

sten

t

He

ld a

cco

un

tab

le

Ge

t th

ings

do

ne

qu

ickl

y

Rel

iab

le

Kn

ow

led

geab

le

Ho

nes

t

Go

od

val

ue

Hig

h s

afet

y st

and

ard

s

Acc

ou

nta

ble

Tru

st

Inte

grit

y

Go

od

ser

vice

5%

22% 73%Business

% respondents


4%

14% 82%Business

% respondents

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

4%

19% 77%Business

% respondents



7.4 7.4 6.9

2020 2019 2018

7.6 7.7 7.0

2020 2019 2018

7.1 7.0 6.6

2020 2019 2018

0.0 0.4

164

OFFICIAL



Appendix 6: Overview and methodology

165





Program Overview

The Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey (CSMS) has been developed to provide a holistic view of customer service, including baseline

scores for whole of government customer satisfaction from which to gauge future success of citizen-centric reforms.

Provide a holistic

understanding of the quality of

services delivered by SA

Government services (including

processes and employees)

Benchmark SA Government

performance against other

jurisdictions

Understanding how SA

Government services are

performing overall

+ +

Online survey with SA Government services

customers

Historical results from 2016 – 2019 to identify trends+

+

Baseline measures of

satisfaction and expectations

with SA Government services

Baseline measures of

perceptions of the quality of

services delivered by SA

Government

Comparison of SA performance

to other Jurisdictions+

Online survey with customers of NSW, VIC and QLD Governments

from which to benchmark SA’s performance

+

Project

Objectives:

Research

Inputs:

Research

Outputs:

166





• Identical online surveys were undertaken with consumers and businesses in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia to

enable comparative cross-jurisdiction analysis.

• The survey was targeted to achieve a representative sample of the general population in each jurisdiction based on age, gender and region

(metropolitan, regional and rural) and a representative sample of the business community based on location and size (number of employees).

Service names were localised to ensure respondents selected appropriately.

• All surveys were completed over a consistent time period from 21 July 2020 – 17 Aug 2020 and results are therefore reflective of experiences

with services across jurisdictions over the 12 months prior, from July 2019 – July 2020. The 2019 surveys were completed from 20 June 2019

to 10 July 2019 and results are reflective of experiences with services across jurisdictions over the 12 months prior, from June 2018 – June

2019.

• Each respondent to the survey provided feedback regarding 1 or 2 services. As a result, the total number of responses received across

services is greater than the total number of customers who completed the survey.

2020 Survey Sample Size*

Respondent Profile (1/2)

*The CSMS is administered by NSW and sample sizes are in accordance with reporting

requirements

Jurisdictions Consumer (n=) Business (n=) Total (n=)

New South Wales 4,040 1,009 5,049

Queensland 2,018 510 2,528

Victoria 2,038 518 2,556

South Australia 2,004 493 2,497

SA

VIC

NSW

QLD

167





Respondent Profile (2/2)

• Respondents to this survey are consumers and businesses that have had

direct dealings with services provided by the SA Government in the last 12

months.

• The survey captures customer feedback on twenty-three different SA

Government services, described in customer language. Feedback

received from respondents about each of the individual services have

been aggregated to provide a view of the performance of SA Government

services overall.

• Each respondent to the survey provided feedback about 1 or 2 services.

As a result, the total number of responses received across services is

greater than the total number of respondents who completed the survey.

Throughout the report, sample sizes have been reported based on the

total number of responses (rather than the total number of respondents).

• The results for services that were most commonly interacted with (e.g.

Public Transport) in the last 12 months were given a greater weighting to

whole of government scores. This is to allow for the whole of government

scores to reflect the services in a correct proportion, with higher weighting

given to those services which consumers interact with more frequently.

Business, Industry and

Trade Services

• Agriculture Advice and

Funding Services

• Business Advisory

Services

Justice

• Police

• State Emergency Services

• Prisons

• Courts

• Fire Brigades

Family & Community

Services

• Public and Community

Housing

• Disability Services

• Child Welfare Services

Transport

• Public Transport

• Vehicle Licensing and

Registration

• Major Roads

Consumer Information

• Consumer Affairs (Fair

Trading)

• Documentation Services

Planning & Environment

• Environment and Wildlife

Protection

Education & Training

• Public Schools

• TAFE Services

Health

• Public Hospitals

• Ambulance Services

• Services for Older People

In scope services

Utilities

• Water Supply

Arts & Leisure

• Art Galleries and

Museums

168

OFFICIAL



Appendix 7: Further technical information

169





Drafted sampling frame

Drafted sampling frame and set target quotas to ensure responses are representative of the jurisdiction populations based

on the following key variables (consistent with the previous year):

• Consumer by age, gender and region of residence (metropolitan, regional and rural)

• Business by business size (estimated based on number of employees) and location (metropolitan, regional and rural)

• Minimum targets were also set to achieve representativeness across government services of n=30 for both consumers

and business surveys

Programmed and tested

survey

• A single dynamic survey was programmed for NSW, VIC, QLD and SA for each of business and consumer to optimise

responses

• Logic was built into the survey which optimally allocated respondents to those services with the least levels of

interactions in previous years

• Once the survey was programmed, rigorous testing was undertaken to ensure there were no breaks in the survey logic

Undertook a survey

pilot

A survey pilot was undertaken over a 24 hour period and targeted to 5% of the total sample to:

• Ensure there are no errors in the survey programming

• Ensure we are yielding quality responses by checking:

• Quality of data entry and recording (e.g. respondents are providing considered responses, questions posed are

applicable to the majority of respondents)

• Check incidence rates to ensure the total number of panel members being targeted is sufficient to achieve the required

sample within the time frames. This includes analysis of panel response rates and analysis of screen outs from the

survey from which to identify root causes and proposed actions to fill quotas within the time frames

• Results of the pilot revealed no errors in the survey and the survey was then progressed to full launch

Daily monitoring of

surveys while in field

• Daily monitoring of surveys while in field to check progress and inform targeted action to ensure sufficient representative

sample was achieved

• For the Annual CSMS, every attempt is made to reach as much of the sample as possible for services that have lower

sample sizes

The following steps were undertaken during data collection to support achievement of a representative sample of respective populations across

jurisdictions.

Approach to in-field management

170





The Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey captured feedback from 2,004 consumers which were weighted by age, gender and region to

be representative of the SA citizen population.

Responses to the survey have been weighted to correct for over-

representation of particular segments to match known SA resident

population totals. Responses were each weighted based on the

following demographics to approximate the target population:

• Age and gender interlocking based on the population of SA residents

(from ABS)

• Region based on the population of SA residents who live in

metropolitan SA, Regional SA and Rural SA (from ABS)

• Aggregate scores across services have also been weighted

according to the proportion of respondents who have interacted with

this service in the last 12 months in an attempt to weight higher

those services which consumers interact with more frequently

Consistent with other 2020 jurisdictional data, the data files have been

cleaned to remove:

• Incomplete and duplicate responses

• Speeders based on time taken (those who completed the survey in

a time which was lower than 50% the median length were removed

from the database)

• Poor quality or junk responses for age or post code entries (ages of

greater than 100 years were removed as were junk post code

entries that could not be matched to a location within the

jurisdiction)

• Respondents who attempted to enter the survey twice

Consumer surveys from other jurisdictions were cleaned and weighted

in the same fashion as the SA data with the relevant population

statistics for each jurisdiction.

18-24: 11% (n=165)

Male: 49%(n=935)

Metropolitan SA: 73%(n=1,622)

Vehicle Licensing and Registration: 21%

(n=871)

25-34: 16% (n=339)

Female: 51% (n=1,069)

Regional SA: 13%(n=213)

Public Hospitals: 13%

(n=278)

35-44: 16%(n=296)

Rural SA: 14%(n=169)

Public Transport: 13%(n=267)

45-54: 17%(n=275)

Water Supply: 9%(n=255)

55-64: 16%(n=390)

Police: 7%(n=209)

65+: 23%(n=539)

Ambulance Services: 6% (n=203)

Public Schools: 6% (n=159)

Art Galleries: 4% (n=178)

Older People: 3% (n=130)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Age Gender Region Services

% o

f wei

ghte

d s

urv

ey p

op

ula

tio

n

SA consumer survey sample composition and weighting

Consumer data weighting and cleaning methodology

171





Business data weighting and cleaning methodologyThe Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey captured feedback from 493 businesses which were weighted by business location and size to

be representative of the SA business population.

Responses to the survey have been weighted to correct for over-

representation of particular segments to match known SA business

population totals. Responses were each weighted based on the following

demographics to approximate the target population:

• Business size based on number of employees (from ABS)

• Location of business based on the population of SA businesses which

are based in metropolitan SA, Regional SA and Rural SA (from ABS)

• Aggregate scores across services have also been weighted according

to the proportion of respondents who have interacted with this service

in the last 12 months in an attempt to weight higher those services

which businesses interact with more frequently

Consistent with the approach to the consumer survey, the data files

have been cleaned to remove:

• Incomplete and duplicate responses

• Speeders based on time taken (those who completed the survey in a

time which was lower than 50% the median length were removed

from the database)

• Poor quality or junk responses for age or post code entries (ages of

greater than 100 years were removed as were junk post code entries

that could not be matched to a location within the jurisdiction)

• Respondents who attempted to enter the survey twice

Business surveys from other jurisdictions were cleaned and weighted in

the same fashion as the SA data with the relevant population statistics

for each jurisdiction.

Sole proprietor: 27%(n=70)

Metropolitan SA: 74%(n=413)

Vehicle Licensing and Registration: 21%

(n=143)

2-5 employees: 18%(n=46)

Regional SA: 11%(n=39)

Public Schools: 7%(n=47)

6-9 employees: 18%(n=44)

Rural SA: 15%(n=41)

Water Supply: 7% (n=47)

10-19 employees:34%(n=85)

Police: 6% (n=53)

20-199: 2% (n=146)

Older People: 5%(n=37)

200+: 1% (n=102)

Disability Services: 5%(n=44)

Ambulance: 5% (n=34)

Public Hospitals: 5% (n=41)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Business size (number ofemployees)

Location (region) Services

% o

f w

eig

hte

d s

urv

ey p

opula

tion

SA business survey sample composition and weighting

172

Consumer





Driver analysis is used to understand the relative importance of

key attributes within each of the outcome areas (employees,

processes, goals and values) in determining overall satisfaction with

NSW Government services and in turn, with the customer

satisfaction index

To identify the drivers of satisfaction, a 2 step methodology was

followed:

Step 1: To identify unique components that impact the

customer experience:

• Attributes within each of the outcome areas were analysed

separately using a statistical methodology called Principle

Components Analysis (PCA)

• Via PCA analysis, attributes were grouped into key customer

experience components based on attributes that respondents

rate similarly

Step 2 : To identify which of the customer experience

components have the greatest impact on overall satisfaction

with NSW Government services:

• Regression analysis was undertaken using each of the

customer experience components with overall satisfaction as

the dependent variable

• Statistically robust components were identified to be significant

drivers of satisfaction based on their statistical significance in

predicting overall satisfaction with NSW Government services

• Relative importance of the components/drivers in determining

overall satisfaction was assessed based on the size of the

regression coefficient

Drivers of satisfaction analysis methodologyDrivers of consumer satisfaction - 2020

Ease of Processes

• Processes are easy to

understand

• Service feels seamless even

if I have to use multiple

contact methods.

Employee autonomy

• Employees are empowered

to make decisions

• Explain intended

actions clearly

• Communicate well

Communication of

Employees

• Engender

confidence in their

knowledge

• Provide good value

services

• Are honest

• Deliver high safety

standards


of employees

• Get things done as

quickly as possible

• Are consistent

• Are reliable

• Are held

accountable

Efficiency and

effectiveness of

employees

• See things from my

perspective

• Provide services

without bias


Privacy

• Safeguard privacy and

confidentiality

Transparency

• Encourage public

participation in decision

making

• Demonstrate openness and


making

Access to information and

online services

• Is making best use of online

services to improve

convenience and efficiency for

customers

• Is making it easier to access

information about their service

Speed of Processes

• Are designed to reduce wait

times

• I can get to the right person

the first time

Service Quality and Accountability

• Is a body that I can trust

• Operates with integrity

• Provides good value services

• Is accountable for its services

Em

plo

ye

e

Pro

cess

Goals

Valu

es

Employee attributes


173

Consumer





Note: Average driver performance scores and based on average performance scores for each of the

underlying attributes

Impact of drivers of satisfaction on overall satisfaction for consumers

(based on NSW Government services)

Values

2Note: Calculation is based on the relativity of parameters in the statistical analysis of

drivers against satisfaction.

Related outcome

measures

Efficiency and

Effectiveness

Fairness and

Empathy

Honesty and

Integrity

Employee

autonomy

Speed

Ease

Transparency

Privacy

Driver Average performance1

Low (1) High

(10)7.7

Low (1) High

(10)7.4

Low (1) High

(10)7.5

Low (1) High

(10)

Low (1) High

(10)7.8

Low (1) High

(10)7.1

Low (1) High

(10)6.7

Low (1) High

(10)7.0

Score is higher than or equal to average across all drivers

Score is lower than average across all drivers

Average performance of SA Government services

against each of the drivers (NSW) - Consumers

Employee attributes


Importance and performance of drivers1 in determining overall satisfaction

1Note: Groupings of drivers of satisfaction are based on analyses of NSW Government services, however it is


industries broadly.

Access to

Information

Low (1) High

(10)

7.1

6.5

CommunicationLow (1) High

(10)7.6



Efficiency and effectiveness

Speed

Ease

Transparency

Privacy

Access to information and

online services

Customer

satisfaction

Primary outcome

measure

High

High

Moderate

High

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Driver Relative importance2

Em

plo

yee a

ttri

bute

sG

oals

Pro

cesses

Communication

Moderate

Employee autonomyLow

174

South Australian Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2020

Documents

Transcript of South Australian Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2020