Survey of Customer Satisfaction in Administration of Grants and Subsidy Schemes 2006

Listen

Executive Summary

Summary of Main Findings

  • Overall satisfaction remains at a high level (89%), albeit at significantly lower levels than seen last year (97%).
  • Importance of all key elements of customer service are at similar levels to last year, with 'delivery of payments' the most important element.
  • All aspects of customer service have seen satisfaction significantly decrease since last year, probably mainly due to the introduction of the Single Farm Payment Scheme.
  • The most significant decreases in satisfaction are for 'delivery of payments' and 'keeping promises/commitments'.
  • Contact with SEERAD has remained relatively static and personal contact with Pentland/Saughton House 1 has risen from 14% in 2005 to 20% in 2006.
  • Complaints have increased (13% having complained formally in 2006) but are still at a low level.
  • Few problems remained unresolved, with very small proportions of respondents waiting 6 or more months for resolution of a problem.
  • Satisfaction with how problems were resolved has increased, particularly in terms of staff handling of problems.
  • The proportion of respondents who felt that SEERAD's administration of grants and subsidy schemes had got worse increased in 2006 from 7% to 20%. 64% said it was the same.
  • Internet usage (68%) and access to Scottish Executive Agricultural website has increased but the proportion of those using SEERAD Online remained relatively static.
  • Awareness of A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture has increased to 40% from 36%, but only about a quarter of those who claimed to have heard of it said they could recall specific themes of the Strategy.

Background

This report outlines the key findings of the Customer Satisfaction Survey in Administration of Grants and Subsidy Schemes, conducted in January and February 2006. The focus of the survey was to look back at SEERAD's performance in 2005. Customers in this case are farmers and crofters who make claims for grants and subsidies to SEERAD.

Previous waves of the survey were conducted in 2005, 2004 and 2003. When the years 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 are mentioned, it refers to the year in which the study took place. For each survey undertaken, respondents answered questions in relation to the year of application i.e. the previous year. Accordingly, the 2006 survey provides views of farmers and crofters who made claims for grants and subsidies in 2005.

Aims and Objectives

The overarching aim was to undertake a survey of customers' perceptions of service standards, covering all aspects of SEERAD's administration of grants and subsidy schemes.

Specific objectives of the research were as follows:

  • To gather information on the level of customer satisfaction with SEERAD services, and to identify scope for service improvements and the setting of targets;
  • To allow comparison with the results of the 2003, 2004 and 2005 SEERAD Customer Satisfaction Surveys;
  • To monitor the impact of changes made to service delivery over time; and
  • To assess performance in clarity of information provided for producers on CAP Reform.

In addition, the study was designed to assess the impact of the change in January 2005 which decoupled subsidies from production and replaced the seven previous production based subsidy schemes with the Single Farm Payment Scheme ( SFPS). The SFPS was designed to allow producers to make market-orientated decisions rather than farming as dictated by subsidy scheme rules.

Methodology and Sampling

Interviews for the survey took place between 31 st January and 20 th February 2006. All interviews were conducted over the telephone with the person at the farm/croft responsible for completing the grants and subsidy applications at the farm/croft. A total of 1020 interviews were achieved.

In conducting the interviews, quotas were set on Local Area Office and Size of Farm (based on level of IACS claim). Three equal sizes of farm categories were defined as follows:

  • Level 1 - Small claims.
  • Level 2 - Medium claims.
  • Level 3 - Large claims.

This ensured that the interviews achieved were reflective of the random sample drawn from the Scottish IACS database of farmers which was in turn representative of the proportion of farms/crofts in Scotland.

Profile of Respondents

  • The majority were male (79%).
  • The majority were aged over 45 years.
  • The majority had been in farming for 11+ yrs.
  • They were spread across the country, with a slightly greater concentration in the North East region (33%).
  • 68% had access to the Internet.

Main Findings

Overall Satisfaction

  • Overall satisfaction with SEERAD's administration of grants and subsidy schemes remains high (89%).
  • The proportion who are very satisfied (a score of 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale) has dropped from 53% to 41% and the proportion who are at all satisfied (scoring 6 or above) dropped from 97% to 89% over the last year.

Importance/Satisfaction with Service Standards

Importance

  • All nine service standards evaluated by respondents continued to receive relatively high levels of importance, with each service standard awarded a rating of 8.64 or more (where the highest rating possible was 10).
  • The two most important service standards for respondents participating in the 2006 survey were 'delivery of payments' and 'accuracy of claim processing' (receiving average scores of 9.35 and 9.12 respectively). These have also consistently remained the two most important service standards across the four years of the study.
  • Of least importance are 'ease of completing application forms' and 'contacting appropriate person' (receiving ratings of 8.74 and 8.62 respectively). Levels of importance with both these elements have decreased since the original 2003 study.
  • There has been little change in the importance ascribed to each element since 2005. The sole changes were the increasing gap between 'delivery of payments' and 'accuracy of claim processing' (the two most highly endorsed elements), with the importance of the former increasing from 9.25 to 9.35 and that of the latter decreasing from 9.22 to 9.12.

Satisfaction

  • Satisfaction levels with service standards were generally high (only one, 'ease of completing application forms', getting an average score of less than 7 on a 1-10 scale), and none matched the level of importance attributed to each.
  • Respondents were most satisfied with three service standards: 'staff conduct on inspections' (8.42); 'accuracy of claim processing' (8.15); and 'ease of contacting appropriate person' (7.95).
  • Satisfaction has decreased from 2005 for all elements, with all being at the lowest levels recorded since yearly surveys began in 2003. But, this is against a background of radical change.
  • The largest declines since 2005 were seen for 'delivery of payment' (from 8.20 to 7.00) and 'keeping promises and commitments' (from 8.09 to 7.13). The decline in the former is particularly important given that it is still rated as the most important element by respondents.
  • The biggest gaps between the ratings awarded for importance and satisfaction were in relation to 'delivery of payments', 'ease of completing application forms' and 'keeping promises and commitments'. When asked the reasons for having gaps of 2 or more between the scores given for satisfaction and importance, those mentioning both 'delivery of payments' and 'keeping promises' most frequently referred to irregular, late or withheld payments.

Contact with SEERAD

  • Contact with SEERAD remained at roughly similar levels to those noted in previous years of the survey, at approximately every 5 months. Contact was most frequent amongst younger interviewees; those with larger (Level 3) claims; those in the East of Scotland; and business partners.
  • Whereas 14% of respondents in 2005 said they had made personal contact with Pentland House, the proportion making contact with Pentland or Saughton House in 2006 increased to 20%.

Problems/Concerns

  • The majority (87%) of farmers had not raised a problem formally with SEERAD. This was a decrease from the 2005 figure of 93%. In total, 12% said they had raised a problem.
  • Of those who had formally raised a problem, 18% related specifically to Single Farm Payment problems. In total, 55% had all their problem(s) resolved and only 13% were still waiting for resolution of a problem that was raised between 9 and 12 months ago. While it may be that some problems or concerns took a relatively long period of time to be resolved, as with last year, these are largely in line with the time taken to resolve formal appeals received under the EU Agricultural Subsidies Appeals Procedures. Furthermore, it could be related to the respondents' definition of 'resolved'.
  • The small number of respondents who had raised a problem with SEERAD which had been resolved were satisfied with the speed with which staff responded to the problem; how the problem was resolved; and, particularly, how staff had handled the problem. Overall scores for all these elements had increased since 2005 and are at the highest levels recorded.

SEERAD Performance

  • The proportion of respondents who felt that SEERAD's administration of grants and subsidy schemes had got worse increased substantially in 2006 from 7% to 20%. This is largely attributed to the perception that payments under the SFPS had not been made on time and the process too complicated.
  • The proportion saying that SEERAD's administration had improved declined from 14% in 2005 to 10% in 2006, with the percentage saying it had stayed the same also decreasing (75% to 64%).

Agri E-Business

  • There has been an increase in access to the Internet since 2005 (58%), with 68% of respondents now stating they have access to the Internet.
  • Exactly half those with Internet access had accessed the Scottish Executive Agricultural Website, compared to 42% in 2005.
  • Similar proportions of those with Internet access had used SEERAD Online in 2006 (16%) and 2005 (17%), although this must be read in conjunction with the increased Internet access in the most recent period.

Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture

  • Levels of awareness of A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture have increased to 40% from the 36% recorded in 2005 and the 35% in 2004.
  • Of the 40% who claimed to be aware, 27% said they could recall specific themes, with the main themes mentioned relating to the environment. This low level suggests a continuing lack of detailed knowledge of the basic provisions of the Strategy.

In summary, the research findings indicate a decline in satisfaction, but this can be primarily linked to changes in payment relating to the introduction of the Single Farm Payment Scheme. It appears that this has not only impacted on satisfaction with delivery of payments, but in the overall extent to which SEERAD is seen to keep its promises.

Despite this, positive moves have been made in terms of staff response to problems, suggesting that while there has been an increase in problems (mainly due to the Single Farm Payment Scheme), SEERAD staff have helped minimise the impact.

Page updated: Thursday, November 16, 2006