Chapter Seven : Change in Performance
It has been already noted that overall satisfaction levels have decreased. Allied to this, it is also important to gain some indication of any perceived change in performance of SEERAD's service. As such, respondents were asked a number of questions about their impression of any change in performance i.e. had it 'got better' or had it 'got worse' in terms of SEERAD's administration of the grants and subsidy schemes? The results to these questions are indicated in Chart 7.1.
7.1 Change in SEERAD's Administration of Grants and Subsidy Schemes
Respondents were firstly asked if they felt in general that SEERAD's service had got better or worse in comparison to the previous year.
It is noticeable that there has been a significant increase in the proportion of respondents stating that SEERAD's administration of grants and subsidy schemes has got worse in the preceding 12 months (from 7% in 2005 to 20% in 2006), coinciding with the introduction of the Single Farm Payment Scheme. This has been mirrored by a concomitant significant decline from 2005 in the proportion feeling the administration has got better (from 14% to 10%) or stayed the same (from 75% to 64%).
Chart 7.1 Change in SEERAD's Administration of Grants and Subsidy Schemes
Notes to chart
Base: All respondents
Source: Q7a
7.2 Reasons for 'Better' Performance
Those who stated SEERAD's performance had got better (N=101), were then asked to describe in what ways it had got better. The two key reasons provided were that respondents found the process quicker and more efficient (30%) or that they found the 'staff more helpful or knowledgeable' (24%). Results for this question are shown in table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Reasons for 'Better' Performance
| 2006 |
|---|
N=101 |
|---|
% |
|---|
Quicker/more efficient process | 30 |
|---|
Staff more knowledgeable/helpful | 24 |
|---|
Application easier to fill in/understand | 21 |
|---|
Prompt delivery of payment | 9 |
|---|
More detailed/clearer information | 9 |
|---|
Direct contact with local staff has improved | 5 |
|---|
Better schemes | 5 |
|---|
Online facilities have improved | 4 |
|---|
Notes to table
Base: All respondents said SEERAD's performance in last 12 months got better
Source: Q7b
7.3 Reasons for 'Worse' Performance
Those who stated that SEERAD's performance had got worse (N=207), were asked to describe in what ways it had got worse. The key reasons provided related to the fact that 'payments are not on time/slow payments' (30%) and the 'process being too complicated' (25%). Results are detailed below in table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Reasons for Worse Performance
| 2006 |
|---|
N=207 |
|---|
% |
|---|
Payments not on time/slow | 30 |
|---|
Process is too complicated | 25 |
|---|
Payments have been lowered | 18 |
|---|
More paperwork | 16 |
|---|
System/processes change too often | 14 |
|---|
More problems in general | 12 |
|---|
Cross-checking information is not clear/problematic | 5 |
|---|
Lack of (clear) information about schemes/changes in schemes | 4 |
|---|
Notes to table
Base: All respondents said SEERAD's performance in last 12 months got better
Source: Q7c