Farm Advisory Service: enhanced monitoring and evaluation

5. Satisfaction and areas for improvement

5.1 Satisfaction

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the support they had received on the following scale:

• Very satisfied
• Satisfied
• Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
• Dissatisfied
• Very dissatisfied

Figure 9: Satisfaction scores, percentage of respondents (n=116)

Overall, 79% of respondents were satisfied (somewhat or very) with the support that they received from FAS.

Satisfaction ratings have been compared by age of respondent, farm size, farm sector and support received. Respondents with smaller farms are slightly more likely to be satisfied. 89% of those with farms less than 100 hectares were satisfied (somewhat or very), compared to 74% of those with farms of more than 100 hectares. Conversely, seven out of the eight respondents reporting dissatisfaction had farms of 100 hectares or more. Seven of those who expressed dissatisfaction gave their age and were all over 40 years old.

The following table shows satisfaction by support type.

Table 7 Satisfaction by support group, % within each support group

	Mentoring	Carbon audit only	ILMP with or without specialist advice	ILMP and carbon audit, with or without specialist advice
n	8	50	29	29
Very satisfied	38%	22%	34%	28%
Somewhat satisfied	50%	48%	52%	55%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	12%	20%	14%	7%
Somewhat dissatisfied	-	6%	-	7%
Very dissatisfied	-	4%	-	3%

Those respondents receiving mentoring support were more likely to express satisfaction. All but one of these farms receiving mentoring were smaller farms, less than 100 hectares.

5.2 Reasons for satisfaction

All of those who expressed satisfaction or who said neither satisfied nor dissatisfied were asked about their reasons for this. 32% of those who were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and a few who were somewhat satisfied stated simply that the service had been helpful or useful but had been unable to describe their satisfaction in more detail. The reasons for satisfaction are summarised in the table below.

Table 8: Summary of reasons for satisfaction (n=73 | multiple response)

	% of respondents able to give a reason for their satisfaction
The advisor was good – thorough, knowledgeable, practical, helpful and good communication and professional service	41%
The advice was easy to understand, practical and perceived to be good	36%
The service highlighted issues of which beneficiaries were previously unaware	23%
The advice was beneficial in some tangible way[4]	12%
The service increased beneficiaries' confidence to take action	12%
The service gave the beneficiary access to funding	4%

Respondents' comments about the advisor and the advice included:

"The consultant was easy to understand and made good use of the resource and had a good understanding of the business"

"Very practical. The advice given was easy to implement. The consultant had excellent knowledge and ability to transfer his knowledge"

"The main thing would be the advisor herself she was very thorough and interested in the business and the workings of it. Very practical. I have gone back to her since"

"I found it all very useful. Most of the suggestions seem to be quite sensible, manageable, and achievable. Very satisfied with the support and services we received"

"There was a personal touch and the advisor was very good and knowledgeable and if he didn't know the answer then he went and found this out straight away"

"It was a relatively simply service and what they carry out is easy and effective. For us, it was especially simple in terms of reducing our carbon"

"The service did exactly what it was supposed to do. It was very helpful, so much so that we followed it up this year and are having another audit done so we can see any further improvements or recommendations"

"The report itself was extremely comprehensive, it allowed me to evaluate my options and make informed choices as it gave me very good quantifiable evidence on what would happen if I didn't do things"

Respondents' comments about benefits as a reason for satisfaction included:

"Coming from a non agricultural crofting farming background, it's hard to make a transition without support. It is one of the best schemes I've been on and it helped having someone locally to mentor me and introduce me to this business"

"[I'm] satisfied with the service and with the advice that the advisor provided, we managed to achieve the results that we were looking for when we first approached the farm advisory service"

"Without the advice that was given I would not have taken action as I was not aware of it and I hope to see a major improvement financially by taking up the actions that were recommended"

With regard to highlighting of new issues and increasing beneficiaries' confidence to take action, comments included:

"Well, I think it was a very clear report and it made us think about things we wouldn't have otherwise thought of. Hopefully … it has helped with some cost saving"

"The fact that they do the report in the first place is great. It highlights all the things that I am doing anyway well whilst also posing the question to do things that I didn't think were necessary before. It made me aware of more modern farming"

"It just makes you aware of some of the things you may not have thought of yourself. It flags up things, points you towards better options."

"The advice that I received has been useful. I have taken action and it gave me the confidence on taking these actions as I was going to do them anyway"

"It was what I expected - from my own observations I had made some decisions and then the FAS confirming this gave me the confidence to take the decisions and not look back"

5.3 Reasons for dissatisfaction

Just eight respondents (7%) expressed dissatisfaction. Of these, five had received a carbon audit only and the other three had also had an ILMP.

With regard to both the carbon audit and ILMP the respondents felt that the report didn't give them any new or useful information and they had been expecting something more detailed. Their comments included:

"The report basically just highlighted things we already knew. I thought they would come up with some facts and figures to diversify a little but there was basically nothing in it, it was just a history report which we already knew"

"There are lots of issues and blanks in the final report for the carbon audit. There were far too many things not recognised in the report - there is so much more we need to learn about in terms of carbon and so there's lots of room for improvement"

"The carbon audit report has not helped change anything in my business as I have been trying to do these things anyway"

One respondent also commented,

"The procedure is too slow from getting the approval and the advisor to come and to get to the end process from start to finish"

5.4 Other support needs

Respondents were asked if there was any support that they would like that they had not been able to get through the FAS. 63% reported that the support they needed had been available through the FAS. 43 respondents (37%) felt that they needed other support that had not been available through FAS.

Of those who felt that they needed other support, two thirds (28 respondents) were looking for information or advice in a specialist skill or topic. These topics covered:

• Business management issues including profitability, Brexit, budget management succession planning and diversification (10 respondents)
• Farming issues including specific markets of farming, organic farming, animal welfare, pest control, soil testing, manure storage control and grazing management (10 respondents)
• Environmental issues including further ways to reduce carbon and renewable technology (eight respondents)

Comments included:

"There should be a service that relates to finances where we can discuss the business. It is about getting the best return for what you are doing so there should be more financial scrutiny. It would be good to have scenario planning"

"I would like more information on cow welfare and calve rearing and also how to improve the accommodation for the cows to prevent use of antibiotics"

"I would like to do more with regards to soil sampling but am not sure how to go about this. I would also like to learn more about the management of grass"

"We require further solutions to the problems that have been highlighted generally in relation to climate change"

The remaining third were interested in an alternative support type, mainly finance or grants (seven respondents). However, two respondents would have liked mentoring support and one mentioned peer or networking type support.

"More information should be available for farmers and crofters about what grants are available and what they would be eligible for especially with regards to buying equipment"

"There weren't any capital grants on farming to improve things such as personal safety or cattle management - grants or tax breaks to assist on specific projects. This would be a really helpful thing to have if they really want to see improvements"

"Mentoring should be available more and more courses which provide skills on the farm as well as having more crofting available in local areas rather than specific locations"

"Support to set up farmers groups so you can compare with each other as well as more support to younger farmers"

5.5 Improvements to the service

A third (35%) of respondents had suggestions for how they felt the service could be improved.^[5] Of these, almost a third (13 respondents) felt that FAS needed to be advertised better, either because it was a good service to be promoted or to make what was on offer clearer.

"I suppose my ignorance at what services they offer shows that they could advertise themselves much better"

"FAS could be advertised or highlighted better. You have to go looking for it and if you don't look then you don't get"

"The marketing could be better and the benefits from having contact with FAS could be more widely spread"

Other key improvements to the service, suggested by the remaining beneficiaries are listed in Table 9.

Table 9: Service improvements, number of respondents

	Number of respondents
Make specific information, detail and depth in the report relevant to the beneficiary	7
Reduction in paperwork	6
Making support more accessible – different locations, format of report	3
Reduce time taken for report to arrive	3
More follow up	3
More specialist advisors	3
Make support less time consuming for beneficiary	2

Their comments included:

"The service has to be less paper and more on the ground, more practical. Farmers are not the best paper people but we know how to learn things quickly. Get off paper into practicality'

"There is too much paperwork involved with the application as farmers already have lots of paperwork to look after with their business so having more with the application can be a bit difficult"

"The carbon audit should have more detailed feedback given to the farmers"

"Reports need to be giving in depth analysis rather than giving information anyone can get"

"There seems to be a lack of focus and no sense of urgency when calling through to FAS. A meeting would be great to obtain feedback although I understand how time consuming this may be"

"Maybe the bulletin could be slightly more accessible with regards to the format used. For example, it should be sent as a PDF document so it is easier to save and locate on my device"

"More consistency with follow up calls and updates whether it be just a call to find out how they have found a certain workshop or how they are getting on since having contact with an advisor"

5.6 Recommending the FAS

Respondents were asked, on a scale of 1-10 where 1 was not at all and 10 extremely, how likely they were to recommend the FAS to other farmers and crofters. The results have been analysed to generate a Net Promoter Score.

A Net Promoter Score (or NPS) is often used to gauge customer satisfaction with, and loyalty to, a particular service and is an index ranging from -100 to 100 that measures customers willingness to recommend a service to others. An NPS of greater than 0 is considered to be good.

Respondents are classified based on their response to the question on how likely they were to recommend the service as follows:

• Promoters – score 9 or 10
• Passives – Score 7 or 8
• Detractors – Score 6 or less.

Table 10: NPS classification, % of respondents (n=116)

	% of respondents
Promoters	39%
Passives	40%
Detractors	21%

To calculate NPS the proportion of detractors is deducted from the proportion of promoters (in this case 39 – 21) giving an NPS of 18.

Consistent with results on satisfaction, the majority of detractors (67%), received a carbon audit only. Whereas all those who received mentoring support were promoters.

There were four cases where respondents reported that they were very satisfied and yet came out as detractors. Three of these scored either 5 or 6 when asked how likely they were to recommend, so at the higher end or the detractor range. One stated that there were no others nearby to whom they could recommend the FAS service.