RPID Customer Satisfaction Survey to Inform the Futures Programme

3 Service Standards

Summary

1. Overall, two-thirds of respondents are satisfied with RPID and its partners, with only 12% dissatisfied, and the majority of respondents agree that RPID is helpful and trustworthy.

2. Respondents' main problems over service arose from having difficulty finding information and information that was unclear, as well as finding forms difficult to complete and having problems with the quantity and clarity of guidance for completing forms.

3.1 When asked about their overall level of satisfaction with the information and services provided by RPID and its partners over the last twelve months, 64% of respondents said that they were satisfied (21% very satisfied and 43% fairly satisfied), compared with 12% dissatisfied. This gives a net satisfaction rating of 52%. One in five respondents said that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, while 4% answered 'don't know'. See also figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1: Satisfaction with information and services provided by RPID and its partners in the last 12 months

3.2 Of those respondents who had applied to individual schemes through their SAF, similar proportions of those who applied to the Single Farm Payment Scheme (SFPS) and the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (LFASS) were satisfied with information and services provided by RPID and its partners (68% in both cases), and dissatisfied (9% for both). A similar proportion (67%) of those who had applied to the Land Managers Options (LMO) scheme was satisfied, while a slightly higher proportion was dissatisfied (12%). Among those who had applied to the Rural Development Contracts - Rural Priorities (RDC-RP), 63% said that they were satisfied, but a higher proportion (20%) was dissatisfied.

3.3 Farmers (67%) and paper SAF applicants (69%) were more likely than overall to say that they were satisfied. Other rural businesses (28%), agents (22%) and those aged 25-40 (19%) were more likely than overall to report being dissatisfied.

3.4 Telephone respondents were more likely than online respondents to report being very or fairly satisfied (24% and 47% compared with 18% and 39% respectively), while online respondents were more likely than telephone respondents to say that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (26% compared with 14%).

3.5 Of those customers who had sought information on how to appeal a penalty, 77% reported that they were satisfied (25% very satisfied and 52% fairly satisfied), with 10% dissatisfied.

3.6 Respondents who reported dissatisfaction were asked what their main reasons were. The most-reported reasons were: not enough information available (reported by 29% of respondents); reasons relating to the length of the application process or form (25%); and information or guidance not being clear or accessible (21%). Sub-group differences were not generally apparent, with the exception that paper SAF applicants were more likely than overall to say that there was not enough information available (47% versus 29%). Overall results are shown in figure 3.2 below.

"I don't know if I'm entitled to grants or not because I'm not using the internet."

"Information should be sent by post for people who are not online."

"Application forms are far too time consuming and not easy for the average person. If your application is legitimate, the process should be smooth and easy, not having to refer to a guidance 'book' to fill in a form correctly."

"It is very difficult to find specific information and the guidelines are changed without any prior warning - particularly with reference to Forestry grant availability."

3.7 Telephone respondents were more likely than online respondents to report that there was not enough information available (39% compared with 21%), information was not easy to find (23% compared with 3%), the rules keep changing or are complex (17% compared with 5%), or too much jargon (10% compared with 1%).

Figure 3.2: Main reasons for dissatisfaction with information and services provided by RPID or its partners

3.8 Respondents were then asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with four statements about aspects of the service provided by RPID and its partners. Overall results are shown in figure 3.3 below. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents agreed with the statement 'Staff from RPID and its partners are helpful towards customers', while only 5% disagreed.

Figure 3.3: Customer views on aspects of service provided by RPID and its partners

3.9 Customers who were satisfied with RPID (91%) and those in the South Eastern region (87%) were more likely than overall to agree with the statement, while telephone respondents (80%) were more likely than online respondents (73%) to agree. Those who were dissatisfied with RPID were more likely than overall to disagree (22%).

3.10 Other subgroups differed in the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Telephone respondents (46%) were more likely to strongly agree than online respondents (31%), and those who submitted a paper SAF (46%) were more likely than those who made an online SAF submission (34%) to strongly agree. Other rural businesses (54%) were more likely than farms (37%) and crofts (35%) to tend to agree with the statement. Respondents who were dissatisfied with RPID were more likely than those who were satisfied with RPID to neither agree nor disagree (13% compared with 1%), to tend to disagree (13% versus 1%) or to strongly disagree (9% compared with less than 1%) with the statement.

3.11 Two-thirds of customers agreed that 'RPID and its partners can be trusted in what they say', versus only 8% who disagreed. Again, telephone respondents were more likely than online respondents to agree (72% compared with 59%). Those who submitted a paper SAF were more likely to agree than those who made an online submission (71% versus 63%), while online SAF applicants were more likely to disagree than those who made a paper submission (10% versus 5%).

3.12 Importantly, those who were satisfied with RPID were more likely to agree (84%) that 'RPID and its partners can be trusted in what they say' and those who were dissatisfied were more likely than overall to disagree (32%). Among those who had sought information on how to appeal a penalty, 79% agreed and 8% disagreed. This suggests that there is an important relationship between good customer experience and customers' trust in the organisation.

3.13 Fifty-six per cent of respondents agreed that they are well informed about the different aspects of the rural schemes they have applied for with RPID and its partners, while 16% disagreed. Telephone respondents were again more likely than online respondents to agree with this statement (65% compared with 48%). Those who are satisfied with RPID (76%), in the South Eastern and Southern regions (72% and 70% respectively), and farmers (60%) were more likely than overall to agree that they were well informed. Those dissatisfied with RPID (60%), agents (26%) and respondents in the 25-40 age group (25%) were more likely than overall to disagree. There would seem, then, to be a relationship between satisfaction in the organisation and feeling informed.

3.14 Only around half of respondents (48%) agreed that RPID and its partners provide information and services designed with the customer in mind, while 21% disagreed. Again, overall satisfaction appears to have a relationship with how respondents answer this question: 66% of those who are satisfied with RPID agreed, while 70% of those dissatisfied with RPID were in disagreement with the statement.

3.15 The majority of telephone respondents (57%) agreed with the above statement, compared with 40% of online respondents. Respondents in the South Eastern region (58%) were more likely than overall to agree, while those in Grampian (28%) were more likely than overall to disagree. Farmers (52%), respondents in the 65+ age group (55%) and paper SAF applicants (56%) were more likely to agree; while agents (45%), other rural businesses (40%), and non-SAF applicants (42%) were more likely to disagree.

3.16 Respondents were asked to gauge their satisfaction with twelve factors of the service offered by RPID and its partners, shown in figure 3.4 below. The majority of respondents were found to be satisfied with each of the twelve factors, with respondents most likely to report being satisfied with factors involving contact with staff or RPID itself: being promptly directed to staff who can help (72% satisfied); enquiries being resolved quickly by staff (70%), written correspondence with RPID or its partners is clear (69%); and staff being knowledgeable about schemes (69%) scored most highly in terms of customer satisfaction, with small proportions dissatisfied (5%, 8%, 8% and 7% respectively). Respondents were also more satisfied with inspection staff acting professionally (63% versus 2% dissatisfied) and receiving consistent information from different members of staff (59% versus 11%).

Figure 3.4 Satisfaction with RPID and partners on aspects of service

3.17 However, factors with the lowest satisfaction ratings were those which concerned information. Only 51% of respondents said that they were satisfied that information about schemes was easy to find, with 22% reporting that they were dissatisfied; 59% were satisfied that such information was clear, while 16% said that they were dissatisfied with this.

3.18 Seventy per cent of those who were dissatisfied with RPID, and 44% of customers who have not submitted a SAF in the last year, said that they were dissatisfied with the ease of finding information about schemes, compared with 22% overall; while other rural businesses (33%) were also more likely than overall to express dissatisfaction with this.

3.19 Similarly, 61% of those dissatisfied with RPID and 34% of those who did not submit a SAF in the last year were more likely than overall (16%) to report dissatisfaction with the clarity of information about schemes, as were agents and other rural businesses (28% and 24% respectively). On the other hand, farmers, paper SAF applicants (both 65%) and those satisfied with RPID (76%) were more likely than overall to say that they were satisfied.

3.20 Three in five respondents noted that they were satisfied with the ease of completing applications, compared with one in five who were dissatisfied. Again, the highest levels of dissatisfaction were reported by those who were dissatisfied with RPID overall (55%) and those who had not submitted a SAF in the last year (41%); while sizeable proportions of agents (36%), other rural businesses (33%) and crofters (26%) also reported dissatisfaction with this factor.

3.21 Overall, respondents to the telephone survey were more likely to be satisfied with each of the twelve factors than online respondents.

3.22 Removing respondents who answer 'don't know' or who have no experience of each factor means satisfaction is slightly higher for each, as shown in figure 3.5 below. As can be seen, the level of satisfaction with those who have experienced each aspect of the service provided by RPID and its partners is generally positive, particularly in terms of interactions with staff. However, opinion is more divided over the quantity and clarity of guidance on completing application forms, on the ease of completing the forms themselves, and the clarity and ease of locating information about schemes.

Figure 3.5: Satisfaction with RPID and partners on aspects of service among those who have experienced each and gave an opinion

3.23 Respondents who expressed dissatisfaction with two or more factors were asked which one or two they would most like to see RPID and its partners improve upon, with overall results shown in figure 3.6 below. The most frequently mentioned factors reflect the recurring areas of dissatisfaction: application forms being easy to complete (36%), payments arriving on time (32%), ease of finding information on schemes (25%), clarity of written information about schemes (23%) and clarity of guidance on how to complete applications (19%).

3.24 Those dissatisfied with RPID were more likely to want improvements to the ease of finding information about schemes (30%), than those who were satisfied with RPID (14%); while those satisfied with RPID were more likely than overall to say that they would look for improvement in the ease of completing application forms (48% versus 36%). Agents were more likely than overall to want improvement to the timely arrival of payments (49% versus 32%), receiving consistent information from different members of staff (31% compared with 13%), and the knowledge of staff about schemes (17% versus 8%).

Figure 3.6: Factors which dissatisfied respondents would like to see RPID and its partners improve upon

3.25 The importance of accessible and high quality information is also confirmed by statistically analysing the relationship between overall satisfaction with RPID and satisfaction with, or agreement with statements about, the various aspects of service provision. Analysing all possible combinations of variables we find the highest levels of overall satisfaction among respondents who agree that "I feel well informed about the different aspects of rural schemes I've applied for with RPID and its partners" and agree that "RPID and its partners provide information and services designed with the customer in mind" and are satisfied that "information about schemes is easy to find". Among respondents who meet each of these three criteria (n=316), 95% are satisfied.

3.26 The converse is also true. The lowest levels of satisfaction are among respondents who do not agree (including neither agree nor disagree) that they are well informed and do not agree that "RPID and its partners provide information and services designed with the customer in mind" and are not satisfied (including neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) that payments arrived on time. Among these respondents (n = 53), only 11% are satisfied.

3.27 Ipsos MORI looked at benchmarking customer satisfaction with RPID and its partners against land management customers' satisfaction with Natural England which is a comparable UK body; however, it is important to note that not all of the issues covered in Ipsos MORI's surveys for both bodies are directly comparable. Where possible, comparisons are made where factors are similar to each other, and where a similar question is asked; it would not be possible, for example, to compare agree/disagree questions with satisfaction questions.

3.28 Three-quarters of Natural England customers said that they were very or fairly satisfied with the speed or accuracy of payments. This compares with 73% of RPID customers who were satisfied that their payments arrive on time. Thirteen per cent of Natural England customers said that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (compared with 11% of RPID customers), and 9% of Natural England customers who were dissatisfied (compared with 14% of RPID customers).

3.29 Sixty-nine per cent of Natural England customers said that they were satisfied with the quality of information or correspondence, while 25% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and only 4% were dissatisfied. Satisfaction with the clarity of RPID's written correspondence is at similar levels: 74% are satisfied, with 17% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 8% dissatisfied.

3.30 Sixty-eight per cent of Natural England's customers were satisfied with the efficiency with which staff deal with enquiries, while 7% were dissatisfied and 21% said that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Again, RPID and its partners have a similar level of satisfaction amongst their customers, with 70% satisfied that their enquiries are quickly resolved by staff, with 8% dissatisfied and 10% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

3.31 A similar proportion of Natural England customers (68%) said that they were satisfied with the consistency of advice that they receive, with 6% dissatisfied and 22% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. RPID compares slightly less favourably, with 59% of customers saying that they are satisfied that the information they receive from different members of staff is consistent, with 11% dissatisfied and 10% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

3.32 However, 72% of RPID customers said that they were satisfied that they were promptly directed to staff who can help them, with only 3% dissatisfied and 10% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This compares well with Natural England, where 60% said that they were satisfied with the ease of getting hold of someone who can help. Eleven per cent of Natural England customers said that they were dissatisfied with this, and a quarter was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

3.33 Eighty-six per cent of Natural England customers agreed that Natural England was helpful towards the people it deals with, while 6% disagreed and 8% neither agreed nor disagreed. A smaller proportion, though nonetheless significant majority (76%) of RPID customers agreed that staff from RPID and its partners were helpful towards customers, while 4% disagreed and 9% said that they neither agree nor disagree.

3.34 Similarly, 74% of Natural England customers agreed that Natural England could be trusted in what it says, compared with 65% of RPID customers agreeing that RPID could be trusted in what it says. Twelve per cent of Natural England customers disagreed, compared with 8% of RPID customers; while 17% and 10% for each body respectively, said that they neither agreed nor disagreed.

Key points

3.35 Overall, two thirds of respondents said that they were satisfied with RPID and its partners, with only 12% dissatisfied. The main reasons for dissatisfaction were a lack of information, or information not being easy to find, unclear guidance, and problems relating to the length or complexity of the applications process. Despite such problems being mentioned by a small proportion of respondents, these are areas which RPID and its partners can look to improve in the future.

3.36 Overall, respondents generally agreed that RPID is a helpful organisation towards customers, can be trusted in what they say, and that they are well informed about aspects of the schemes to which they apply. Just under half of respondents felt that information and services were designed with the customer in mind, with one fifth disagreeing.

3.37 In terms of individual aspects of the service provided by RPID and its partners, a majority were satisfied with each aspect. However, the highest dissatisfaction was found with: the ease with which customers could find information; the ease with which customers can complete application forms; the clarity of written information about schemes; the clarity of guidance for application forms; and the arrival of payments on time. While many aspects may be outwith the control of RPID, there may be scope to improve the clarity of information and the ease of finding it. There may also be scope to improve application forms and since this is an issue for a significant proportion of customers, this may also be an aspect of the online system that can be promoted. These are factors which can have a positive influence on encouraging customers to use the online system over continuing to use the paper-based system.

3.38 When comparing levels of satisfaction among customers of RPID and its partners and Natural England, while not all factors measured were directly comparable, there are areas of similar performance. Consistency of information was found to be an area of lower satisfaction among RPID customers, while RPID customers were more satisfied with being transferred to a member of staff who is able to help. Slightly lower proportions of RPID customers felt that RPID and its partners were helpful towards customers and could be trusted in what they say, compared with those of Natural England, although the majority did still respond positively in general.