2.0 Hearing Services

2.1 Key Results

The average overall satisfaction of the clients of CHRT’s Hearing Services is 72%.  Responses are distributed as shown in Table 2.1.

 

Table 2.1 - % of Respondents by Satisfaction Level

 

The overall satisfaction of the various participants in the hearing process is shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2

 

There are core questions that should be in all CMT based surveys.  These core questions centre on the known drivers of client satisfaction.  They provide the surveying organization with an overview of clients’ perceptions and also a means for comparing satisfaction results among other CMT survey users.  Table 2.3 shows CHRT’s results for the CMT core questions.

Table 2.3

 

The survey response rates indicate that the CHRT has two primary clients – complainants and respondent counsel.  For analysis purposes, we feel that the client groups can be defined as complainants and respondents, and counsel (excluding CHRC). 

 

Both client groups have high satisfaction levels with the personal attributes of Registry staff e.g. courtesy, respectfulness, competency, protection of privacy and having up-to-date information. 

 

However, there is a lower level of satisfaction with CHRT’s processes and associated timelines. 

 

Counsel understand the difference between the CHRT and CHRC, hence there is a high degree of confidence that their comments and rankings about process and timeliness are based on their experiences with CHRT.  Complainants and respondents, on the other hand, frequently seemed somewhat confused over the respective roles of the CHRT and CHRC, so there is less confidence that their comments and rankings about process and timeliness are based solely on their experiences with CHRT.

 

Complainants and respondents place a high level of importance (90%+) on almost all aspects of service.  Their primary concerns relate to:

Ø       The time taken by the Panel to issue a decision (63% satisfaction)

Ø       The length of the hearing preparation (68% satisfaction)

Ø       The effort to fulfil CHRT rules (68% satisfaction)

Ø       Being informed what to do to prepare for hearing (68% satisfaction)

 

Counsel place less importance on most aspects of service than complainants and respondents do.  They place higher importance on the business side of their interaction with CHRT compared to personal interaction with registry staff.  The items of most importance to counsel are:

Ø       Panel written language was clear (93% importance)

Ø       Length of the hearing (89% importance)

Ø       Time taken by Panel to issue decision (88% importance)

Ø       Panel verbal language was clear (85% importance)

Ø       Received consistent information/advice (85% importance)

Ø       Staff protected my confidentiality (85% importance)

 

The primary concerns of counsel relate to:

Ø       Being informed of what to do to prepare for a hearing (50% satisfaction)

Ø       Ease of finding out what was expected (52% satisfaction)

Ø       Effort to fulfil CHRT rules (53% satisfaction)

Ø       Procedures were straightforward (54% satisfaction)

Ø       Length of the hearing preparation (58% satisfaction)

 

 

 

2.2 Service Delivery

CHRT’s clients include complainants, respondents, complainant counsel, respondent counsel and counsel for the CHRC.  CHRT’s results could be presented on an overall basis, however this would tend to mask potentially important differences among the different client groups.  Results could also be segregated by client role, however this approach may lead to unnecessary detail.  After looking at the survey results, we feel that the best way to present the information is to aggregate the feedback from complainants and respondents and also to aggregate the feedback from the counsel for these groups.  As we did not receive any responses from CHRC counsel, the treatment of this client group was not considered at this time.

 

The aspects of service delivery receiving the highest and lowest ratings are shown in Tables 2.4 A and B.

 

Table 2.4A - Complainants and Respondents

Highest Rating		Lowest Rating
Staff were courteous	90%	Time taken by Panel to issue decision	63%
Staff were respectful	89%	Effort to fulfil CHRT rules	68%
Staff protected my confidentiality	88%	Length of the hearing preparation	68%
Staff were helpful	86%	Overall time to receive services	70%

 

Table 2.4B – Counsel (for Complainants and Respondents)

Highest Rating		Lowest Rating
Staff were courteous	82%	Effort to fulfil CHRT rules	53%
Staff were respectful	77%	Length of the hearing preparation	58%
Staff protected my confidentiality	77%	Time taken by Panel to issue decision	63%
Staff were helpful	76%

 

The average satisfaction and importance levels that respondents have attributed to a variety of service delivery aspects are shown in Appendix C.

 

The most frequently mentioned areas for improvement and the percent of respondents choosing that area are shown in Table 2.5.  Appendix D shows the full list of improvement priorities.

Table 2.5 – Areas for Improvement

Complainants & Respondents		Counsel for Complainants and Respondents
Time for Panel to issue decision	42%	Length of the hearing preparation	47%
Length of the hearing preparation	35%	Effort to fulfil rules	38%
# of staff dealt with to get service	35%	Service provided was fair/equitable	28%
Length of the hearing	35%	Staff were competent	28%

 

2.2.1 Length of Hearing Preparation

Survey respondents were asked “how long hearing preparation lasted – from the time the CHRT contacted them until their case was settled or the hearing commenced.”  57% responded “more than 6 months”, 29% “4-6 months” and 14% “ 3-4 months”.

 

About 50% of survey respondents indicated the time for hearing preparation exceeded their view of an acceptable time.  Almost all of these survey respondents had experienced preparation times of “more than 6 months”. 

 

To satisfy the vast majority of clients, the CHRT would need to complete hearing preparation for most cases in the 3-4 month time frame and not have any cases exceed 6 months.  Some survey respondents noted that their expectations of an acceptable length of time would depend on the complexity of the case.

2.2.2 Hearing Timelines

Survey respondents, involved in cases that proceeded to a hearing were asked, “how the actual length of their hearing compared to what is reasonable.”  About 61% had their expectations met or exceeded.  13% felt the hearing took somewhat longer than reasonable and 26% felt it took much longer. 

 

Survey respondents’ views on a reasonable time for the Panel to reach a decision varied.  The most frequently mentioned (45%) time was two months.  Only 5% of survey respondents indicated more than four months was reasonable.

2.2.3 Needs were Met

76% of survey respondents, whose case proceeded to a hearing, indicated that the Hearing Preparation Service met their needs.  A further 12% indicated their needs were partly met.

 

For cases that were settled, 69% indicated that the Hearing Preparation Service met their needs and a further 15% indicated their needs were partly met.

2.2.4 Service was Helpful

About 80% of respondents found the Hearing Preparation Service helpful.  Representative general comments are:

Ø       “Service provided met all of my requirements.”  Complainant Ø       “I did not experience any shortcomings.  All of the Registrar’s staff were very helpful and very courteous.”  Complainant Counsel Ø       “I found the Tribunal staff courteous & helpful.  The problem is with the CHRC, which is extremely unhelpful & adversarial.”  Respondent Counsel

For the most part, the concerns of survey respondents centred on specific aspects of their case. The responses of all survey respondents who agreed to allow the CHRT to see their comments are shown in Appendix B.

2.2.5 Opportunity to Present Case

All counsel responded “yes” to the question, “If your case proceeded to a hearing before the Tribunal, did you have a full and ample opportunity to present your case to the Tribunal member(s)?”  Of the 5 complainants who responded, three said “yes” and two “no”.

2.3 Access to Service and Facilities

The overall satisfaction of complainants and respondents with the accessibility of the Hearing Preparation Service is 83%.  The overall satisfaction of counsel is 78%.

 

The overall satisfaction of complainants and respondents with the facilities used during hearings is 90%.  The overall satisfaction of counsel is 69%.

 

The aspects of accessibility receiving the highest and lowest ratings are shown in Tables 2.6 A and B.

Table 2.6A - Complainants and Respondents

Highest Rating		Lowest Rating
Hearing room/waiting room were comfortable	90%	Had adequate parking	54%
Facilities made it easy to participate or follow	88%	Adequate service hours	72%
Offers various methods of access	85%	Was conveniently located	78%
Staff easily accessible by phone	85%
Facility easily accessible	85%

 

Table 2.6B – Counsel (for Complainants and Respondents)

Highest Rating		Lowest Rating
Staff easily accessible by phone	80%	Had adequate parking	42%
Offers various methods of access	74%	Was conveniently located	66%
Hearing room/waiting room were comfortable	72%	Adequate service hours	70%
Facility easily accessible	71%	Facilities made it easy to participate or follow	68%

 

The average satisfaction and importance levels that respondents have attributed to the various aspects of access to service and facilities are shown Appendix C.

 

The most frequently mentioned areas for improvement and the percent of respondents choosing that area are shown in Table 2.7.  Appendix D shows the full list of improvement priorities.

Table 2.7 – Areas for Improvement

Complainants & Respondents		Counsel for Complainants and Respondents
Staff were easily accessible by phone	82%	Adequate service hours	80%
Adequate service hours	68%	Various methods of access	60%
Various methods of access	68%	Hearing room/waiting room were comfortable	60%

2.3.1 Office Hours

In response to the question, “Do regular office hours (8:00am –5:00pm EST) meet your needs for accessing our service?” 81% responded “yes” and 19% “no”.

 

When looked at on a geographic basis, respondents from the Eastern and Central Canada were the most satisfied with the current hours.  Only 64% of the respondents from British Columbia said current hours met their needs.

2.4 Communications

The overall satisfaction of complainants and respondents with the written and verbal communications surrounding the Hearing Preparation Service is 85%.  The overall satisfaction of counsel is 65%.

 

The aspects of communications receiving the highest and lowest ratings are shown in Tables 2.8 A and B.

 

Table 2.8A - Complainants and Respondents

Highest Rating		Lowest Rating
Forms were easy to understand/fill out	83%	Informed of what to do to prepare for hearing	68%
Documents were easy to understand	82%	Procedures were straightforward	73%
Easy to find out what was expected	76%	Information needed was available	74%

 

Table 2.8B – Counsel (for Complainants and Respondents)

Highest Rating		Lowest Rating
Information needed was available	61%	Informed of what to do to prepare for hearing	50%
Documents were easy to understand	66%	Easy to find out what was expected	51%
Forms were easy to understand/fill out	62%	Procedures were straightforward	54%

 

The average satisfaction and importance levels that respondents have attributed to a variety of communication aspects are shown in Appendix C.

 

The most frequently mentioned areas for improvement and the percent of respondents choosing that area are shown in Table 2.9.  Appendix D shows the full list of improvement priorities.

Table 2.9 – Areas for Improvement

Complainants & Respondents		Counsel for Complainants and Respondents
Procedures were straightforward	52%	Procedures were straightforward	94%
Informed of what to do to prepare (for hearing)	52%	Informed of what to do to participate (in hearing)	38%
Informed of what to do to participate (in hearing)	39%	Panel written language was clear	38%
		Forms were easy to understand/fill out	38%

 

When asked for the best ways for CHRT to communicate with them, complainants and respondents most frequently mentioned telephone and mail.  Counsel most frequently mentioned fax and E-mail, but telephone and mail also ranked highly. 

 

All survey respondents indicated they had personal access to telephone and E-mail.  All counsel have access to fax, but only about two thirds of complainants reported fax access.

2.5 General

The most frequently mentioned problems and the number of survey respondents choosing that area are shown in Table 2.10.  Appendix D shows the full list of general problems.

Table 2.10 – Problem Areas

Complainants & Respondents		Counsel for Complainants and Respondents
Didn’t know how to find out what to do	4	Trouble with automatic systems	3
Not given sufficient information	4	Not given sufficient information	3
		Didn’t know how to find out what to do	3

 

2.6 Survey Administration

The CHRT deals with a relatively small number of clients annually, hence, it was both feasible and desirable to seek feedback from all of the clients who had been involved with the hearing preparation service in the previous two years (2000/1 and 2001/2).  A total of 252 surveys were mailed to clients. 

Tables 2.11 and 2.12 show survey statistics by client group.

Table 2.11

	Surveys Mailed		Surveys Returned Undeliverable		Incomplete Surveys		Complete Surveys
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Complainants	108	43%	21	75%	4	57%	22	49%
Respondents	68	27%	4	14%	2	29%	3	7%
CHRC Counsel	17	7%		0%		0%		0%
Complainant Counsel	14	6%		0%		0%	3	7%
Respondent Counsel	45	18%	3	11%	1	14%	17	38%
Total	252	100%	28	100%	7	100%	45	100%

 

Table 2.12

 

The Surveys Returned Undeliverable primarily result from individuals moving to a new home or work location.  This occurred most frequently with the complainant client group.  As there is no guarantee that undeliverable mail gets returned rather than discarded, we believe that the actual number of clients who did not receive the survey because it was sent to an outdated address is higher than shown. 

 

The Incomplete Survey category describes survey recipients who told us, either in writing or verbally, that they were not able to complete the survey.  The main reason given was very limited involvement with the Hearing Preparation Service.  We believe it is likely that there are additional individuals who did not complete the survey because their involvement was limited but who did not contact us.  The category also describes surveys that did not contain sufficient information to be considered valid. 

 

2.6.1 Reliability of Results

A. Overall Satisfaction

Based on the responses received, overall satisfaction of CHRT’s clients is estimated to be 72%. Since this estimate is derived from a sample of CHRT’s clients over the past two years, it may be higher or lower than the true level.  Assuming that the people who responded to the survey are representative of the overall client mix, then we can say with 95% confidence that the true satisfaction level is within the range of 72% +/-7.5%. 

 

Given that the Government of Canada has target improvement of 10% of the base level, which for CHRT would represent an increase from 72% to 79%, the large variability in the base satisfaction level may be problematic when trying to accurately measure the success of activities aimed at increasing client satisfaction level. 

 

One “solution” to this problem would involve achieving much higher survey response rates.  However this is not always easily done.  For example, the response rate for CHRT’s survey was only achieved as a result of follow-up letters to complainants and respondents and follow-up calls to counsel.  These efforts do not always have any impact.  For example, it was personally disappointing to us that, follow-up calls to survey recipients and the management of a federal agency did not result in the receipt of any completed surveys.  This “problem” of an absence of precision in the baseline satisfaction value is not unique to CHRT.

B. Client Views on Areas for Improvement

One consequence of only having a small number of survey responses is that individual responses have a noticeable impact on the relative rankings of improvement areas.  All organizations should understand and validate the basis for client concerns prior to changing their processes.  However, given the low number of clients associated with even the most frequently mentioned improvement areas, it is essential that CHRT validate that the concern is a reasonable one prior to initiating any corrective action.

3.0 Individuals Seeking Information of a Human Rights Nature

CHRT’s SII implementation plan identified that individuals would seek information of a human rights nature from CHRT, either on its Website or by contacting the CHRT in person.  This section discusses each approach.

3.1 Website Users

CHRT’s Website has a wide range of human rights information including relevant legislation, Tribunal rules and procedures, decisions, rulings, case information and links to other information sources.  Searchable databases make the site particularly useful.

 

From June 10 to July 15, 2002, CHRT gave Website users the opportunity to provide information on their usage of the site and how well it met their needs.  A total of 123 responses were received.  Somewhat more than 10% of respondents indicated they visited the site regularly.

 

Table 3.1 shows the responses to three key questions related to user satisfaction.  Respondents also offered written comments and suggestions.  The satisfaction levels implied in these responses is comparable to the satisfaction of CHRT’s Hearing Services clients.

 

Table 3.1

 

CHRT has used the information provided by its Website users as one of the key inputs to a Website enhancement project.  The enhanced Website is expected to go-live before year-end.

 

3.1.1 Quantifying the Satisfaction Level

As noted previously, the Common Measurement Tool includes core questions that should be asked in a standardized way.  This helps ensure that CMT survey results will be comparable, between organizations or survey to survey within the same organization.  The CMT was originally designed to be a mail-back survey.  Treasury Board has funded work to develop on-line and telephone versions of the CMT, however, the on-line survey was not available to CHRT at the time it surveyed its Website users.  This means that, while CHRT has a good appreciation of the needs and satisfaction of its Website users, the information needed to quantify their satisfaction level, in a manner that meets the SII reporting requirements, is not available.  Consequently, there is no satisfaction figure for Website users available to include in the calculation of CHRT’s overall client satisfaction level.

 

3.1.2 Individuals Contacting CHRT in Person

During the SII planning process, it was identified that individuals (other than people who are involved in active cases) who contact the CHRT in person, could potentially be a distinct client group.  A process was developed to obtain satisfaction-related feedback from these callers and was put in place.

 

Based on several months of experience, it is evident that there are very few callers to CHRT who are not part of another CHRT client group.  Consequently this group has been removed from the list of client groups.  The implications of this change on the determination of CHRT’s overall satisfaction level are outlined in Appendix E.

 

Appendix A: Specific Aspects of the SII

 

Determining Satisfaction and Importance Levels

The Common Measurements Tool (CMT) provides a template for developing client satisfaction surveys to support a service improvement initiative.  The CMT uses a five-point scale for measuring the satisfaction with, and importance of, various service aspects, or the level of agreement with certain statements.  Unlike survey methodologies that define client satisfaction as the percentage of respondents who are satisfied and very satisfied, i.e. top two boxes, the CMT methodology reports the mean satisfaction level, as a percentage.  Table A shows the percentage associated with each response on the five point scale.

 

Table A

 

The calculation of the mean is illustrated in the following example.

 

 

The mean (average) satisfaction level is 67.5%  (.05*0 + .1*25 + .3*50 + .2*75 + .35*100)

 

 

 

Appendix B: Comments provided by Survey Respondents

Respondents were encouraged to provide additional information about the service received from CHRT.  Respondents were also asked for permission to show CHRT their verbatim comments.  The following comments were provided for CHRT to review.  These comments represent about half the total comments received.  Individuals providing the other comments either answered “No” to the question about allowing CHRT to see their comments or did not answer that question.

 

Legend for Role: 2=Complainant, 3=Complainant's Counsel, 4=Respondent, 5=Respondent's Counsel, 6=Other
	Q1-16 If our service was not helpful, please comment on the shortcomings you experienced. Please be specific, as that will provide us with the information needed to improve our service.
2	I've had several cases.  Did not make notes of dates & numbers of contacts and other such details. Checking the file I find it would be way too much work to figure this out now.
2	Service provided met all of my requirements.
2	Was helpful.
2	Getting the hearing was what (I believe) caused the government to settle with our group.  It's a shame that it took 5 YEARS to get a hearing date.  Once we had the notice of a hearing it took 2 weeks to settle.  We had 1 conference call with (some official) and I felt we were getting screwed by the lawyers.  CHRT’s lawyer did NOT consult with us about what our views were.  We may as well not have been in attendance.
2	It took 3 years for my case to be completed, and in that time I had over 25 different people work on my case.  I was totally unhappy with this.
3	I did not experience any shortcomings.  All of the Registrar’s staff were very helpful and very courteous.
4	The shortcoming in my particular case was lack of in-depth information into the cause or case involved.  The investigator on the original case by the military should have been investigating due to the fact there were two different elements of the Armed Forces involved, therefore two different chain of thoughts.
5	I found the Tribunal staff courteous & helpful.  The problem is with the CHRC, which is extremely unhelpful & adversarial.
5	CHRT staff are "nameless" & "faceless" unlike the Regional & National staff of the CHRC.  Wish to have more "front" people.  But recognize it is difficult to remember all of the contacts.
5	The Rules of Procedure included appeal provisions in the document the CHRT provided to us.  Upon verification of the Act, there was no right to appeal.  This caused some confusion.  It gave the impression the Tribunal was lagging behind from a procedural standpoint.