Employment Insurance Service Quality Review Report: Making Citizens Central

Streamlining applications

EI benefits are delivered through a national network of processing sites and call centres located across Canada. The network assesses and processes new applications, and renews, reactivates, or revises existing EI claims. On average, Service Canada annually receives over 2.8 million EI applications and issues over $14 billion in payments to qualified Canadians.

In order to process each application, Service Canada needs information from both the claimant (e.g. Social Insurance Number, bank information, etc.) and the employer (e.g. a Record of Employment providing a claimant’s employment history).

Unfortunately, changes to policy and program requirements have resulted in a complex program with a difficult-to-navigate process (e.g. complicated applications, forms, and reporting processes) and difficult-to-understand nuances such as severance pay or reasons for separation. Delays or mistakes in providing this information delay benefits, while more complex claims take longer to process. One need look no further than the Record of Employment (ROE) to see how complex the EI program and its requirements are; for example, the guide produced by Service Canada to assist employers in completing the one-page ROE is over 60 pages long.

“Simplify the requirements — some are very difficult to compile the information for, and some of the requirements are difficult to understand (so may have inaccurate information provided by employers).”

— SQR Online Questionnaire Response

This complexity has been compounded by insufficient resources to keep up with processing demands and an out-of-date technology platform that is over 40 years old. The result is a processing system that often requires a high degree of human intervention, resulting in delays in processing and delays in citizens receiving EI benefits.

The SQR Panel recognized that for citizens to receive EI as quickly as possible, applications and processes need to be as simple and straightforward as possible.

Reducing wait times

“Took too long to receive benefits. I was experiencing serious financial hardship. I could not get through on the phone to ask for clarification for weeks! The phone line literally said, too many callers in queue to callback later; that went on for weeks at all morning and afternoon.”

— SQR online questionnaire response

Service Canada delivers the EI program across three service channels: in person at Service Canada Centres; on the phone through Specialized EI call centres; and online through Appliweb, which can be accessed through Canada.ca or in Service Canada Centres, and using My Service Canada Account to provide ongoing information to citizens about their claims. These channels provide information on the program, answer questions on program requirements and on claims, assist employers, process (some) claims, and allow Canadians to appeal decisions on their claims.

Service Canada has been prioritizing program goals of efficiency and cost savings over quality of service. As a result, the quality of service has suffered and some qualified Canadians are waiting longer for their benefits. This situation is made worse when it is difficult for Canadians to contact Service Canada to get a response to their questions. For Canadians who may be relying on their EI benefits to pay for food, rent, or other necessities, this is unacceptable.

The SQR Panel engaged Canadians to find out where they experience the issues with the EI program that led to delays in receiving benefits, so that their wait could be reduced.

Reducing the administrative burden

Service Canada works with employers to receive the payroll information needed to determine if an applicant is eligible for EI, the amount of benefits that they should be paid, and the number of weeks that they would be entitled to receive benefits.

“EI administration is in the top three most burdensome requirements for employers according to surveys in 2011 by Statistics Canada and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business”

—Canadian Payroll Association

However, Service Canada has long known that the program demands on employers are an issue, particularly the administrative burden caused by having to fill out Records of Employment for each former employee, regardless of whether or not they are going to claim EI benefits. This burden is particularly felt by smaller employers. The Canadian Payroll Association points out that 6.2 million (70%) of the 9 million ROEs produced annually, each of which contains 53 detailed data elements, are never used for actual EI claims and that it is unreasonable for the Government to require employers to spend staff resources completing and submitting them. This burden has an impact on their economic performance.

The SQR Panel engaged employers to find out the impacts of this burden, and to seek advice on how the information needed to process EI claims can be gathered by Service Canada without continuing to place an undue administrative burden on employers.

“Much of the data required for the EI program must be allocated and/or estimated from payroll data to conform to weekly requirements. This requires significant manual data accumulation, manipulation, preparation, reconciliation, reporting and consultations by both employers and government representatives since only 18 percent of payrolls are produced on a weekly basis and 3 percent or less are produced on a Sunday to Saturday basis.”

—Canadian Payroll Association

What was not involved in the Review?

The Service Quality Review was designed with a specific focus in mind: to provide recommendations to improve service quality of EI program delivery. It was not meant to review the financial aspects, program policy or legislation of the EI system; however, the Panel did receive feedback on these issues and did note that service quality issues were often rooted in program policy and legislation. To ensure that feedback was faithfully represented in this report, the Panel has included it in the “Where do citizens want us to be?” section and, in a limited way, in its recommendations.

EI service delivery overview

Service Canada provides important information on the EI program and offers help to Canadians by phone, in-person, or online.

Employment Insurance processing overview

The processing and payment of EI benefits occurs through a national network of processing sites and EI Specialized Call Centres located across the country. The 24 processing sites across Canada are managed nationally across four regions with the ability through a national workload system to move work across the network.

EI service delivery satisfaction

The SQR exercise included a statistically reliable survey of recent EI clients, an important measure given that the last EI client satisfaction survey was conducted in 2010-11. Through this survey, the SQR Panel found that recent investments in EI processing and call centres were beginning to make a difference. Despite the fact that 7 out of 10 EI clients are unable to reach a queue to speak to a call centre agent, the survey showed that clients are happy with the service they received, once they got through. According to similar client experience surveys conducted previously by the Institute on Citizen-Centred Services, the principal drivers of client satisfaction are timeliness of service delivery and issue resolution. These findings are supported by the analysis of the EI client survey data.

On the other hand, many of EI clients indicated that they are either neutral or dissatisfied with the quality of the service received. So there are clearly improvements that can still be made on the timeliness and issue resolution fronts.

Better citizen engagement and communications

Given the key challenges facing Canadians, it came as no surprise to the SQR Panel that a large amount of feedback heard from Canadians and stakeholders centred on the need to improve citizen engagement and communications when designing and delivering EI services.

“Communicating decisions by mail is problematic. The content of the letters should better explain the reasoning behind the decision in a clear, complete and unambiguous way. The vocabulary should be simplified and uniform with the vocabulary used by the EI Commission in its various business lines.”

— Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emplois

Canadians generally find it difficult to communicate with Service Canada. They find that the language and information provided are difficult to understand, too bureaucratic, and often inconsistent. For instance, the definitions of “earnings” used by the EI program do not align with the definitions used by other programs delivered by Service Canada, such as the Canada Pension Plan, or with the definitions used by other government departments that Canadians often interact with, such as the Canada Revenue Agency.

Citizens and stakeholders also felt that they cannot communicate with Service Canada in the manner of their choosing. For instance, despite the technological advancements in communications over the past few decades, the EI program still prefers to communicate its decisions to Canadians via mail (i.e. letters), or by cumbersome online applications. Those consulted wondered why the program cannot communicate electronically, and suggested that they should be able to email the program with questions or with key documentation.

“I just wanted to tell you how wonderful your employees have been, I am pregnant and on bed rest and every time I call to get an answer about anything online everyone I talk to has been so helpful. I just got off with the phone with Craig and he was fantastic with a wealth of knowledge and incredibly helpful. I did not want this to go unnoticed I know how hard it can be to work in a call centre.”

— Written client submission

The tone with which the program communicates with Canadians was also the subject of feedback, which is important given that many Canadians using EI are already likely in stressful situations. According to the EI survey results, the vast majority of EI clients who spoke to a call centre agent (91%) agreed that they were treated with respect. Many of the questionnaire respondents also agreed that they had a positive and helpful service experience.

However, another common response regarding communication with Canadians was that some felt that when they were able to contact a call centre agent, they received inaccurate or unclear information on their claims. Twenty-eight percent of EI survey respondents indicated that they had received conflicting information from phone agents.

“For online services, to get started, the language: it’s legalese, and challenging for people with disabilities to know if they match the criteria. The language is a burden; there is no concise information or instruction. Right from the get go, there should be specific questions to determine eligibility. You don’t want people who are absolutely not eligible to apply, and not having people waiting longer if they have a disability.”

—SQR stakeholder submission

Improved information and outreach on EI

“The greatest need for improvements to Service Canada’s customer service is when it comes to the readability and simplicity of information provided by Service Canada.”

— CFIB Research September 2016

Similar to the points above, the Review Panel heard from stakeholders and a substantial proportion of clients that the information available on the EI program was difficult to understand. Clear and easy-to-find information is needed by both Canadians and employers. This is an important point for EI processing because when a client does not understand the program, the application, or their responsibilities, it leads to mistakes that then need to be corrected later in the process. This can cause delays in coming to a decision on a claim and delays in the delivery of benefits to qualified clients who are relying on those benefits.

“I would like to know how to take advantage of hiring programs to offset the cost of training a new employee. It takes time to increase production to pay for another employee. I wish information was more readily available.”

Retail business owner, Yukon – CFIB Research September 2016

Many employers and employer associations felt that they have taken on a role previously filled by Service Canada in providing information to their employees and members on the EI program. To that end, many stakeholders and respondents felt that Service Canada should do more to inform clients of what they need to know (in terms of expectations, requirements, roles and responsibilities, timelines, next steps, etc.) at the front end of the EI application process, as there was a strong awareness that reducing mistakes upfront will help ensure quicker processing.

“Inform new claimants of the Work While on Claim”

— Key recommendation Retail Council of Canada submission

Furthermore, many stakeholders consulted, in particular those dealing with certified trades, felt that more needs to be done on the part of the EI program to inform citizens of what is available to them in terms of training and other support measures, for instance through the EI Part II benefits delivered by the provinces and territories. Suggestions were also made that the federal government can work more closely with provinces and territories to help clients get back to work.

Need for engagement

It was clear to the Panel in their engagement with staff that many Service Canada employees do not feel listened to or engaged by senior management, particularly when it comes to influencing and improving service delivery to Canadians. For instance, following a meeting with mid-level Service Canada management, the Panel heard from participants that this was the first time that they had felt engaged and listened to in such a manner.

“I think the best suggestion I can give for improving the delivery of the EI program is to revisit the suggestions that were previously provided by your staff throughout the years. When I speak to co-workers there's many that feel that we're constantly being asked for suggestions in order to give the illusion that our opinions matter, but they don't matter enough to actually do anything with the suggestions being provided. Frankly, there are many of us that get frustrated each time we're asked to provide suggestions for that very reason.”

— Employee engagement questionnaire

During their briefings with the Department, the Panel learned of the existing employee engagement tools available to staff, but having heard from and engaged staff, they came away with the impression that these were insufficient to meet the needs of staff. Staff need to be heard and need to see their contributions to improving service quality. The existing tools need to be improved in collaboration with employees.

Speed versus quality

Service Canada employees who met with the SQR Panel felt that the productivity expectations they must meet impact the quality of service they can provide. Many of those consulted, including front-line staff and their union, felt that by giving front-line staff more time to resolve and prevent errors, there would be less follow-up work to be done once the claim was in processing.

Quality over quantity

“Performance standards should be based on the provision of quality, informed service. For example, in call centres quantity-based performance standards based on the number of calls answered or an arbitrary fixed time allocation should not compromise quality of service.”

— Canadian Employment and Immigration Union, SQR submission

The Panel feels that a balance needs to be sought between speedy service and taking the time to improve service quality and outcomes to citizens. As mentioned, Speed of Pay is Service Canada’s primary service standard for processing claims, and the Panel learned that most individual performance measurements for agents are based on time and not based on service quality or citizen expectations.

Agent knowledge, authority and training

During their employee engagement, the Panel learned that front-line Service Canada employees in both call centres and Service Canada Centres were eager to enhance their overall knowledge of the EI program and their authority to help clients in the most effective way possible. A common theme in the employee questionnaire responses was an awareness among staff that increased training (i.e. having the knowledge to be able to make more informed decisions in their work) and increased authority (i.e. being empowered to be able to take more actions on claimant files) would enable them to increase first contact resolution and increase citizen satisfaction.

“Increase authority of front end staff to resolve non contentious issues at first point of contact rather than have to always create a work item for someone else to do.”

— Employee engagement questionnaire

Staff want to feel that they have done everything they could for a claimant; decision making authority and appropriate, up-to-date training are major elements of this. Service Canada in-person staff feel that decision-making on the part of agents should be increased and levelled up, making it equal to the authority of Call Centre agents.

“More [authority and] training for Citizen Service Officers (CSOs) is required, accompanied by an increase in their authority for EI. They currently have a general overview of EI, but no transactional authority. Amended reports, for example, must be cross channelled or create an Action Item for Processing to follow up. This is a simple transaction that a CSO should be able to do at a Service Canada Centre.”

— Service Canada employee questionnaire response

The number-one response from Service Canada employees to the employee questionnaire on improvements to in-person service was to provide more authority/training to staff (44%)— this also indicates the desire by staff to be able to perform more tasks to be able to help the client.

Figure 12: EI employee questionnaire results

Being able to provide more services to Canadians would increase the ability of Citizen Service Officers to resolve client issues at the first point of contact, but it would have the adverse effect of increasing wait times for clients more generally. A balance between speedy service and high-quality service for citizens is clearly a challenge for the in-person channel for Service Canada.

More specific suggestions from staff included being able to enter information on clients’ files in real-time, rather than creating an action item, and to adjust training modules to suit different types of learning (e.g. in-person instruction vs. eLearning format).

Back-office improvements

The Panel heard from many Service Canada employees who felt that they were not empowered, as in provided with the best tools and support, to be able to provide the best possible service to Canadians. This includes modern and efficient IT support, improved processes and internal services such as human resources, and providing the modern tools to staff so they can meet the service delivery expectations of modern Canadians.

“[Enable] two-way communication via the My Service Canada Account - allow processing staff to leave questions/requests for information for clients online, and allow them to respond online. This would greatly speed up many transactions.”

— Employee engagement questionnaire

Employees offered concrete suggestions on how to improve back-office processes to the SQR Panel, which included: having the ability to communicate more effectively with citizens (i.e. through a secure email portal); having more flexible work conditions; and, increasing and improving real-time communication between front-line staff and processing agents.

Call centre improvements

As they conducted their consultations, the Review Panel experienced first-hand the dedication and commitment of Call centre staff to serving Canadians and was impressed with their depth of knowledge. However, the Panel also experienced the frustrations of Canadians in not being able to effectively reach an agent in a timely way.

One of the main, if not the main, challenge facing Canadians is low Call Centre accessibility, which is a root cause of many frustrations and delays in service. The phone channel provides a direct link to knowledgeable resources on the EI program for all Canadians and is the key access point to the program for many citizen groups (e.g. the elderly, special benefits clients such as the parents of critically ill children) who may not have the skills/resources to take advantage of the Internet channel. The fact that Call Centre accessibility is so low has a direct impact on how many Canadians and stakeholders feel about the EI program.

Helping Canadians in need

Fort McMurray wildfires

When properly enabled, Service Canada staff have the dedication, commitment and wherewithal to mobilize and help Canadians in need. This was nowhere more evident than when they heard how Service Canada quickly rallied to assist those affected by the spring 2016 wildfires in Fort McMurray, Alberta. When tasked with responding to an emergency and properly enabled to take fast, decisive actions, EI Specialized Call Centres and their agents showed their worth and provided fantastic service to those who were in need.

Service Canada set up a special “tiger” team, a virtual team of agents linked across the region that were enabled to deal with client issues right away. A special phone line was set up for EI clients affected by the fires and allowances were made, such as being more lenient in terms of availability for job searching, for affected clients.

“The special line set up for the crisis of the Fort Mac fire was an excellent way to streamline the calls.” – SQR online consultation

The most common issue highlighted by survey respondents was the time it took to reach a call centre agent. The Panel heard many personal accounts of citizens being on the phone for hours, often calling back multiple times in a day or a week, or being cut off while waiting because of higher than average call volumes.

Most online consultation respondents felt that reducing the wait times on the phone should be the focus when it comes to improving EI service delivery; almost half of respondents said their experience with call centres was “very negative,” despite 72% of EI survey respondents indicating they were satisfied with the service. Of the EI survey respondents, 29% said that the change that would have the most positive impact when communicating with the Government after submitting their application would be a shorter phone wait, while 25% said the most positive potential impact would come from having the ability to communicate online with Service Canada, avoiding the phone channel altogether.

Figure 13: EI client survey results

Beyond improving accessibility, stakeholders suggested improving service quality by including features that Canadians are familiar with from other call centres in other industries such as the insurance and telecommunications industries. There, the Panel heard that Canadians are used to features, such as the option to receive a callback from an agent when available, which would be viewed as notable improvements for EI call centres in the eyes of clients.

Furthermore, some stakeholders such as unions and employer groups noted that the fact that many call centre employees are not permanent employees was a concern. They felt that without a more permanent staff, turnover can be high, which impacts staff expertise and therefore the quality of service provided to callers.

“It’s very difficult to get through to an agent over the phone if you have questions regarding the application questions or about your claim itself. Sometimes you get lucky and only have to wait on hold 20 mins [...] majority of the time you can’t even get placed in the hold sequence and have to keep calling back, sometimes this takes upwards of 20 calls over multiple days”

— SQR online consultation

The Panel also heard from Service Canada staff who supported this point, feeling that the quality of service provided to clients by staff could be strengthened by improving the morale of staff by increasing their feeling of belonging and comfort in the organization. Namely, this includes making their day-to-day jobs more comfortable and making many casual/term positions permanent, which would provide a sense of stability to their jobs and make them feel that their contributions to the organization are more valuable.

The employee questionnaire indicated that the best enhancements for call centres to improve service delivery to Canadians were to increase the number of agents , enable electronic communications and provide a callback option— all of which respond to citizen expectations in terms of accessibility and functionality.

Figure 14: EI employee questionnaire results

Reducing claims processing time

The Panel heard from many Canadians who struggled to understand why it took so long to process claims and issue benefits. Many Canadians felt they are waiting too long for the benefits they need, i.e. that processing times and the 28-day service standard (for Speed of Pay) to receive a payment or a decision of non-payment on their claim, were too long. Only 24% of respondents to the online consultation described the timeliness of the EI system as fair, while 48% responded that they had to wait longer than 28 days to receive their first payment or decision of non-payment on their claim.

“With today’s technology, they should (or it is presumed that they do) have the necessary information to be able to calculate someone's eligibility within a timely amount of time. If you can apply as soon as you are laid off why do they need extra time to do things? We lose two weeks from them right away with the waiting period (which I don't understand). I don't know anyone in this day & age that can really afford to lose two weeks’ pay, let alone get behind further because they're waiting for money they're entitled to in the first place.”

— SQR online consultation

Many felt that more could be done to improve the processing time for EI benefits, particularly when comparing the time it takes Service Canada to process claims to other industries. Thirty-eight percent of respondents to the online consultation felt that Service Canada is slower in providing payments than other companies (for example, an insurance company). Many stated that they worried about paying bills or had already found a job when they received their first payment.

When Service Canada employees were asked what processing changes would result in the greatest impact to Canadians in terms of service delivery, the top response was increasing the number of processing agents. Over the past few years, it has become apparent that when EI processing is resourced appropriately with an adequate number of staff to process claims intake, then service standards (Speed of Pay) are met, and client satisfaction increases.

Figure 15: EI employee questionnaire results

Targeted claimant portal by special benefits

The Employment Insurance program provides a number of special benefits for Canadians in particular situations, such as caring for a sick loved one, or going on maternity or parental leave. When engaging Canadians and interest groups representing these Canadians, the Panel heard of the particular needs and concerns. They also heard that, for these EI client groups in particular, time is at a premium, and special assistance and access are consistently desired.

“The lines should be set up to have calls go to a line that is dedicated to the type of claim. Example: have special benefits directed to one line and apprentices to another line… setting up a special line for special benefits and apprentices would certainly make a difference of getting the clients claim processed efficiently.”

— SQR online consultation

They heard that, for these special benefit clients, targeted portals to access information and their benefits should be implemented for the online, and possibly phone, channels.

“[I] applied for critically ill children. End date was not filled out. How can it be filled when your child is about to die??!!?? Very frustrated as I had to go back to the hospital and get all new paperwork done after he had passed away bringing back many horrible memories.”

— SQR online consultation

Furthermore, the Panel heard that for those respondents who had experience trying to claim special benefits such as sickness, maternity/parental, or parents of critically ill children benefits, the process seemed especially confusing and difficult.

Reducing reporting requirements

When a person separates from their job, employers are required to complete a Record of Employment (ROE). When a Canadian applies for EI benefits, Service Canada uses the information provided by their employer though the ROE, such as their employment period and how much they were paid, to process their claim. This requirement can place an undue burden on the employer.

“Canada needs a modernized system comparable to the United States and the UK where data is collected via employer payroll systems on an “as required” basis. RCC supports the position of Canadian Payroll Association to transform the administrative process.”

— Retail Council of Canada submission

“CFIB recommends that the federal government change administration requirements further so that employers can use current payroll data to eliminate the administratively burdensome process of manipulating weekly EI data….Consider eliminating ROEs that provide no extra benefit.” – CFIB Research September 2016

This burden can be particularly felt by small businesses, seasonal employers, and in times of mass lay-offs. The Review Panel heard from multiple employer groups and stakeholders who cited the administrative requirements of the EI program, e.g. filing and submitting an ROE, as a particular burden on employers, one that they would like to see addressed and alleviated going forward.

The Panel also heard recommendations to improve the administrative process for employers, either to make processing more timely or to improve the process for particular occupation and employee groups; these included specific changes to the ROE form. For instance, it was suggested that adjustments be made to the ROE form by providing specific boxes for occupations that are more difficult to process (e.g. teachers, apprentices, etc.), which would help assist these particular employers when it comes to completing the ROE.

Many stakeholders and employers, meanwhile, wonder why the ROE is even necessary. The Panel heard these groups advocate for a shared information system between employers and the Government (i.e. a real-time electronic payroll information service), which would be particularly welcomed by large employers, and would enable much more flexibility in terms of EI provision and policy through the streamlined administrative requirements.

“There are specific ways to file ROE and it can have a great impact on people. I keep thinking of … when small offices have to fill [ROE] every two or three years, they have to relearn a very complicated process.”

— Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters

However, before moving forward with such an electronic payroll information service, all perspectives would have to be considered, as it may place an undue technological burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, which would need to be fully understood and addressed.

Enhanced and assisted access

Before Service Canada was established in 2005, a position existed called a Public Liaison Officer (PLO), which provided a personal experience for employers and citizens. These PLOs had expertise in the EI program, knew the local labour market conditions, and had the authority to make a number of decisions on an EI claim. With the creation of Service Canada and the move toward standardized service across the country, this position was discontinued.

Over the course of their consultations, the Review Panel heard consistently that the removal of PLOs has left a gap in specialized, local/regional knowledge and key touch points for employers and Canadians. There were often calls to reinstate this position.

The call to reinstate the PLO, however, is more representative of an apparent deficiency in how Service Canada interacts with citizens. As mentioned in the previous section, there is a need for specialized knowledge of benefits and particular claim types that the Department used to provide. Some citizens and employers want to re-establish a personal point of contact with a specific Service Canada agent, seeking direct access to an expert as a touch point or special contact on their files, e.g., a case worker.

The varying needs of Canadians and employers should be recognized and accommodated, i.e. enhanced and assisted access should be provided across all channels, particularly at in-person centres where citizens can be walked through the various processes.

There were also suggestions from Service Canada staff that in-person agents should have an overall better and deeper knowledge about Service Canada benefits; some felt that in-person agents in particular need increased decision-making abilities on claims; and that agents are in need of up-to-date training.

Recourse process – reconsideration and the Social Security Tribunal

When Service Canada makes a decision on a claim that a client does not agree with, the client is entitled to request a reconsideration of the decision which is filed with the Employment Insurance Commission. This takes on average 44 days and may include additional fact-finding and review of the process; the initial decision can be supported, cancelled, revised, or replaced.

“Every time I try to follow up on the status of my claim and reconsideration, I have to deal with a new person from square one, who assures me that everything is taken care of. Weeks later I discover no progress has been made, and have to provide information over and over again.”

— SQR online consultation

Thirty-four percent of respondents to the online consultation considered their experience with the reconsideration process “very negative,” Despite this, the Panel generally heard that the EI reconsideration process is going well. However, some clients who had used the reconsideration process found it to be confusing and ultimately not helpful in their particular cases. In addition, the Panel learned that approximately 50% of original decisions on EI claims are overturned under reconsideration, leading the Panel to wonder if there is something inherent to the EI decision-making process that was causing so many decisions to be overturned.

Following the review of the claim by the Department, should the client not agree with the reconsideration decision, they can make an appeal to the Social Security Tribunal (SST), where the average wait for a hearing is 165 days.

Figure 16: Longer waits under the SST

The formal appeal and SST process was implemented in 2012-13, replacing the previous informal reconsideration and Board of Referees system. Many of those consulted by the Panel felt the old system was preferable to the current SST model in terms of timeliness. Under the old system, a client received a hearing at the Board of Referees in 44 days on average, with the information reconsideration occurring concurrently. This is considerably less than the over 200-day average a client now has to wait for the formal reconsideration on their decision and then a hearing at the SST.

While not within the scope of the Service Quality Review, the Panel heard of many of the frustrations of Canadians and stakeholders on the SST, and have relayed this feedback faithfully here in the interests of openness and transparency. For instance, some stakeholders, particularly labour representatives, felt that the loss of employer and employee representatives, which were a part of the Board of Referees but not the SST, was a negative development.

The Panel also heard that the SST is seen as unfair and deters clients from seeking appeals, which affects program integrity and fairness. Furthermore, some stakeholders felt that giving the SST more flexibility in interpreting EI regulations and providing direct communication between SST staff and citizens would be beneficial. Some stakeholders feel that direct contact between claimants and SST personnel would allow for a better understanding of the individual’s case.

Improved use of modern technology

The Review Panel heard from both Canadians and stakeholders that Service Canada should make better use of technology when communicating with Canadians. Feedback the Panel heard included the need for enabling two-way email communications between clients and Service Canada; but beyond this there were calls to better enable online and mobile communications. Twenty-five percent of EI clients felt that being able to communicate online would have had the greatest positive impact on their ability to follow up on an application.

“Service Canada staff are currently regulated into using archaic processes and data formats that replicate a paper form when they should be … using technology-based data capture processes.”

— Canadian Payroll Association

Furthermore, many Canadians and stakeholders felt that the issues of clarity in providing information upfront were still apparent online, despite the improved technology. While many respondents found the online tools easier to use when applying for EI, there were still calls to clarify terminology and simplify information available online.

Making better use of available technologies could also improve processing time for EI claims, which would result in faster and better service for Canadians.

“In the North, there are many issues around online services…many households do not have a computer … often people are not computer literate … the phone alternative and in-person services are essential to people in remote communities.”

— SQR online consultation

That said, there are issues of digital literacy and access to online and mobile technologies that need to be recognized by Service Canada— not all Canadians have the skills or the access to the Internet that enable them to take full advantage of modern technology.

To this point, the Review Panel heard from many respondents that resources should be built into the online service channel to ensure all clients can access their files and pertinent information— for instance, enabling facilitated access where citizens can be walked through the system either on the phone, in person, or using click-to-chat.

It was also suggested that improved use of technology could improve back-office functions, with some Service Canada staff feeling that service quality could be improved by increasing and improving real-time communication between front-line staff and processing agents. Also, that enabling document imaging and emailing of scanned documents by front-line staff would also streamline processes and improve results in terms of timeliness, accuracy and speed of claims processing and service delivery.

Online improvements and technology advancements

Over the course of their engagement activities, the Review Panel put themselves in the shoes of Canadians, using the available online services to open a My Service Canada Account and apply for EI benefits online. This, coupled with the consultations with Service Canada staff, allowed them to develop in-depth impressions of the available EI online services.

“All information needed to apply is indeed online, but the Government source pages lack clarity and coherency. The documentation is confusing, making for a nerve-racking process. I never felt confident that my application was actually in progress during the weeks leading up to approval. The online tools for the entire procedure of application, through to approval and reporting, need to be redeveloped to better serve the client. The beginning registration and application should be included in the MyServiceCanada profile with instant access, and not just limited to those that are actually approved. The entire process should be laid out with personalized account tools to ease the mind and stress of those applying for benefits, not just those approved, reporting and receiving.”

— SQR online consultation

Stakeholder suggestions

The Panel heard suggestions from many stakeholders and Canadians over the course of their consultations on online and technological improvements that should be implemented, including:

• e-alert on application questions or processing;
• two-way email communications with Service Canada;
• the option to Click-to-Call and Click-to-Chat; and
• enabling callback while in call queues.

In terms of making better use of technology in communicating with citizens, the Review Panel heard that Service Canada can make better use of modern technology to reduce wait times for Canadians. As mentioned, many citizens also had difficulty navigating the available online tools, feeling that the systems available could be improved by being made clearer and more user-friendly.

While many respondents and stakeholders suggested ways to improve online services, the majority admitted that online service was an improvement to paper or in-person options.

When Service Canada employees were consulted on what improvements to the online channel would result in the greatest benefits to Canadians, the top two responses were: increasing the number of transactions that can be performed electronically and making improvements to the case-specific information available on My Service Canada Account regarding claim or application status. This speaks to the insight that Service Canada agents and employees in general have in knowing how best to improve service to Canadians and meet citizen expectations.

Figure 17: EI employee questionnaire results

The two-week wait for benefits is a pain point

When a citizen applies for and is approved for EI benefits, there is a two-week waiting period that acts as a deductible before they receive their benefits. When engaging Canadians, the Review Panel heard from respondents that two weeks was too long to wait for their EI benefits. Many said they worried about paying bills or had already found a job when they received their first payment, a situation aggravated by the two-week waiting period. However, as mentioned earlier, the Government has taken steps through Budget 2016 to reduce the waiting period from two weeks to one, reducing the income gap for qualified Canadians effective January 2017.

Issues for apprentices

Employers consulted felt that EI forms do not accommodate apprentices who need access to EI and that there is little upfront information available for apprentices about how to access EI, which leads to errors and delays. The Panel also heard that the process of applying for and receiving EI is too slow to properly benefit apprentices, who often only experience work stoppages for a short time and sometimes do not receive their benefits until they return to work.

“Delays for apprenticeship claims: it’s a big thing, it brings frustration, employers want more results. We don’t understand why there is a two-week waiting period for apprentices. The waiting period is to encourage people to seek work, but when apprentices stop work to go to school, they are not going to be looking for work. We just don’t see the rationale.”

— Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters

There were also calls for the same kind of enhanced services called for elsewhere, but specifically for apprentices. Many also felt that the content of apprenticeship programs was sometimes inadequate and that there should be more co-leadership with regional experts to provide a more strategic approach to program content.

Issues for First Nations communities

During their consultations, the Panel met with First Nation advocacy and Indigenous groups who highlighted the fact that existing EI service quality issues were particularly heightened in their communities. This included more geographical isolation in terms of proximity to Service Canada Centres and outreach sites. There were also cultural issues, particularly in communities where neither French nor English is the primary language. For some, there was also perceived discrimination and insensitivity at Service Canada Centres against Indigenous claimants.

Furthermore, the Panel heard that income in many First Nation communities was lower than in the surrounding areas. For clients in these communities, receiving only 55% of their earnings through EI is hardly worth going through the application process.

For the Panel, it is important that any solutions going forward recognize the particular effect that service quality can have on certain groups, particularly Indigenous communities, which are impacted by a concentration of challenges.

Citizen focus and satisfaction targets

The Service Quality Review Panel heard over the course of their consultations and engagement with stakeholders and Canadians instances and experiences that indicate that Service Canada had moved away from its original goal of being a citizen-centric organization to one that was program-centric. This means that the organization’s focus had become inward, concentrated on program and departmental outcomes, rather than focusing on the needs and expectations of citizens. The Panel feels that being citizen-centric should be the overarching philosophy of the organization, whether in policy development, service design, or service delivery.

A citizen-centric approach:

A client-centred approach is at the heart of planning, the development and implementation of service standards, human resources practices, and all other core organizational practices. In other words, it is established as the main focus for the day-to-day culture and practices of the organization.

— Answering the Call, Institute for Citizen-Centres Services, 2007

Paramount to realizing this philosophy is the adoption of an “outside-in” approach to developing and implementing service delivery based on citizens’ needs, priorities, and expectations. The key is for citizen input to be regularly obtained, not only to inform service delivery improvements, but also to bring the voice of the client into Service Canada so that it resonates throughout the organization, benefiting everyone from front-line workers to executives. The Panel believes service needs to be designed based on the citizen’s journey in seeking and accessing EI services. That means understanding how citizens actually experience this journey, not how government thinks they do.

Co-design in service delivery:

“Co-design encourages stakeholders, communities and ordinary citizens to get involved in the design process. It can provide a primary stimulant to working to build deeper engagement and true partnership arrangements.

In the public engagement approach, empowerment and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Exploring them together is a critical part of the dialogue process. Rather than just asking clients to give their views on a particular issue, the process is designed to encourage them to reflect, discuss, challenge, and be challenged; to weigh competing priorities and to decide which ones are really most important; to make trade-offs with others who receive the same services; and to identify their respective roles in achieving the goals of the service.”

— Co-Design: Toward A New Service Vision For Australia, Public Policy Forum, 2011

Essential to hearing and understanding the voice of the citizen with respect to their needs, priorities, expectations, and satisfaction with service is having in place an effective feedback strategy. However, the Panel was surprised and concerned to learn that Service Canada no longer had a comprehensive client feedback strategy. For example, the primary tool to measure and report on levels of citizen satisfaction in Service Canada, the client experience survey which reported on citizen satisfaction every two years, was replaced in 2012-13 by what Service Canada called then a more “experiential-type” strategy, which used other client feedback mechanisms to assess citizen needs. These include the Canadians Out of Employment Panel surveys, Client Comment Cards for in-person service, and e-questionnaire for online services, and the Office of Client Satisfaction. These mechanisms could not provide the same representative client satisfaction measures to be assessed against previous benchmarks. In addition to not being able to collect information on citizen and client needs and priorities, it meant that Service Canada no longer had access to the key indicator of the citizen experience— namely, how satisfied they are with the service delivery experience provided by the program. The EI client survey undertaken by Service Canada to support the Service Quality Review was the first representative survey done since 2010-11. In 2015, Service Canada reviewed its client feedback strategy, which now includes a new client experience measurement survey model for tracking client satisfaction— the EI client survey completed for the SQR was the first step in actioning this strategy.

EI client satisfaction:

Given the lack of client satisfaction surveys in recent years, how has the Department measured satisfaction levels? Was this the right approach?

The recent evaluation of EI automation and modernization suggests that Speed of Pay (SOP) acts as a proxy for client satisfaction: satisfaction is good in times when SOP is met, and decreases when the Department struggles to meet SOP.

The report indicates that: “A decrease in client satisfaction potentially stem[s] from an increase in the number of claims pending over 28 days and impeded and limited accessibility to services, such as call centres (blocked calls).”

— Evaluation of Employment Insurance Automation and Modernization 2001-02 to 2011-12

However, to ensure that the things that really matter to the client are measured and tracked, a sound measurement strategy, including continuous client feedback, is needed.

The Panel believes that the continuous and measurable improvement of citizen satisfaction is one of the most reliable indicators of improvement in service quality and service performance. Setting citizen satisfaction targets helps determine if you have set the right service improvement priorities and are making progress in achieving them^{Footnote 5}. The Panel feels Service Canada cannot become a truly citizen-centred organization if it does not set targets for improving client satisfaction and publicly monitor and report on its efforts to do so.

Very important to identifying client priorities for improvement is knowing and understanding the drivers of citizen satisfaction including the primary ones of timeliness, ease of access, and positive outcomes. The Panel believes Service Canada must put in place the necessary processes to continually identify and measure these drivers correctly to ensure that the things that really matter to Canadians are measured and tracked to inform service delivery design and implementation.

Recommendation 5

The Panel recommends that Service Canada adopt a volume-based funding model for the Employment Insurance program to improve its ability to effectively accommodate fluctuations in the volume of claims received, to ensure that Canadians receive the benefits that they are entitled to in a timely and consistent manner.

Recommendation 6

The Panel recommends that Service Canada engage key stakeholders in the co-creation of a real-time payroll information-sharing solution.

Call centre service channel

The ability of citizens and employers to access EI Specialized Call Centres to receive help on EI was the most prominent point of frustration heard by the Panel. The main solution proposed by many stakeholders, including Service Canada, to improve low call centre accessibility and service levels was to provide extra resources so that more calls can be answered more quickly.

Service British Columbia Best Practice:

During this consultation, the Panel heard of an interesting example from Service British Columbia that validates root cause analysis.

Service BC call centres were suffering from poor performance owing to very high call volumes. The assumption by senior management was that they were understaffed, who tried to address the problem by increasing staffing levels.

However, this did not have the desired effect, so a root cause analysis was undertaken, which showed that a recent change to a form was confusing clients and driving them to contact call centres for clarification. After fixing the issue on the form, they found that their call volumes dropped to the point where the call centres were actually overstaffed.

The Panel spent considerable time trying to understand as many underlying issues facing the call centres to be confident that resourcing issues were the primary problem. In doing so the Panel became aware that there were other factors that were impacting call volumes and service quality; it also became evident that Service Canada’s plans were not fully successful to address the service level issues relating to the increasing complexities of achieving call centre performance. For example, approximately the same number of claims are processed today as a decade ago when claims were almost entirely manually processed and there was a lot less use of the online service channel for information and claims applications. Yet a decade later, when almost 70% of claims processing is partially or fully automated and more claimants apply online and use the Service Canada website to see answers to their questions, EI call centres still receive the same number of calls; i.e. significant increases in claims automation and web usage as a service channel has had no demonstrable impact on reducing call volume. The Panel recommends that the Department undertake efforts to understand the root causes of call volume (e.g. the needs of clients, the growing complexity of client needs, why clients callback) and develop sound strategies to decrease it (e.g. effective service channel strategy).

Over the course of their consultation and investigations into the best practices of other jurisdictions and the private sector, the Panel learned of many service enhancements that could be adopted by Service Canada to decrease call demand, including making better use of electronic means to transfer information between the citizen and Service Canada, such as email communication and allowing scanned documents to be submitted, and also expanding and enhancing the functionality of electronic tools such as My Service Canada Account. Best practices can also be adopted to improve the citizen experience such as: providing callers with a “callback” option and developing and monitoring revised service standards that take into consideration citizen expectations. The Panel feels that Service Canada can do more to learn from the best practices of other jurisdictions and industry, and should adopt a strategy that embraces best practices that aims to not only decrease call volume but increase citizen satisfaction. The Panel also feels call centres must be upgraded to enable better service for citizens as well as increased operational performance for Service Canada.

The Panel also learned that EI call centres experience a 30% turnover in staff annually, with some call centres as high as 55%. This means Service Canada spends a lot of money and time recruiting and training new employees to answer questions and solve problems related to very complex legislation. The Panel feels that this impacts call centre productivity in terms of familiarity with the program and business processes and knowledge management and, therefore, impacts service quality. Given this, the Panel believes that Service Canada should strive to retain the knowledge and experience on the program in its call centres. The Panel feels that Service Canada should develop positive initiatives to encourage increased staff and knowledge retention that enables the Department to meet call centre service standards going forward.

The Panel appreciated the complexity of the call centre issue and the potential solutions to address the obvious frustration with service quality at the call centres. The Panel wants to ensure that the real reasons for poor service quality are addressed. In the medium-to longer-term, once the revised service standards for call centres (part of Recommendation 2) have been developed through co-creation with staff and stakeholders and a volume-based funding mechanism for the program is implemented (Recommendation 5), the appropriate staffing and resource level for EI call centres will emerge. It is the Panel’s hope that funding and continuous improvement strategies to achieve service standards will help address the call centre accessibility issue.

In the short-tem, the Panel believes that something needs to be done to improve call centre accessibility and service levels to meet the expectations of Canadians today. This will require providing the necessary resources to meet today’s standards so that Canadians can experience real improvements in call centre service in the next year— this means more call centre agents. This will build on the Budget 2016 call centre investments, which saw $73 million over two years to increase the number of agents and reduce wait times to allow the Department to improve call centre accessibility.

Beyond this, the Panel believes that Service Canada must adopt best practices and put in place the necessary strategies to address and accurately measure root causes of call volume, First Contact Resolution, and employee turnover, and to enhance performance measurements.

The Panel understands that Service Canada has been developing a comprehensive business plan for call centre improvement. The Panel supports this work and suggests that it continue through the further engagement of private sector industry experts and learning from best practices. The improvement plan should include a work plan and implementation strategy to address the issues highlighted by the Panel to ensure the best possible service for citizens while respecting the employees’ and employers’ premiums that ultimately fund the EI call centres.

Recommendation 7

The Panel recommends that the Government provide the necessary resources and flexibility in the short-, medium- and long-term to improve call centre service quality while engaging the necessary private-sector call centre expertise to assist in developing a long-term, high-quality, and cost-effective call centre improvement plan. This plan should include best practices and modern technology and factor in best value for money, enabling the kind of high-quality service citizens expect and need and that employees would like to deliver.