Department of Justice Canada Client Feedback Survey
Survey Results – Cycle III (2016-2019)
Annex B – Client Feedback: Composite Ratings by Cycle
The table below depicts the client feedback collected by survey cycle from respondents that reported having used Justice Canada legal services within the previous 12 months of being surveyed. Cycle III (2016-19) ratings feature data collected from 5,545 Justice Canada legal service users across 41 federal departments/agencies. Cycle II (2009-12) data were collected from 4,786 service users, and Cycle I (2006-09) data were collected from 3,562 service users.
When examined aggregately (regardless of service type), nearly all individual ratings from Cycle III exceeded the ratings of the previous survey cycle (one element remained the same). In addition, most ratings were found to have improved by a statistically significant difference from Cycle II ratings. For Cycle III, only one element was found below the departmental target of 8.0, which represents a vast improvement compared to seven elements in Cycle II.
| Cycle III (2016-2019) |
Cycle II (2009-2012) |
Cycle I (2006-2009) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rating | Rating | Rating | ||
| Overall quality of Legal ServicesFootnote † of table | 8.5 (±0.0) Strong |
8.4 (±0.0) Strong |
8.2 (±0.0) Positive |
|
| Accessibility/Responsiveness | Regularly provided ongoing feedback informing you of the status of your request(s) for servicesFootnote † of table | 7.8 (±0.1) Moderate |
7.3 (±0.1) Moderate |
7.5 (±0.1) Moderate |
| Addressed your expectations for being kept informed of the status of your request(s) for services | 8.1 (±0.0) Positive |
n/a | n/a | |
| Official Languages: Please rate your overall level of satisfaction with the accessibility of legal services in the official language of your choiceFootnote † of table | 9.4 (±0.0) Strong |
9.3 (±0.0) Strong |
9.4 (±0.0) Strong |
|
| Courteousness/Respectfulness: Please rate your overall level of satisfaction with the courteousness/respectfulness of legal service providersFootnote † of table | 9.3 (±0.0) Strong |
9.1 (±0.0) Strong |
9.2 (±0.0) Strong |
|
| Service Provider: Please rate your level of satisfaction with the ease with which the correct service provider to meet your needs was identifiedFootnote † of table | 8.9 (±0.0) Strong |
8.6 (±0.0) Strong |
n/a | |
| Satisfaction with access mode: EmailFootnote † of table | 8.9 (±0.0) Strong |
8.7 (±0.0) Strong |
n/a | |
| Satisfaction with access mode: TelephoneFootnote † of table | 8.9 (±0.0) Strong |
8.7 (±0.0) Strong |
n/a | |
| Satisfaction with access mode: In personFootnote † of table | 8.9 (±0.0) Strong |
8.7 (±0.0) Strong |
n/a | |
| Legal Risk | Advised you of issues/developments which may impact your department/agencyFootnote † of table | 8.5 (±0.0) Strong |
8.2 (±0.0) Positive |
8.4 (±0.0) Strong |
| Worked with you to identify legal risksFootnote † of table | 8.5 (±0.0) Strong |
8.3 (±0.0) Positive |
8.2 (±0.1) Positive |
|
| Incorporated your instructions in the review and development of legal options to mitigate identified legal risksFootnote † of table | 8.4 (±0.0) Strong |
8.0 (±0.0) Positive |
n/a | |
| Timeliness | Responded in a timely manner to requests for legal servicesFootnote † of table | 8.1 (±0.0) Positive |
7.8 (±0.0) Moderate |
7.9 (±0.1) Moderate |
| Negotiated mutually acceptable deadlinesFootnote † of table | 8.0 (±0.1) Positive |
7.8 (±0.1) Moderate |
7.9 (±0.1) Moderate |
|
| Met mutually acceptable deadlinesFootnote † of table | 8.3 (±0.1) Positive |
7.9 (±0.1) Moderate |
8.0 (±0.1) Positive |
|
| Usefulness | Fully prepared you to give testimony in a proceeding | 8.7 (±0.2) Strong |
n/a | n/a |
| Fully understood the nature of the problem/issue for which you received assistanceFootnote † of table | 8.6 (±0.0) Strong |
8.3 (±0.0) Positive |
8.5 (±0.0) Strong |
|
| Involved you in the development of legal strategy and positionsFootnote † of table | 8.2 (±0.0) Positive |
7.8 (±0.1) Moderate |
7.8 (±0.1) Moderate |
|
| Identified means to prevent or resolve legal disputes at the earliest opportunityFootnote † of table | 8.2 (±0.1) Positive |
7.9 (±0.1) Moderate |
8.1 (±0.1) Positive |
|
| Identified opportunities to use dispute resolution practices, where appropriateFootnote † of table | 8.4 (±0.1) Strong |
7.7 (±0.1) Moderate |
8.0 (±0.1) Positive |
|
| Provided clear and practical guidance on resolving the legal issue(s)Footnote † of table | 8.3 (±0.0) Positive |
8.1 (±0.0) Positive |
8.1 (±0.1) Positive |
|
| Provided consistent legal adviceFootnote † of table | 8.5 (±0.0) Strong |
8.3 (±0.0) Positive |
n/a | |
| Identified opportunities to implement policies or programs by administrative rather than legislative or regulatory means | 8.0 (±0.1) Positive |
n/a | n/a | |
| Proposed appropriate solutions for legal and drafting issues raised | 8.3 (±0.1) Positive |
8.2 (±0.1) Positive |
8.0 (±0.1) Positive |
|
| Developed drafting options appropriate to your policy and program objectives | 8.3 (±0.1) Positive |
8.3 (±0.1) Positive |
8.1 (±0.1) Positive |
|
- Date modified: