publictrustee.sa.gov.au · web viewpublic trustee customer satisfaction survey public trustee...

Public Trustee

Customer Satisfaction Survey

June 2017

Prepared For: Office of Public Trustee

Prepared By:Locher & Associates Pty Ltd80 Richmond RoadKESWICK SA 5035Ph: 1300 562 437ABN: 41 096 051 375

www.locher.com.au

This page is left blank on purpose.

Public TrusteeCustomer Satisfaction Survey

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................2

Overall Results............................................................................................13

Introduction................................................................................................14

Methodology...............................................................................................14

Overall Results............................................................................................15

Wills...........................................................................................................22

Estate Services............................................................................................35

Personal Estates Customers.........................................................................44

All Rights Reserved © Locher & Associates Pty Ltd 2017 Page i


Executive Summary

A Customer Satisfaction Survey was initiated by Public Trustee for the seventh continuous year in order to measure customer perceptions and attitudes towards the service provided by Public Trustee. The respondent pool incorporated Customers for Wills, Deceased Estates, Personal Estates and Trust service areas, as well as Customers who revoked a Will or Enduring Power of Attorney.

The survey was provided online from 1st May 2016 to 30th April 2017 as part of normal business practice and distributed to customers for Wills, Deceased Estates, Trust, as well as customers who withdrew/revoked their Will/ Enduring Power of Attorney. A telephone survey of Personal Estate customers and their Liaison Persons was also undertaken in early May 2017. Participation in the survey for all groups was voluntary.

Public Trustee has incorporated survey data collection into normal business practice since the end of 2012 and will continue to do so as a way of providing Customers with a ‘voice’, gathering important feedback and using this to develop strategies for ongoing service improvement. For example, when a Customer executes a Will, when Public Trustee finalises a deceased estate or trust, and when someone revokes their Will or Enduring Power of Attorney with Public Trustee, they are asked to participate in the survey at the completion of the service. The Personal Estates survey of Customers and their Liaison Persons is the only survey that is conducted as an annual telephone survey.

This report details the quantitative and qualitative findings obtained from the Public Trustee Customer Satisfaction Survey for 2017. Trends in results over time have been noted and, where areas for improvement are identified, recommendations have been made.

Response Rate

The overall response rate this year was 30.33% (1012 responded of 3337 surveyed) which is slightly higher than the response rate of 29.5% achieved in 2016 (1397 responded of 4005 surveyed). Considering this, the results are likely to represent the views of Public Trustee Customers in general, with the exception of Trust Customers. While Public Trustee has continued to engage with all Trust Customers by seeking their feedback, due to very low response rates, the data was determined to be an invalid representation of the views of the majority of customers. As a result, Public Trustee will review the methodology used to seek feedback to ensure more substantive data is gathered next year, and in the meantime the results of Trust data have been excluded from analysis.

However, with the exception of Wills Customers, all other respondent groups have increased this year, notably Personal Estates. The response rate for Protected Persons and Liaison Persons was 88.54% and 80.30% respectively, a substantial increase on 2016’s response rates, which should provide a sound basis from which to analyse the results for these respondent groups.

All Rights Reserved © Locher & Associates Pty Ltd 2017 Page 2


2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0 20 40 60 80 100

7.30

58.80

59.40

33.40

34.90

29.50

30.33

Figure 1 – Response Rates over Time

Summary

As found in previous years, overall the results are positive and indicate sound and continuing levels of Customer satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) regarding level of service provided by Wills, Deceased Estates, and Personal Estates.

The results for Revoked Wills respondents are included to provide additional important information around the reasons for withdrawal and suggested areas for improvement to promote retention of these Customers. This is the fourth time that Revoked Wills Customers have been included in the survey.



Overall Results

Wills Deceased Estates Personal Estates1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.004.78

3.90 4.03

Mean

Satisfa

ction

Figure 2 - Overall Perspectives of Satisfaction with the Services Provided by Public Trustee

Satisfaction with Services

As found in previous years, the overall results for Public Trustee are positive. On average, among all the groups surveyed Wills respondents indicated the highest level of agreement (where 5.00 = strongly agree) that they are satisfied with the level of service. The results for Deceased Estates and Personal Estates respondents were also similar to previous years where, on average, respondents indicated they ‘agree’ (where 4.00 = agree) they are satisfied with the service level in these areas.

Areas for Improvement

When asked to make suggestions for improvement, respondents typically identified response/communication with customers, timeliness of service, and general improvement matters. These are similar to themes that have emerged in previous surveys. However, a notable difference from 2016 is that nearly double the proportion of respondents (30% compared to 17%) indicated ‘other’ as an area of improvement. Furthermore, only 1% provided a compliment, compared to 24% in 2016.

Recommendation of Public Trustee to Others

When respondents were asked whether they would recommend Public Trustee to others, overall the vast majority (84%) responded ‘Yes’, a proportion consistent with 2016 (87%). A small proportion of respondents indicated that they would not recommend Public Trustee, while 7% did not know whether they would recommend Public Trustee. The majority of respondents for Wills, Deceased Estates, and Personal Estates indicated that they would recommend Public Trustee.



2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

52%

72%

92%

86%

84%

87%

84%

Figure 3 - Public Trustee Overall Customer Recommendations to Others

Wills

Note; this includes current Wills Customers only and not Revoked Wills Customers.


As found in previous years, the overall results for Wills respondents are very positive with the majority indicating they ‘strongly agree’ they are satisfied with the level of service. This result has remained steady since 2015.

Well

infor

med

abou

t con

tent

s

Wor

ding

expla

ined

Refle

cts m

y wish

es

Querie

s answ

ered

in a

timely

and

cour

teou

s man

ner

Costs

of es

tate

adm

in ex

plained

Under

stood

costs

of es

tate

adm

in1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.004.79 4.74 4.81 4.82 4.78 4.76

Mea

n Sa

tisfa

ctio

n

Figure 4 – Satisfaction with Document Preparation ServicesAreas for Improvement



When asked to indicate whether there was a need for improvement in particular areas, the majority of responses from Wills respondents were complimentary (78%), a very positive result.


Similar to the above, the vast majority (approx. 95%) of Wills respondents indicated they would recommend Public Trustee to others, while 5% of respondents said they did not know if they would recommend Public Trustee. No respondents said they would not recommend Public Trustee, a highly positive result.

Comments

As found in all surveys dating back to 2011, the majority of Wills respondents who provided a comment said they are satisfied with the service provided. There were a few suggestions for improvement, which included:

> Clearer language/terminology used in the documents> More regional visits> More information regarding fees and charges

Revoked Wills Customers

Public Trustee can be appointed an Executor in a Will and/or an Enduring Power of Attorney. In 2013, Public Trustee started surveying these Customers as a means to gather important feedback about how services for Wills Customers could be further improved. The results for Revoked Wills Customers highlighted the reasons for withdrawal of their Wills and/or Enduring Power of Attorney and identified their current position with these documents.

As revoked wills respondents have chosen to cease their association with Public Trustee, it is to be expected that their responses will be more negative, and therefore may not be reflective of Wills customers overall. Caution should therefore be taken when generalising these results.

Reason for Withdrawal

The main reason (33% of responses) for withdrawal from Public Trustee was that Customers considered Public Trustee’s fees and charges to be unreasonable. The second most common reason (22%) was that respondents had transferred their affairs to a private executor/trust company.

Current Position with Documents

When asked about their current position with their Will/Enduring Power of Attorney, the predominant positions were:> A private solicitor had prepared new documents for them (46%)> They had appointed a family member to be their executor/attorney (36%)These results are consistent with results from previous years.




When respondents were asked to make suggestions for improvement, as found in the 2016 survey, the most frequent response was that Public Trustee needed to explain fees and charges more clearly (50%) followed by improving communication with Customers (20%) and improved access to services in their local area (18%).

Comments

The key theme emerging from Revoked Customers who chose to provide comments was dissatisfaction with fees. Other themes included:

> Revoked Customers had undergone a change of circumstance that necessitated ceasing arrangements with Public Trustee.

> A small number of respondents indicated that word of mouth or hearsay had influenced their decision.



Estate Services

Deceased Estates


As seen in 2016, the majority of respondents agreed to some extent that they were satisfied with Estate Administration services. However, while positive, these results represent a slight decline in mean satisfaction compared to previous years’ surveys (M = 3.90, compared to M = 4.29 in 2016).

The procedures required to

administer the estate were explained to

me.

A time frame for the completion of the estate

was indicated to me.

The officer fully explained the

fees and charges for the

administration of the estate.

The officer communicated the process and progress of the

administration of the estate.

My queries were answered in a

timely and cour-teous manner.

I was satisfied with the timely

process for payments for

the administra-tion of the es-

tate.

I was satisfied with the time taken to com-

plete the admin-istration of the

estate.

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

4.063.89

3.703.86

4.21

3.79 3.75

Mean

Satis

facti

on

Figure 5 – Satisfaction with Estate Administration Services


When asked to suggest areas for potential improvement, a significant proportion of respondents (23%) suggested that improvement could be made with ‘timeliness of service’. The second most identified area for improvement was response/communication with customers (16%).


A majority of Deceased Estates respondents (65%) indicated that they would recommend Public Trustee to others, which is positive, however represents a decline from 2016’s results.

Comments

Some areas of improvement were identified by respondents, for instance: > A need to increase the speed of service for customers



> Improvements in communication> Reduction or clearer explanation of fees



Personal Estates

In this section, results were collected from both the Customers (Protected Persons) themselves and the Liaison Persons (if relevant), who support those Public Trustee Customers who cannot advocate for themselves.

Understanding of the role of Public Trustee

Overall, Personal Estates Customers who responded to the survey believed that Public Trustee’s primary role was to manage their finances (98% responded ‘Yes’). This outcome has been found in all surveys since 2011.

Further to the above and as expected, most respondents indicated that they understand Public Trustee does not contribute to providing Customers with funds beyond their current financial balance (83% responded ‘no’) or making health care decisions for them (75% said ‘no’). This result was also found in the 2012 - 2016 surveys and suggests that Personal Estates Customers’ perceptions in these areas have not significantly changed over time.

Provide customers with funds beyond the customer's current financial balance

Make health care decisions for customers

Sell or look after customer's assets in order to maintain that customer's lifestyle

Assist customers when new assets are needed

Make decisions to maintain customer's lifestyle

Manage our customers' finances

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17

25

57

68

71

98

83

75

43

32

29

2

Yes No

Rol

e of

the

Publ

ic T

rust

ee

Figure 7 – Overall Personal Estates Customers Understanding of the Role of Public Trustee


Overall, the majority of Personal Estates respondents indicated that they ‘agree’ they are satisfied with the level of service provided.



I was satisfied with the timely process of payments

My queries were answered in a timely and courteous manner

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

4.143.86

Figure 8 – Overall Satisfaction with Personal Estates Services

Satisfaction with Staff & Skills

> Overall, the mean ratings for satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) have declined compared to 2016’s results.

> Only one item overall had a mean score over 4.00: ‘Do you agree you can trust the advice staff give Customers?’ (M = 4.01). This is in contrast to 2016’s survey, in which four items were rated over 4.00. This suggests a slight decline in mean satisfaction levels.

> Overall, the highest rated item was ‘Do you agree you can trust the advice staff give Customers?’ (M = 4.01). In 2016, the highest rated item was ‘Do you agree staff are professional in dealing with Customers?’ (M = 4.13).

> The lowest rated item overall was ‘Do you agree the costs of Personal Estates administration were explained to you?’ (M = 3.00). This is consistent with 2016’s results (M = 2.96), but represents a slight increase in satisfaction.

> When the results of the two groups are compared, the overall mean rating was lower for Protected Persons (M = 3.59) than Liaison Persons (M = 3.70). This is similar to 2016, but also represents a slight increase in mean satisfaction for Protected Persons (M = 3.59 compared to M = 3.53).




When asked how Public Trustee can improve their Personal Estate services, the responses were mixed and included: ‘Other’ (36%) Response/communication to and with Customers (20%) Timeliness of service (12%) General improvements (11%) Customer service (6%) File or case management (8%) Telephone issues (7%)


When asked “Would you recommend Public Trustee to Others?”, 83% of Personal Estates Customers indicated they would recommend Public Trustee. This is consistent with 2016’s result, which in turn was an increase compared to the 2015 survey where 75% of Personal Estates Customers indicated that they would recommend Public Trustee.

Comments

Protected Persons

A total of 74 Protected Persons provided comments. The key themes that emerged from these comments are summarised below:

> 30 of the 74 (41%) comments were positive in nature, either a compliment on service or a simple statement that no improvements were needed.

> A small number of respondents indicated difficulties with their PEO, generally relating to ease of communication.

Suggested improvements included;

> Distributing statements in a more timely manner.> More frequent communication, particularly regarding responses to requests from

Protected Persons.> Greater negotiation regarding increased funds/allowances.

Liaison Persons

The key themes emerging from the 285 respondents who provided comments are summarised below:

> 112 of the 285 comments were positive, with respondents either complimenting Public Trustee or indicating that no improvements are necessary.

> Timeliness of service was a common area of concern for Liaison Persons. Many respondents wanted faster service for finalising estates, or turning around requests.

> Several respondents identified concern with changes to payments, for example, replacing grocery cheques with bank deposits.

> Many respondents mentioned concern with the timeliness and ease of communication with their PEO and Public Trustee in general. While the email communication system worked well for many, communication via telephone was more difficult.



Overall Results



IntroductionThe following report has been prepared by Locher People Performance for The Office of Public Trustee. It summarises the results of a survey of Public Trustee Customers conducted in order to gain an overview of Customer satisfaction with Public Trustee, and follows the previous iterations of the survey conducted each year from 2011 to 2016.

Since the end of 2012, the survey has been conducted at regular intervals as part of normal business practice and distributed to Wills, Deceased Estates, Trust Customers, and Revoked Wills Customers who withdrew/revoked their Will/ Enduring Power of Attorney. A telephone survey that is conducted annually of Protected Persons and their Liaison Persons was also undertaken. Participation was voluntary.

MethodologyThis survey is a continuation of six previous iterations of the survey conducted each year from 2011 to 2016. Direct comparisons and observations of results over time have been made in many areas, however a direct comparison of results over time cannot be made for some questions as they have changed over the years. The survey process was conducted from 1st May 2016 to 30th April 2017 for all respondent groups except Personal Estates Customers. These customers gave their responses via telephone survey between the 1st and the 5th of May 2017. Deceased Estates, Trust Customers, Documents Revoked, and Wills Customers provided responses via an online/hard copy survey throughout the year (after receiving the service).

In the current survey, 3337 Customers were surveyed and 1012 responses were received in total, representing a response rate of 30.33% - this is a slight increase of .83% from the 2016 survey, which yielded a response rate of 29.5%.

Due to very low response rates, data from Trusts Customers was determined to be an invalid representation of the views of the majority of customers, and therefore is not included in this report. Public Trustee has continued to engage with all Trust customers, seeking their feedback on the services provided. The low survey response rate suggests a need to review the surveying method to increase response rates and attain more meaningful data for next year’s survey.

A summary of response rates for each Customer group is as follows:



Table 1 - Response rates for each Customer group

Survey process conducted from 1st May 2016 – 30th April 2017

Surveyed 2017

Surveys completed

2017

Response rate %2017

Response Rate %2016

Wills 1708 309 18% 23.38%

Estate Administration 502 153 30.48% 29.60%

Documents Revoked 646 156 24.15% 23.40%

Personal Estates Branch Telephone SurveyConducted from 1st-5th May 2017

Surveyed2017

Surveys completed

2017

% of total called2017

Response Rate %2016

Liaison Persons 385 309 80.30% 62.90%

Protected Persons 96 85 88.54% 44.80%

TOTALS 3337 1012 30.33% 29.5%

The majority of questions in the surveys asked respondents to rate how strongly they agreed they were satisfied with various aspects of Public Trustee services on a scale of 1 to 5:

Satisfaction was indicated by level of agreement, which was rated on the following scale:

> 5.00 = Strongly Agree > 4.00 = Agree > 3.00 = Neither Agree or Disagree > 2.00 = Disagree > 1.00 = Strongly Disagree

This method allows Customers to gauge their level of satisfaction and provide a consistent measurement across government for the core service questions. All surveys since the first iteration have incorporated this measure. The 2012 and 2013 iterations of the survey included a measurement for level of importance of services. This was removed from the 2014 iteration and has not been included since.

Some questions asked respondents to select as many items as they wished, for example, when indicating how to improve or how they heard about a particular service. Other questions asked respondents to provide Yes/No answers, for example when indicating whether they would recommend Public Trustee to others. Finally, some questions invited respondents to provide more detailed comments (i.e. open-ended responses or “other” responses, which were also open-ended). As usual, it should be noted that some questions were reserved only for Personal Estates Customers.

To analyse the data, response numbers, percentages, and mean scores were calculated. Where applicable, changes over time in mean scores were also analysed.



This report was prepared in May/June 2017 by Locher People Performance and is based on data received from Public Trustee.



Overall Results

This section provides an overview of results that were collected for all Customers within each respondent group including:

> Wills> Deceased Estates> Personal Estates (including Protected Persons & Liaison Persons)

Note; the results for Revoked Wills Customers have not been included in this section.

An item-by-item breakdown is not presented as each service stream used different questions relating to service.

More detailed results are presented separately for Wills, Revoked Wills, Deceased Estates, and Personal Estates Customers.

Perceived Satisfaction with Services

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) with a range of aspects relating to services provided by Public Trustee.

Below is a summary of overall perceived satisfaction with services for Wills, Deceased Estates, and Personal Estates Customers.

Wills Deceased Estates Personal Estates1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.004.78

3.90 4.03

Mean

Satis

factio

n

Figure 9 – Overall Perspectives of Satisfaction with Services Provided by Public Trustee



2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20171.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.04.8 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.8

4.0 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.33.9

4.34.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.03.9 4.1 4.0

4.4

Wills Deceased Estates Trust Personal Estates

Mean

Satis

factio

n

Figure 10 – Time Comparison for Overall Perspectives of Satisfaction with the Services Provided by Public Trustee

Observations

> Overall, all ratings (indicated by level of agreement) are positive in 2017, indicating that Public Trustee Customers ‘agree’ that they are satisfied with the service provided.

> As found in prior years, the mean satisfaction rating for Wills is much higher than ratings for other areas. The rating represents a slight increase on 2015 and 2016’s ratings, bringing it in line with satisfaction levels from 2014. This suggests that Wills Customers are very happy with Public Trustee’s level of service.

> While previous years had seen a slight increasing trend for deceased estates, 2017’s results represent a moderate decline in satisfaction, from 4.3 in 2016 to 3.9 this year.



Suggested Improvements

Respondents were asked “How can we improve our service? (Please mark as many as you would like)”. Overall responses (for all Public Trustee Customers) are displayed in the chart below.

General improvement mat-ters12%

Customer service matters

8%

Case management matters

9%

Telephone response matters

8%

Response/communication with you

18%

Timeliness of service14%

Compliment1%

Other30%

Figure 11 – Frequency of Suggested Improvement Areas – All Public Trustee Customers

Recommend to Others

All respondents were asked “Would you recommend Public Trustee to Others?”. The majority of respondents answered ‘Yes’ to this question, a positive outcome. While this year’s results are a slight decline from 2016’s (84% compared to 87%), they are in line with previous years’ results, showing a maintained level of positivity.

The breakdown of responses is presented in the chart below.



Yes84%

No8%

Don't Know7%

Figure 12 – Public Trustee Customer Recommendations to Others

Personal Estates

Deceased Estates

Wills

0 20 40 60 80 100

83

65

95

9

23

0

8

12

5

Yes No Don't Know

Figure 13 – Comparisons of Customer Recommendations to Others for Wills, Deceased Estates, and Personal Estates

Observations

> For all Customer groups, the majority of respondents indicated that they would recommend Public Trustee to others.

> As in 2016 and 2015, Wills Customers represented the highest proportion of respondents (95%) who would recommend Public Trustee to others. Furthermore, no Wills Customers indicated that they would not recommend Public Trustee, a very positive result.

> Personal Estates Customers were the next most likely to recommend Public Trustee, with 83% responding ‘Yes’ to the question. This is the same percentage as 2016.



> Deceased Estates had the highest number of respondents who answered ‘No’, however as previously mentioned, the majority (65%) indicated that they would recommend Public Trustee.



Wills



Wills Customers

Wills Customers are people from all occupations and all parts of South Australia who voluntarily come to Public Trustee to make their Will. They generally appoint Public Trustee to be executor of their estate after their death.

Respondent Demographics

In total, 309 Wills Customers responded to the survey. This is a decrease compared to previous years; for instance, 415 customers completed the survey in 2016 and 562 in 2015. The charts below depict the gender and age ranges of the respondents who chose to provide demographic information.

Male43%

Female57%

Figure 14 - Gender

18-242%

25-343%

35-4917%

50-6430%

65+48%

Figure 15 – Age Range

Observations



> A larger proportion of females than males completed the survey (57% compared to 43%), which is comparable with previous years. The majority of respondents were aged 50 and over (78% in total); this age bias has been found in all previous surveys since 2012.

> However, a slight increase has been noted in younger age groups responding to the survey (18-24, 25-34, and 35-49). No Customers in the 18 – 24 age range responded to the survey in 2015 and 2016.

Document Preparation Services

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) with a range of aspects relating to document preparation services.

Well inform

ed about c

ontent

s

Wording ex

plained

Reflect

s my w

ishes

Queries

answered in

a timely

and cou

rteous m

anner

Costs o

f estate

admin e

xplained

Understood

costs o

f estate

admin

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.004.79 4.74 4.81 4.82 4.78 4.76

Mean

Satis

factio

n

Figure 16 – Satisfaction with Document Preparation Services



Table 2 – Satisfaction with Document Preparation Services

Agreement:

Strongly Agree Agree

Neither Agree

or Disagre

eDisagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

Mean Score

I was well informed about the contents of my Will and/or Enduring Power of Attorney.

N 256 46 2 0 4

% 83 15 1 0 1 4.79

The wording of my Will and/or Enduring Power of Attorney was fully explained to me.

N 243 59 2 0 4

% 79 19 1 0 1 4.74

I am satisfied that my signed Will and/or Enduring Power of Attorney reflects my wishes.

N 261 41 1 0 4

% 85 13 0 0 1 4.81

My queries were answered in a timely and courteous manner.

N 267 36 0 0 5

% 87 12 0 0 2 4.82

The costs of estate administration after I die were explained to me.

N 257 44 2 1 4

% 83 14 1 0 1 4.78

I understood the explanation of the costs of estate administration after I die.

N 251 48 4 1 4

% 81 16 1 0 1 4.76

MEAN TOTAL 4.78

Observations

> The mean total rating indicates that, on average, Wills Customers ‘strongly agree’ (M = 4.78) they are satisfied with this area of service and that their needs are being met or exceeded. This is an extremely positive outcome, similar to 2016’s (M = 4.74) and 2015’s (M = 4.74).

> Consistent with 2016, the highest mean rating was given to the item ‘My queries were answered in a timely and courteous manner’ (M = 4.82), with almost all



respondents (99%) agreeing on some level they are satisfied; 87% indicated they ‘strongly agree’ and 12% ‘agree’.

> The lowest mean rating for satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) was for the item ‘The wording of my Will and/or Enduring Power of Attorney was fully explained to me’ (M = 4.74). However, 98% of respondents still agreed on some level that they are satisfied with this area; 79% ‘strongly agree’ and 19% ‘agree’. Furthermore, only four (1%) respondents disagreed on some level they are satisfied with the service in this area.



Document Preparation Services – Time Comparison

Most questions, with the exception of ‘I understood the explanation of the costs of estate administration after I die’ which was added in 2012, were asked in all surveys from 2011 to 2017. The comparison of mean results over time is presented in the charts below.

Please note that in 2011 a 4 point scale was used, however this was re-calculated to be comparable with a 5 point scale (this does not affect the validity of the results).

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20171.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

4.4

4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.84.5

4.8 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.74.8 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.84.8 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.84.6 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.84.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8

Well Informed about contentsWording ExplainedReflects my wishesQueries answered in a timely and courteous mannerCosts of estate admin explained

Figure 17 – Satisfaction with Document Preparation Services – Yearly Comparison



Observations

> The mean ratings for satisfaction in 2017 are very similar to those in 2016 and 2015, with a slight increase on the final two measures (‘costs of estate admin explained’ & ‘understood costs of estate admin’).


Respondents were asked “How can we improve our document preparation service? (Please mark as many as you would like)”. Responses are displayed in the chart below.

General improvement matters

16%

Customer service matters

12%


9%

Telephone response matters16%

Response/communication with you

8%

Timeliness of service10%

Compliment5%

Other (includ-ing compli-

ments)25%

Figure 18 – Frequency of Suggested Improvement Areas

Respondents were also given the opportunity to expand on their answers to the above question. The key themes emerging from the 130 respondents who provided responses are summarised below.

CommentsAs found in all surveys dating back to 2011, the majority (78%) of Wills respondents who provided a comment said they are satisfied with the service provided which is a very positive outcome.

A small number of suggestions for improvement were made by respondents. These have been grouped into themes and are presented below.

> A small number of respondents requested clearer language/terminology in the documents. This request was also made in 2016 and 2015.



> Similarly to 2016 and 2015, some respondents identified a need for more regional visits.

> Several respondents requested more detailed information be given. For example, information regarding associated fees and charges, the documentation required prior to an appointment, and the estate options available.

Recommend to Others

When asked, the vast majority (95%) of respondents indicated they would recommend Public Trustee to others. Very similar results were found in the 2012 – 2016 surveys. Further, only 5% of respondents indicated they did not know if they would recommend Public Trustee. This is a very positive result and indicates a continuing high level of service performance and Customer satisfaction in this area.

Yes95%

Don't Know 5%



Revoked Wills Customers

Revoked Wills Customers are Wills Customers who have chosen to stop receiving service from Public Trustee.


In total, 156 Revoked Wills Customers responded to the survey. This represents a slight decrease from 2016, in which 176 Customers responded. No demographic information was collected for these Customers.

As revoked wills respondents have chosen to cease their association with Public Trustee, it is to be expected that their responses will be more negative, and therefore may not be reflective of Wills Customers overall. Caution should therefore be taken when generalising these results.

Reason for Withdrawal

Revoked Customers were asked “Could you please tell us why you withdrew/revoked your Will/ Enduring Power of Attorney previously prepared and held by Public Trustee?”.

Respondents could select as many items as they wished.

Family members encour-aged me to withdraw my

Will/Enduring Power of Attorney from Public

Trustee13%

Word of mouth/media influenced my decision to leave Public Trustee

18%

I transferred my affairs to a private executor/trustee

company22%

I consider Public Trustee Fees and Charges are not

reasonable34%

I consider Public Trustee customer service failed to

adequately assist me5%

Other9%

Figure 19 – Reason for Withdrawal

Observations



> The most common reason for ceasing association with Public Trustee was the belief that the fees are unreasonable (33%). This reason has increased in frequency; in previous years (2014-2016), it was second.

> The second more common reason was that customers had transferred their affairs to a private executor or trustee company (22%). This had previously been the most common reason.

> The third and fourth most common reasons, respectively, were that the media and word of mouth, or family members, had influenced customers to withdraw their Will/Enduring Power of Attorney from Public Trustee. This result is the same as the 2016, 2015, and 2014 surveys.

> Only 5% of respondents believed that Public Trustee had failed to adequately assist them, a positive result.

Current Position with Documents

Revoked Customers were asked “Given the importance of having a Will/Enduring Power of Attorney, could you please advise of your current position with these documents”.

Respondents could select as many as they wished.

A private solicitor has prepared new doc-

uments for me46%

A private executor/trustee company has prepared new

documents for me9%

My family has prepared new documents for me

3%

I have appointed a family member to be my ex-

ecutor/attorney36%

I have completed a Home Will Kit5%

Other 1%

Figure 20 – Current Position with Documents

Observations

> When respondents were asked what their current position was with their Power of Attorney/Will documents, the most common response was that a private solicitor had prepared new documents for them (46%). This was the most common response in 2015 and 2016.



> The next most common response was that a family member had been appointed as the respondents’ executor/attorney (36%). Again, this is comparable with 2015 and 2016.

> Compared to 2016, there was a slight increase in the number of respondents who indicated that a private executor/trustee, or family member had prepared new documents for them.




Respondents were asked “How can we improve our Will preparation service to Customers? (Please mark as many as you would like)”. Responses are displayed in the chart below.

Respondents could select as many as they wished.

More timely service6%

Better explana-tion of Fees and

Charges50%

Improved access to our services in the

local area18%

Enhanced commu-nication with you

21%

Other 6%

Figure 21 – Suggest Improvements for Will Preparation Service

Observations

> When asked how Public Trustee’s Will Preparation Service could be improved, as in previous years (2014-2016), the most common response was that fees and charges needed to be better explained.

> The next most frequent response regarded enhanced communication. Again, this is comparable with previous years.

> The third most frequently named suggestion was the desire for improved access to Public Trustee services in local areas. At 18%, this response was slightly decreased from 2016’s results (22%).

CommentsRespondents were also given the opportunity to expand on their answers to the above question. The key themes emerging from the 43 respondents who provided responses are summarised below.

> The majority of participants identified dissatisfaction with the fees and charges issued by Public Trustee. This was likewise the most common theme in previous surveys (2014-2016).

> The next most common theme concerned a change in circumstances, and consequently respondents did not have complaints or suggestions for improvement.



Examples of such changes included the health of family members, or a smaller estate that was simple enough to manage personally.

> A small number of respondents indicated that word of mouth or hearsay had influenced their decision; for example, negative remarks, or concerns regarding the use of private contractors.



Estate Services



Deceased Estates

Estate beneficiaries are those people who have been named in a Will to receive some form of a financial benefit or tangible item from the deceased person’s estate. These people become Customers of Public Trustee because of the decision of another family member, loved one or friend when writing their Will, to appoint Public Trustee to be executor of the estate.


In total, 153 Deceased Estates Customers responded to the survey. This continues a trend of decreasing respondents. In 2016, 161 participants responded, and in 2015, 257 responded. The charts below depict the gender and age ranges of the respondents who chose to provide demographic information.

Male40%

Female60%

Figure 22 - Gender18-24

1%25-34

1%

35-4911%

50-6444%

65+42%

Figure 23 - Age Range



Observations

> As in previous surveys from 2012-2016, the majority of respondents for Deceased Estates were female, and aged over 50 years.

> One participant was aged between 18 and 24, a number in line with previous years, in which very few respondents placed in this age bracket.



Estate Administration Services

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) with a range of aspects relating to Deceased Estates services.

The pro-cedures required to admin-ister the estate

were ex-plained to

me.

A time frame for the com-pletion of the estate was indi-cated to

me.

The officer fully ex-

plained the fees and

charges for the admin-istration of the estate.

The officer communi-cated the process

and progress of the admin-istration of the estate.

My queries were an-swered in a timely

and cour-teous

manner.

I was sat-isfied with the timely process for payments

for the adminis-tration of

the estate.

I was sat-isfied with the time taken to complete

the admin-istration of the estate.

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

4.06 3.89 3.70 3.864.21

3.79 3.75

Mean

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Figure 24 – Satisfaction with Estate Administration Services



Table 3 – Satisfaction with Estate Administration Services

Agreement:


Neither Agree

or Disagre

eDisagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

Mean Score

The procedures required to administer the estate were explained to me.

N 69 52 11 5 13

% 46 35 7 3 9 4.06

A time frame for the completion of the estate was indicated to me.

N 59 54 11 14 12

% 39 36 7 9 8 3.89

The officer fully explained the fees and charges for the administration of the estate.

N 53 48 16 12 19

% 36 32 11 8 13 3.70

The officer communicated the process and progress of the administration of the estate.

N 66 43 6 16 16

% 45 29 4 11 11 3.86

My queries were answered in a timely and courteous manner.

N 81 41 11 6 9

% 55 28 7 4 6 4.21

I was satisfied with the timely process for payments for the administration of the estate?

N 67 39 10 11 22

% 45 26 7 7 15 3.79

I was satisfied with the time taken to complete the administration of the estate.

N 64 40 10 14 21

% 43 27 7 9 14 3.75

MEAN TOTAL 3.90

Observations

> The majority of respondents agreed to some extent that they were satisfied with Estate Administration services.

> The item with the highest level of satisfaction (55% ‘strongly agree’) was ‘My queries were answered in a timely and courteous manner’. This also had the highest mean score (M = 4.21).

> The second highest rated item (46% ‘strongly agree’; M = 4.06) was ‘The procedures required to administer the estate were explained to me’.



> The lowest mean score was for the item ‘The officer fully explained the fees and charges for the administration of the estate’ (M = 3.70) with 21% of respondents indicating that they disagree on some level (8% ‘disagree’ and 13% ‘strongly disagree’) they are satisfied.

> Overall, while positive, these results represent a slight decline in mean satisfaction compared to previous years’ surveys (M = 3.90, compared to M = 4.29 in 2016).



Estate Administration Services – Time Comparison

Questions relating to service were asked in all surveys from 2011 to 2017. The comparison of mean results over time are presented in the charts below.

Please note that in the 2011 survey a 4 point scale was used, however this was re-calculated to be comparable with a 5 point scale (this does not affect the validity of the results).

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20171.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

3.74.3 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.4

4.1

3.4

4.1 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.33.9

3.43.9 3.9 3.9 3.9

4.23.7

3.3

4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.43.9

3.6

4.3 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.2

3.2

3.9 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.23.8

3.0

3.8 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.13.8

Procedures explainedTimeframe for administration givenFees and charges fully explainedProcess and progress communicatedQueries answered in a timely and courteous mannerTimely process for paymentsTime taken to complete administration

Figure 25 – Satisfaction with Estate Administration Services – Yearly Comparison



Observations

> Overall, the mean satisfaction ratings for each area of service have declined slightly compared to prior years.

> However, the average mean rating for all items was still well above ‘satisfactory’, suggesting that, on average, respondents are satisfied with all areas of service.


Respondents were asked “How can we improve our Deceased Estate services? (Please mark as many as you would like)”. Responses are displayed in the chart below.

General Improvement Mat-ters11%

Customer Service Mat-ters14%


12%Telephone Response

Matters 6%Response/communication

with you 16%

Timeliness of Service 23%

Compliment 5%

Other14%

Figure 26 – Frequency of Suggested Improvement Areas

As can be seen, ‘Timeliness of Service’ was selected most frequently by respondents, indicating this is the area viewed as most in need of improvement. This is in contrast to 2016, in which ‘Compliment’ was the most frequently selected option.

Respondents were also given the opportunity to expand on their answers to the above question. The key themes emerging from the 80 respondents who gave comments are summarised below.

CommentsThe main themes that emerged in the comments concerned the timeliness of service (34%), case management (18%), fees charged (20%), and lack of communication (36%). Ten respondents (13%) were seriously displeased with Public Trustee overall. Recommend to Others



When asked “Would you recommend Public Trustee to Others?” 65% of Estate Administration Customer respondents indicated they would recommend Public Trustee. This demonstrates a decline from 2016’s survey, in which 75% of respondents indicated they would recommend Public Trustee.


Yes65%

No23%

Don't Know12%

Figure 27 – Deceased Estates Customer Recommendations to Others



Personal Estates Customers



Personal Estates

In this section of the report, information is provided separately for:

Total Respondents – this is all Personal Estate respondents grouped together (referred to in the report as Overall, or Personal Estates Customers).

Protected Persons – this is all the Customers who dealt directly with Personal Estates. Protected Persons are people who are unable to manage their own financial and legal affairs and Public Trustee has been appointed as administrator by the South Australian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) or by Court Award. This role covers all legal and financial matters. People under such orders are referred to as a ‘Protected Person’ and are generally not voluntary customers of Public Trustee.

Liaison Persons – this is all the Liaison Persons who provided feedback on behalf of a Protected Person.

Personal Estates Customers under a SACAT Order often have a Liaison Person appointed by SACAT. That person, or organisation, acts as a ‘go between’ between Public Trustee and the Protected Person. They can help Public Trustee make decisions in accordance with the principles of the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993. A Liaison Person can also play an important advocacy role and make suggestions to Public Trustee about how to manage the Protected Person’s money to ensure that his or her needs are being met to improve the quality of his or her life.


In total, 394 Personal Estates Customers responded to the survey. Of these, 85 (22%) were Protected Persons, and 309 (78%) were Liaison Persons, who represent Customers who cannot represent themselves. The chart below displays the breakdown of respondent groups for Personal Estates.

Protected Persons 22%

Liaison persons78%

Figure 34 – Breakdown of Protected Persons and Liaison Persons for Personal Estates

Note; information about gender or age range was not collected for Personal Estates.



Understanding the Role of Public Trustee

Personal Estates Customers (both Protected Persons and Liaison Persons) were asked to indicate whether they thought the following were part of the role of the Personal Estates Branch. Options included:

> Manage our Customer’s finances > Make health care decisions for Customers> Make decisions to maintain Customer’s lifestyle> Provide Customers with funds beyond their current financial balance> Assist Customers when new assets are needed> Sell or look after Customer’s assets in order to maintain Customer’s lifestyle

Respondents could select as many items as they wished.

Overall The collated responses for Protected Persons and Liaison Persons grouped together are presented below.

Provide customers with funds beyond the customer's cur-rent financial balance






0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17

25

57

68

71

98

83

75

43

32

29

2

Yes No

Rol

e of

the

Publ

ic T

rust

ee

Figure 35 – Overall Personal Estates Customers Understanding of the Role of Public Trustee



Protected PersonsThe responses for Protected Persons are presented below.


Provide customer's with funds beyond the customer's current financial balance

Sell or look after customer's assets in order to maintain customer's lifestyle




0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

32

40

53

74

76

95

68

60

47

26

24

5

Yes No

Role

of P

ublic

Tru

stee

Figure 36 – Protected Persons’ Understanding of the Role of Public Trustee

Liaison PersonsThe responses for Liaison Persons are presented below.

Provide customers with funds beyond the customer's current financial balance






0 20 40 60 80 100

14

20

60

67

69

98

86

80

40

33

31

2

Yes No

Role

of P

ublic

Tru

stee

Figure 37 – Liaison Persons’ Understanding of the Role of Public Trustee



Observations

> As found in all surveys since 2011, overall the item ‘Manage our Customer’s finances’ received the highest proportion of ‘Yes’ responses. This demonstrates that Personal Estates Customers believe that managing finance is the central role of Public Trustee.

> Like 2016, overall, the item which received the second highest proportion of ‘Yes’ responses was ‘Make decisions to maintain Customer's lifestyle’. However, the proportion of ‘Yes’ responses has decreased, from 77% to 71%.

> Overall, the item which received the highest proportion of ‘No’ responses (83%) was ‘Provide Customers with funds beyond the Customer's current financial balance’. This result is maintained from 2016’s survey (84%).

> The results for Protected Persons and Liaison Persons, when compared overall, are similar, with only one area of difference. The order of the final two items are reversed for Liaison Persons, compared to Protected Persons. For Protected Persons, the item with the lowest proportion of ‘Yes’ responses was ‘Make health care decisions for Customers’ (32%), while for Liaison Persons, it was ‘Provide Customers with funds beyond the Customer’s current financial balance’ (14%).

> When contrasting the proportion of responses within each item, other differences between Liaison Persons and Protected Persons can be found. Overall, Protected Persons appear to believe that Public Trustee’s role is greater than Liaison Persons do. Notably, considerably more Protected Persons believe that Public Trustee will ‘Provide Customers with funds beyond the Customer’s current financial balance’, with 40% of respondents answering ‘Yes’, compared to 14% of Liaison Persons answering ‘Yes’. This difference is consistent with 2016’s survey.



Personal Estates Services

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) with a range of aspects relating to Personal Estate services.

Overall



1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

4.143.86

Figure 38 – Overall Satisfaction with Personal Estates Services

Table 5 – Overall Satisfaction with Personal Estate Services

Agreement:


Neither Agree

or Disagre

eDisagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

Mean Score


N 152 181 50 16 5

% 37.62 44.80 12.38 3.96 1.24 4.14


N 108 186 69 26 15

% 26.73 46.04 17.08 6.44 3.71 3.86

MEAN TOTAL 4.00



Protected Persons

I was

satisfi

ed with

the tim

ely pro

cess o

f paym

ents

My quer

ies were

answ

ered in

a tim

ely an

d cour

teous

manner

1.002.003.004.005.00

4.04 3.71

Mean

Satis

facti

on

Figure 39 – Personal Estate Services – Protected Persons Satisfaction

Table 6 – Personal Estate Services – Protected Persons Satisfaction

Agreement:


Neither Agree

or Disagre

eDisagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

Mean Score


N 29 37 9 7 1

% 35 45 11 8 1 4.04


N 17 38 18 7 3

% 20 46 22 8 4 3.71

MEAN TOTAL 3.87



Liaison Persons

I was satis

fied with

the timely

proces

s of pa

yment

s

My quer

ies were

answere

d in a t

imely and

courte

ous mann

er

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

4.16 3.89

Mean

Satis

factio

n

Figure 40 - Personal Estate Services – Liaison Persons Satisfaction

Table 7 – Personal Estate Services – Liaison Persons Satisfaction

Agreement:


Neither Agree

or Disagre

eDisagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

Mean Score


N 123 144 41 9 4

% 38 45 13 3 1 4.16


N 91 148 51 19 12

% 28 46 16 6 4 3.89

MEAN TOTAL 4.03



Observations

> The mean total rating for Personal Estates was 4.00, which indicates that on average Personal Estates Customers ‘agree’ they are satisfied with the level of service in this area.

> The mean ratings for both items differed slightly between Protected Persons and Liaison Persons, with Liaison Persons having slightly higher ratings.

Personal Estates Services – Time Comparison

Both questions relating to service for Personal Estates were asked in all surveys from 2011 to 2017. The comparison of mean results over time are presented in the charts below.

Please note that in 2011 a 4 point scale was used, however this was re-calculated to be comparable with a 5 point scale (this does not affect the validity of the results).

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20171.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

4.4 4.3 4.24.0

4.2 4.1

3.7

4.24.0 4.1 3.9 4.0

3.9

I was satisfied with the timely process of paymentsMy queries were answered in a timely and courteous manner

Figure 41 – Satisfaction with Personal Estate Services – Yearly Comparison Overall

Observations

> While the overall mean ratings for satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) for both items have decreased slightly this year compared to 2016, they are consistent with 2015’s results, demonstrating a continuing level of satisfaction with Personal Estates.

> On average, Personal Estates Customers ‘agree’ that they are satisfied with service performance.



Personal Estates Staff

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) with a range of aspects relating to Personal Estate staff and their skills.

Overall

Staff

are

relia

ble

I tru

st th

e ad

vice

sta

ff gi

ve

Staff

are

exp

erienc

ed in

their w

ork

Staff

are

pro

fess

iona

l

Staff

are

car

ing

The

cost

s of

per

sona

l est

ate

adm

in w

ere

expla

ined

I unde

rsto

od th

e co

sts

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

3.85 4.01 3.91 3.99 3.923.00 3.07

Mean S

ati

sfact

ion

Figure 42 – Overall Satisfaction with Personal Estates Staff and their Skills



Table 8 – Satisfaction with Personal Estates Staff and their Skills - Overall

Agreement:


Neither Agree

or Disagre

eDisagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

Mean Score

Do you agree Public Trustee Staff are reliable?

N 59 260 52 28 4

% 15 65 13 7 1 3.85

Do you agree you can trust the advice staff give Customers?

N 75 275 40 10 4

% 19 68 10 2 1 4.01

Do you agree staff are experienced in their work?

N 59 269 60 13 3

% 15 67 15 3 1 3.91

Do you agree staff are professional in dealing with Customers?

N 75 275 35 9 9

% 19 68 9 2 2 3.99

Do you agree staff are caring towards their Customer’s needs?

N 62 274 45 20 3

% 15 68 11 5 1 3.92

Do you agree the costs of Personal Estates administration were explained to you?

N 15 164 85 86 53

% 4 41 21 21 13 3.00

Do you agree that you understood the explanation of the costs of Personal Estates administration?

N 16 164 101 73 48

% 4 41 25 18 12 3.07

MEAN TOTAL 3.68



Protected Persons

Staff ar

e reli

able

I trus

t the a

dvice

staff

give

Staff ar

e exp

erien

ced i

n the

ir work

Staff ar

e prof

essio

nal

Staff ar

e cari

ng

The c

osts

of pe

rsona

l esta

te ad

min were

expla

ined

I und

erstoo

d the

costs

1.002.003.004.005.00

3.71 3.82 3.80 3.77 3.753.12 3.14

Mea

n Sa

tisfa

ctio

n

Figure 43 – Satisfaction with Personal Estates Staff and their Skills – Protected Persons



Table 9 – Satisfaction with Personal Estates Staff and their Skills – Protected Persons

Agreement:


Neither Agree

or Disagre

eDisagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

Mean Score


N 9 51 14 8 1

% 11 61 17 10 1 3.71


N 9 56 13 4 1

% 11 67 16 5 1 3.82


N 9 54 15 4 1

% 11 65 18 5 1 3.80


N 10 52 15 4 2

% 12 63 18 5 2 3.77


N 11 50 13 8 1

% 13 60 16 10 1 3.75


N 2 40 16 16 9

% 2 48 19 19 11 3.12


N 1 40 21 14 8

% 1 48 24 17 10 3.14

MEAN TOTAL 3.59



Liaison Persons

Staff a

re rel

iable

I trust

the a

dvice

staff

give

Staff ar

e exp

erien

ced in

their

work

Staff a

re pro

fessio

nal

Staff a

re car

ing

The c

osts o

f pers

onal e

state

admin

were ex

plained

I und

erstoo

d the

costs

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

3.88 4.06 3.94 4.04 3.97

2.98 3.05Me

an S

atisf

actio

n

Figure 44 – Satisfaction with Personal Estates Staff and their Skills – Liaison Persons



Table 10 – Satisfaction with Personal Estates Staff and their Skills – Liaison Persons

Agreement:


Neither Agree

or Disagre

eDisagre

e

Strongly

Disagree

Mean Score


N 50 209 38 20 3

% 16 65 12 6 1 3.88


N 66 219 27 6 3

% 21 68 8 2 1 4.06


N 50 215 45 9 2

% 16 67 14 3 1 3.94


N 65 223 20 5 7

% 20 70 6 2 2 4.04


N 51 224 32 12 2

% 16 70 10 4 1 3.97


N 13 124 69 70 44

% 4 39 22 22 14 2.98


N 15 124 81 59 40

% 5 39 25 18 13 3.05

MEAN TOTAL 3.70



Protected Persons and Liaison Persons

Staff a

re rel

iable

I trus

t the

advic

e staff

give

Staff a

re ex

perie

nced

in th

eir w

ork

Staff a

re pro

fessio

nal

Staff a

re ca

ring

The c

osts o

f pers

onal

estate

admin

were ex

plaine

d

I und

erstoo

d the

costs

1.002.003.004.005.00

3.71 3.82 3.80 3.77 3.753.12 3.14

3.88 4.06 3.94 4.04 3.972.98 3.05

Protected Persons Liason Persons

Figure 45 – Satisfaction with Personal Estates Staff and their Skills – Protected Persons and Liaison Persons



Observations

> Overall, the mean ratings for satisfaction (indicated by level of agreement) have declined compared to 2016’s results.

> Only one item overall had a mean score over 4.00: ‘Do you agree you can trust the advice staff give Customers?’ (M = 4.01). This is in contrast to 2016’s survey, in which four items were rated over 4.00. This suggests a slight decline in mean satisfaction levels.

> Overall, the highest rated item was ‘Do you agree you can trust the advice staff give Customers?’ (M = 4.01). In 2016, the highest rated item was ‘Do you agree staff are professional in dealing with Customers?’ (M = 4.13).

> The lowest rated item overall was ‘Do you agree the costs of Personal Estates administration were explained to you?’ (M = 3.00). This is consistent with 2016’s results (M = 2.96), but represents a slight increase in satisfaction.

> When the results of the two groups are compared, the overall mean rating was lower for Protected Persons (M = 3.59) than Liaison Persons (M = 3.70). This is similar to 2016, but also represents a slight increase in mean satisfaction for Protected Persons (M = 3.59 compared to M = 3.53).



Personal Estates Staff – Time Comparison

Staff ar

e relia

ble

I trust

the a

dvice

staff

give

Staff ar

e exp

erien

ced in

their

work

Staff ar

e prof

ession

al

Staff a

re car

ing

The c

osts o

f pers

onal e

state

admin

were ex

plaine

d

I und

erstoo

d the

costs

1.02.03.04.05.0

4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.04.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.23.5 3.5

4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.2

2.9 3.0

4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.93.1 3.1

3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.93.2 3.2

4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1

3.0 3.13.9 3.9 4.0 3.9

3.0 3.1

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 46 – Satisfaction with Personal Estate Staff and Skills – Yearly Comparison Overall



Observations

> As demonstrated in the figure, the mean scores for most items indicate that Personal Estates Customers ‘agree’ that they are satisfied with Public Trustee’s staff. These positive results have been found in all previous iterations of the survey, from 2011 to 2016.

> Overall, mean satisfaction scores for all items are consistent with or slightly lower than 2016’s scores, with the exception of ‘Do you agree you can trust the advice staff give Customers?’. This item’s mean score has increased from 3.9 to 4.1.

> Consistent with all previous years, the two lowest rated items were’ Do you agree the costs of Personal Estates administration were explained to you?’ and ‘Do you agree that you understood the explanation of the costs of Personal Estates administration?’

Respondents were asked “How can we improve our Personal Estate services? (Please mark as many as you would like)”. Responses are displayed in the chart below.

General improvements11%Customer service

6%File or case

management7%

Telephone issues7%

Response / com-munication to and

with customers20%

Timeliness of service

12%

Other36%

Figure 47– Frequency of Suggested Improvement Areas



CommentsRespondents were also given the opportunity to expand on their answers to the above question.

Protected Persons

A total of 74 Protected Persons provided comments. The key themes that emerged from these comments are summarised below:

> 30 of the 74 (41%) comments were positive in nature, either a compliment on service or a simple statement that no improvements were needed.

> A small number of respondents indicated difficulties with their PEO, generally relating to ease of communication.

Suggested improvements included;

> Distributing statements in a more timely manner.> More frequent communication, particularly regarding responses to requests from

Protected Persons. > Greater negotiation regarding increased funds/allowances.

Liaison Persons

The key themes emerging from the 285 respondents who provided comments are summarised below:

> 112 of the 285 comments were positive, with respondents either complimenting Public Trustee or indicating that no improvements are necessary.

> Timeliness of service was a common area of concern for Liaison Persons. Many respondents wanted faster service for finalising estates, or turning around requests.

> Several respondents identified concern with changes to payments, for example, replacing grocery cheques with bank deposits.

> Many respondents mentioned concern with the timeliness and ease of communication with their PEO and Public Trustee in general. While the email communication system worked well for many, communication via telephone was more difficult.



Recommend to Others

When asked “Would you recommend Public Trustee to Others?”, 83% of Personal Estates When asked “Would you recommend Public Trustee to Others?”, 83% of Personal Estates Customer respondents (both Protected Persons and Liaison Persons) indicated they would recommend Public Trustee. This is consistent with 2016’s result, which in turn was an increase compared to the 2015 survey where 75% of Personal Estates Customer respondents indicated that they would recommend Public Trustee.


Yes83%

No9%

Don't know8%

Figure 48 – Personal Estates Customer Recommendations to Others - Overall

Liaison Persons

Protected Persons

0 20 40 60 80 100

87%

67%

7%

17%

6%

16%

Yes No Don't know

Figure 49 – Personal Estates Customer Recommendations to Others – Comparison of Liaison Persons and Protected Persons Responses



Observations

> Overall, the majority of respondents (83%) indicated that they would recommend Public Trustee to others, a very positive result.

> However, when the two groups are compared, there are differences in the proportion of respondents who would recommend Public Trustee. The vast majority (87%) of Liaison Persons would recommend Public Trustee to others, while only 67% of Protected Persons would do the same.

> The amount of Protected Persons who answered ‘Yes’ (67%) has significantly decreased compared to 2016 (77%). However, this proportion is still higher than 2015’s results. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Protected Persons do not voluntarily engage Public Trustee’s services, which could affect their responses.
