CANTERBURY - Burbank New Homes Builders | House … cupboard with CANTERBURY 234 CANTERBURY 234 ...
How to use this dashboard · Output Two ‐ Event Response Output 2.1 ‐ Settlement of Canterbury...
Transcript of How to use this dashboard · Output Two ‐ Event Response Output 2.1 ‐ Settlement of Canterbury...
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
How to use this dashboard
This dashboard shows a monthly snapshot of EQC's progress across its operational spectrum as well as how we track in relation to the performance measures in our Statement of Performance Expectations (SoPE). Below is a summary for each section.
Section 1 ‐ Statement of Performance Expectations (SoPE) measures
This section shows progress across those SoPE measures that can be measured on a monthly basis. The results are cumulative year to date results which reflect the year to date progress bar to reach the year‐end target. The SoPE is one of our public accountability documents which can be found here:
https://www.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/documents/publications/EQC‐SoPE‐2019.pdf
Section 2 ‐ Canterbury
This section tracks the progress of outstanding claims arising from the Canterbury sequence of earthquakes 2010‐11. It shows howmany claims are open or have been reopened (inflow), how many claims have been resolved during the month (resolved), and how many are outstanding at the time of reporting (total outstanding (on hand)). We also track how long claims have been open for (age of outstanding open claims).
Section 3 ‐ Other Natural Disaster Events (Excluding Canterbury/Kaikōura)
This section covers all claims that are not related to the specific Canterbury and Kaikōura events. Here, we track our claimsmanagement progress by how many we have received during the month (inflow), how many we have resolved in the month (resolved), and how many are on hand (outstanding). The data in this section is organised by the type of damage for which a claim may be lodged (namely earthquake, landslip, flood or storm damage).
Section 4 ‐ Customer Satisfaction
We monitor customers’ satisfaction with their interactions with EQC. There are two parts which align to the customer satisfaction metrics in the SoPE: Service Quality and Kept Informed. The data comes from the customer satisfaction survey that TNS Kantar undertakes on our behalf each month. This section also summarises call volume data.
Due to timing, the customer satisfaction results are reported a month in arrears.
Section 5 ‐Media
This section monitors EQC's coverage in both traditional and social media. It keeps a year‐to‐date count of the number of media statements released by EQC, and also how many times EQC appeared in the media during the month (media articles).
Section 6 ‐ Official Information Act (OIA) Requests
The OIA section monitors the number of OIAs received, completed and left on hand at the end of the month. The OIAs are divided into two types: those in which customers request information and/or supportive information from us on their claim (customer OIA), and the OIA requests that relate directly to EQC and/or its operational activities (high level OIAs). The compliance rate for both types is being monitored.
Section 7 ‐ Privacy Breaches
This section provides a monthly update on EQC's compliance matters, in particular, privacy breaches.
Section 8 ‐ HR Operations
This section tracks EQC's average annual leave balance and sick leave usage and compares them to the Public Service Benchmark. Information in this section also includes a broad profile of EQC's workforce.
*A section on Kaikōura has been excluded as it includes private commercially sensitive insurer data.
Output Two ‐ Event Response
Output 2.1 ‐ Settlement of Canterbury 2010‐11 Earthquake Sequence Remedial Claims
Ref MeasureYE
TargetResult Status/Trend
Note: this is a reverse target
Key:
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 1 ‐ Statement of Performance Expectation measures ‐ monthly monitoring
Progress ‐ YTD
2.1.1
Outstanding claims over six months old, on hand
at 30 June 2019, are settled by 31 December
2019
75% 58%
Commentary: By EOM December 2019, we had closed 58% of claims that were outstanding (over 6 months old) at EOM June 2019. Consequently we
did not achieve the target for this measure. As at 30 April 2020 we had closed 69% of these claims, up from 65% at the end of March.
2.1.2
Inflow of reopened claims lodged post 1 January
2019 will be settled within six months of
reopened date*
80% 80%
Commentary: So far this financial year, 80% of claims that were reopened during January‐through‐October 2019 have been settled within 6 months of
their reopened date, on target. This is an improvement from 76% last month.
*Including claims opened from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019 will give a financial year (1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020) result in terms of “settled
within six months”
2.1.4
EQC settlements should be enduring. Less than
10% of claims settled are reopened within six
months
<10% 13.8%
Commentary: So far this financial year we have reopened 13.8% of settled claims within 6 months of closure. This is a deterioration since last month
(8.9%).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
On trackfor delivery
Potential risk of not achievingtarget
Target highly unlikely to be achieved
Result not available for the month
Performance trend increase
No change in performance trend
Performance trend decrease
Output Two ‐ Event Response
Output 2.1 ‐ Settlement of Canterbury 2010‐11 Earthquake Sequence Remedial Claims ‐ cont.
Ref MeasureYE
TargetResult Status/Trend
2.1.5
The proportion of surveyed customers who
indicate satisfaction about their overall claim
settlement process
> 45% 48%
2.1.7
The proportion of surveyed customers who
indicate that they were well informed during the
claims settlement process
> 40% 44%
Key:
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 1 ‐ Statement of Performance Expectation measures ‐ monthly monitoring (cont.)
Progress ‐ YTD
2.1.6
The proportion of surveyed customers who agree
or strongly agree that the overall quality of the
service received while making the claim (during
recent claim experience) was good
> 60% 75%
2.1.8
The proportion of surveyed customers who agree
or strongly agree that they were kept well
informed during their recent claim experience
> 60% 75%
2.1.9
The proportion of surveyed customers who agree
or strongly agree that the overall manner of the
people they had contact with (during your recent
claim experience) was good
> 60% 83%
Commentary: 'Overall Satisfaction' (2.1.5) amongst our Canterbury customers remains unchanged from last month on 48% as does our performance in
ensuring our Canterbury customers were 'Kept Informed' (2.1.7) with 44%. Satisfaction of Canterbury customers with their recent experiences across
the measures of 'Satisfaction' (2.1.6), 'Kept Informed' (2.1.8) and 'Overall Manner' (2.1.9) remain well above their respective targets.
Note: Customer satisfaction is reported one month in arrears, therefore the results reported are as at 31 March 2020.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
On trackfor delivery
Potential risk of not achievingtarget
Target highly unlikely to be achieved
Result not available for the month
Performance trend increase
No change in performance trend
Performance trend decrease
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Output Two ‐ Event Response
Output 2.2 ‐ Claims Relating to Natural Disaster Events (excluding Canterbury)
Ref MeasureYE
TargetResult Status/Trend
Note: this is a reverse target
2.2.6The proportion of surveyed customers who
indicate they were well informed during the
claims settlement process
80% 75%
Key:
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 1 ‐ Statement of Performance Expectation measures ‐ monthly monitoring (cont.)
Progress ‐ YTD
Commentary: So far this financial year, 82% of claims that were reopened in January‐to‐October 2019 have been settled within 6 months of being
reopened, an improvement in performance since end of March (77%), and above standard.
2.2.1Claims lodged post 1 January 2019 are settled
within six months of lodgement date95% 98%
Commentary: As at 30 Apr, 98% of claims lodged post 1 January 2019 have been settled within 6 months of lodgement, meeting the required standard.
2.2.2
Claims which have not been settled within six
months of lodgement are settled within 90
working days of the assessment process being
completed
95% 100%
Commentary: So far this financial year, all claims that were not settled within 6 months, have subsequently been settled within 90 working days of the
completion of the assessment process.
2.2.3
Inflow of reopened claims lodged post 1 January
2019 will be settled within six months of
reopened date*
80% 82%
Commentary: 'Overall Satisfaction' (2.2.5) amongst our customers impacted by other natural disasters continues to drop with a result of 75% (vs. 76%
last month). A continued slide in our performance was also noted in the other key measure where customer satisfaction with how well they were 'Kept
Informed' (2.2.6) dropped to 75% (vs.76% last month).
Note: Customer satisfaction is reported one month in arrears, therefore the results reported are as at 31 March 2020.
Commentary: As at April month end, the rate of enduring settlement measures 9%, deteriorating from last month (7%).
* The start date for this rolling measure is 1 January 2019
2.2.5
The proportion of surveyed customers who
indicate satisfaction about their overall claim
settlement process
80% 75%
*Including claims opened from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019 will give a financial year (1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020) result in terms of “settled
within six months”
2.2.4
EQC settlements should be enduring. Less than
10% of claims settled are reopened within six
months*
<10% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
On trackfor delivery
Target highly unlikely to be achieved
Potential risk of not achieving target
Result not available for the month
Performance trend increase
No change in performance trend
Performance trend decrease
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 2 ‐ Canterbury
9%
1%
90%
Remaining Claims by Canterbury Claim Pathway
Dispute Resolution
Construction
Settlement
736 721 687 675 637439 520
394
642
335
770650 686 695
1,029
573
448538
615
402
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Claim
Volumes
Inflow vs Resolved Claims
Inflow Resolved
2,230 2,301 2,302 2,282
1,740 1,697 1,7521,575 1,557 1,458
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Claim
Volumes
Remaining Claims On Hand
Inflow refers to CMS4 claims reopened first time in CMS8, previously closed CMS8 claims that have been reopened again, and claims transferred back in from external consideration.
Of the 1,458 claims remaining on hand, 90% are being managed by Settlement teams, 9% are with Dispute Resolution, and 1% are in physical repair.
We recorded inflow of 335 reopened Canterbury event claims in April 2020 a reduction of 48% compared with March. There were 402 claim closures (on 387 distinct claims) during April 2020, a monthly decrease of 35%. The reduced inflow and resolution of claims were attributable to improved triaging of claims, together with impacts of the Covid‐19 lockdown on both inflow and resolution of claims.
We resolved 402 claims in April, offset by inflow of 335 reopened claims. Thirty two claims, open at 1 April, are now subject to an application for Government support for repair of on‐sold over‐cap properties and have been excluded from the total. This left 1,458 open claims on hand at month end, a reduction of 99 since the end of March.
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 2 ‐ Canterbury (cont.)
542
259
207121 329
590
276
212124 355
0
200
400
600
800
< 3 months 3 ‐ 6 months 6 ‐ 9 months 9 ‐ 12 months > 12 months
Rem
aining Claim
Volume
Age of Remaining Open Claims
This Month Last Month
237.4 232.9 222.4 219.6 222.6194.2 183.8 180.1 183.2 182.3
43.0 44.8 40.9 39.4 34.8 34.5 34.0 32.5 27.0 25.2
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
FTE Volume
Canterbury Event Headcount FTE
Total Canterbury & Contact Centre (includes OIA) Support Areas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
4504‐Oct
11‐Oct
18‐Oct
25‐Oct
1‐Nov
8‐Nov
15‐Nov
22‐Nov
29‐Nov
6‐Dec
13‐Dec
20‐Dec
27‐Dec
3‐Jan
10‐Jan
17‐Jan
24‐Jan
31‐Jan
7‐Feb
14‐Feb
21‐Feb
28‐Feb
6‐M
ar
13‐M
ar
20‐M
ar
27‐M
ar
3‐Apr
10‐Apr
17‐Apr
24‐Apr
Claim
s Closed Volume
Reporting Week Beginning (Fri ‐ Thu)
Claims Closed by Week
The Canterbury Event Headcount has stablised following a period of recent organisational changes. It is expected that headcount will remain stable in coming months.
Resolution of aged claims remains a key priority for our settlement teams. At 30 April, 329 claims have been open for more than 12 months, a decrease of 26 (7%) in comparison with March.
On average, we closed 106 claims per week during April, down from the 140 weekly average in March. There were a total of 402claim closures in April.
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 2 ‐ Canterbury (cont.)
Assessment, 46.8%
Administrative, 3.3%
Defects, 25.7%
Settlement, 23.7%
Yet to be triaged, 0.5%
Open Canterbury Claims by Triaged Tier 2 Profile
277 263 255 241165 145 141 134 121 111
2012 10 8
54 3 3
3 3
5352 57 88
7872 72 61
2329
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Claims in Dispute
Legal Proceedings ILV Land in Litigation Other Dispute Resolution claims
We have continued to make steady progress resolving disputed claims. At 30 April 2020, 111 Canterbury claims remain subject to legal proceedings compared with 121 in March. Our dispute resolution teams are currently managing 29 Canterbury claims up from 23 in March. In total, 143 open Canterbury claims remain in dispute at 30 April.
Our profile of remaining open claims includes claims that are:
Assessment related ‐ these claims encompass previously undetected damage to scoped repair elements, together with new damage identified on previously unscoped elements.
Settlement related ‐ these open claims most commonly relate to requests to review the settlement approach or to address additional costs associated with scoped repair elements.
Defect related ‐ these claims relate to issues with the quality of repairs undertaken.
Administrative related ‐ these claims encompass a range of scenarios, many of which relate to interactions with third parties (e.g. the insurer of the property, contractors involved in the repair) rather than with the customer.
EQC will initiate direct contact with the Applicant within 10 Business
days of receipt of the Application.100% 100%
A decision on the outcome of the Application will be conveyed to
the Applicant within one month of receiving all required
documentation and reports.
100% 100%
EQC will provide reporting to the Treasury as specified in Schedule 4
of the On‐Sold Canterbury Properties Services Agreement.Achieved Achieved
Applications for ex gratia payments will be assessed against the
criteria specified in the On‐Sold Canterbury Properties Services
Agreement and a decision on the outcome of the Application will be
conveyed to the Applicant within one month of receiving all
required documentation and reports.
100% 100%
StandardMeasure Result
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 2 ‐ Canterbury (cont.)
0
148 144
64
91
69
49
10084 84
2
50
19
39
10
30 36148
292354
395445 455
545599
647
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
50
100
150
200
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
On Hand (Volume)
Received and Completed (Volume)
Progress of On‐Sold Over‐Cap Expressions of Interest (EOI)
New Applications Received Completed in Month Open/On Hand
We received 84 applications for government support to repair on‐sold over‐cap properties in April. This was offset by completion of the assessment of 36 applications leaving 647 open applications on hand at month end.
Performance results against measures defined in Schedule 3 of the On‐Sold Canterbury Properties Services Agreement are set out below.
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 3 ‐ Other Natural Disaster Events (Excluding Canterbury/Kaikōura)
200174
118
62 4890
118 69
208
114 88 109 173 109 68 118 113 69
218
301310
201
140162 162
118
256
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
50
100
150
200
250
Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20
Cumulative outstanding
(Volume)
Resolved
and inflow (Volume)
Progress of Earthquake Claims
EQ inflow EQ resolved EQ outstanding
4654 49
36
64
29
76
28 2850 29 42 42 42 31 62 63 41
74
99 106 102124 122
136
10289
0
50
100
150
0
20
40
60
80
Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 Cumulative outstanding (Volume)
Resolved
and inflow (Volume)
Progress of Landslip, Storm and Flood Claims (LSF)
LSF inflow LSF resolved LSF outstanding
0
100
200
300
400
May‐19
Jun‐19
Jul‐19
Aug‐19
Sep‐19
Oct‐19
Nov‐19
Dec‐19
Jan‐20
Feb‐20
Mar‐20
Apr‐20
Claim
s (Volume)
Open Earthquake Claims ‐ by Age
< 3 months 3 ‐ 6 months > 6 months
0
50
100
150
May‐19
Jun‐19
Jul‐19
Aug‐19
Sep‐19
Oct‐19
Nov‐19
Dec‐19
Jan‐20
Feb‐20
Mar‐20
Apr‐20
Claim
s (Volume)
Open LSF Claims ‐ by Age
< 3 months 3 ‐ 6 months > 6 months
This section provides details of claims that did not result from the Canterbury or Kaikōura earthquake events.
During the reporting period we recorded inflow of 236 new and reopened claims. Of these lodgements, 88% (208) were earthquake claims, while the balance related to landslip, storm and flood damage ('LSF'). We have received 125 claims in the Canterbury area resulting from a M4.3 Earthquake on 9 April. A M3.6 earthquake on 18 April resulted in an additional 24 claims. Both earthquakes were located in the Canterbury region.
Note: Inflow refers to claims lodged as well as reopened.
YTD AVG = 56%
YTD AVG = 53%
YTD AVG = 48% Target: > 45% Trend YTD AVG = 44% Target: > 40% Trend
YTD AVG = 75% Target: > 60% Trend YTD AVG = 75% Target: > 60% Trend
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 4 ‐ Customer Satisfaction
Trend
Trend
37% 29% 29% 24% 28% 24% 24% 20% 20% 25%
23%21% 19% 18% 18%
12% 18% 17% 23% 20%
40% 49% 53% 58% 53% 64% 56% 62% 58% 55%
Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20
Service Quality ‐ All
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
44%31% 35% 33% 35% 32% 28% 31% 21%
33%
25%
22% 21% 19% 23%14% 20% 22%
21%21%
31%46% 45% 47% 43%
54% 50% 46% 57%46%
Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20
Canterbury (SoPE 2.1.5)
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
48%35% 45% 35% 42% 32% 33% 31% 23%
37%
22%24%
17% 26% 20%20% 22% 17% 29%
14%
30% 41% 38% 39% 37% 49% 45% 53% 49% 49%
Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20
Canterbury (SoPE 2.1.7)
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
20%7% 10% 9% 11% 7% 15% 12% 9% 8%
20%
14% 12% 9% 10% 9%14% 18%
13% 11%
58%77% 75% 81% 77% 80%
69% 67% 74% 79%
Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20
Comparative Recent Experience (SoPE 2.1.6)
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
21% 13% 12% 8% 11% 10% 16% 14% 7% 5%
21%13% 11% 11% 12% 11%
13% 11%17%
7%
57%74% 76% 78% 74% 78% 69% 69% 76%
86%
Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20
Comparative Recent Experience (SoPE 2.1.8)
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Canterbury customers ‐ In what was solid performance during March, a highlight of our performance was customer perceptions of how well ‘EQC make clear what next and when’. Our result this month was the highest on record.
Notes:
The top two graphs are an amalgamation for all events and are indicative only i.e. they are not SoPE measures. Due to the nature of this information it is presented a month in arrears.
Our performance in March has remained stable in relation to previous months on our key measures of ‘Service Quality’ and ensuring our customers are ‘Kept Well Informed’. Although the March result is lower than January, this is not statistically significant. The stability of our performance result is mainly among Canterbury claimants, with indications of a drop in overall satisfaction among Customer Care claims from January.
'Service Quality'
How satisfied were you with the overall quality of the service you received making the claim?
40% 31% 34% 24% 33% 23% 26% 21% 18% 26%
20%23% 20%
22%18%
16%22%
18% 28% 18%
41% 47% 47% 54% 49%60% 53% 61% 54% 55%
Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20
Kept Informed ‐ All
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
'Kept Informed'
How do you agree you were kept well informed throughout the claim process?
YTD AVG = 75% Target: > 80% Trend
YTD AVG = 75% Target: > 80% Trend
Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 Trend
18:82 16:84 18:82 16:84 16:84 21:79
95% 99% 99% 99% 99% 98%
2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%
66 12 19 13 30 14
3,455 2,144 2,641 2,966 2,772 1,017
2,211 1796 2145 2192 2613 1549
Total Call, Email and Post Volume
Outbound ‐ Inbound Ratio
Grade of Service
Abandonment Rate
Roll Over No Answer
Total Calls
Total Email and Post
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 4 ‐ Customer Satisfaction (cont.)
22% 19% 10% 7% 10% 7% 13% 8% 16% 11%
15% 18%16% 20% 7% 9%
14%9%
26%19%
63% 64%74% 74% 84% 85%
72%83%
58%69%
Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20
Natural Disaster Events Excluding Canterbury (SoPE 2.2.5)
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
17%2% 5% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9%
11%
14%24% 17% 12% 9%
22% 17% 26% 25%
72%87%
74% 78% 82% 84%71% 75% 66% 66%
Jun‐19 Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20
Natural Disaster Events Excluding Canterbury (SoPE 2.2.6)
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Other Events Customers ‐ There is evidence to suggest this is a material downward shift in satisfaction. In addition to decreased satisfaction with our ‘Service Quality’, there is decreased satisfaction with our key touchpoints (lodgement, assessment, and settlement) as well as how the service compared to expectations. In contrast, satisfaction with the time to settle is steady, as are most more detailed indicators, so it is difficult to pinpoint where we can improve.
Customer Complaints ‐ this month we received nine complaints and resolved one leaving thirteen on hand at month end. Complaints most commonlyrelated to failed repairs. The process response for complaints of this nature involves reopening and review directly by our Contact Centre as a first port‐of‐call. Customers are generally happy when advised that the claim has been reopened for review and their Claims Manager will be in contact.
0 05
7
2 3 2 0 2
9
12
4 42 3
122 2
6
119
8 8
56
13
0
5
10
15
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Customer Complaints
Received Resolved Open/On Hand
'Service Quality'
How satisfied were you with the overall quality of theservice you received making the claim?
'Kept Informed'
How do you agree you were kept well informed throughout the claim process?
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 5 ‐ Media
15% 10% 5% 9%20%
8%
48%33% 45% 52%
88%
35%
24%
30%70%
23%
37%57% 50% 48%
12%
56%76%
50%
22%
77%
0%
50%
100%
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Score (%)
Media Score ‐ Non Canterbury
Negative Balanced Positive
20%45% 40%
28%43%
31% 30%51% 57%10%
33% 40%
32%
40%
48%56%
40%
37% 29%70%
22% 20%
68%
32%9% 13%
30%12% 14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Media Score ‐ Other Canterbury
Negative Balanced Positive
Our traditional media coverage volume was slightly down on last month with 91 items compared with 103 items in March. Media coverage this month was dominated by the release of the public inquiry report into the Commission early in the month. The release generated a large volume of negative reporting, which has largely influenced a significant drop in our overall media impact score to ‐2.4 (vs. ‐0.3 for Mar‐20).
Following the release of the public inquiry report, outlets frequently highlighted chair Dame Silvia Cartwright's finding that the Commission had been 'poorly prepared' for the Canterbury earthquakes, and that it has left people with a 'deep mistrust of government'. The public inquiry report also outlined other findings highlighting operational under performance largely shaping April's leading message of operational inefficiency. Notably, however, media interest in the report appeared to be concentrated and short‐lived, with coverage subsiding swiftly in the following days.
Conversely, we received some positive research‐focused reporting late in the month that discussed the revelation that EQC‐funded research showed that academics had voiced concerns and published evidence of the 'severe' risks at Whakaari before the December 2019 eruption.
82%67% 77% 83%
12%
100%100%
14%6%
100%
33% 23%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Media Score ‐ Canterbury/ Public Inquiry
Negative Balanced Positive
Nil coverage
Nov‐19
10
12770
22
68
21 39 33 43 7
6039 38 25 34 34 34 10
6013
34
1 313
0 2 2 0 0
71
‐0.4 ‐0.5
0.2
1.20.8
1.1 1.00.6
‐0.3
‐2.4
‐4.0
‐3.0
‐2.0
‐1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0
40
80
120
160
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Volume
Media Articles ‐ Volume by Media Impact
Other Canty Non‐Canty Canty Inquiry Media Impact Score
19 media articles this month involved EQC
Nil coverage
Feb‐20
Nil coverage
Mar‐20
6 6
2
5
34
2
4
2
4
0
2
4
6
8
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Media statements
(volume)
Media Statements Released
38 proactive mediareleases FYTD
Section 5 ‐ Media (cont.)
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Similar to traditional media, social media conversations were dominated by the release of the public inquiry report, driving a sharp rise in the volume of posts (to triple March’s total) and a notable drop in Media Impact Score to ‐1.7 (vs. ‐0.7 for Mar‐20). Traditional media reporting on the report’s release were frequently and widely circulated on social media (particularly reporting by stuff.co.nz). These posts were accompanied by strong criticism of quality of repairs and claims settlement, and questions about the EQC model and the legislation governing the Commission.While comparatively modest in volume, our #StayHomeNZ programme continued to generate positive education and research‐focused conversations throughout the month.
Driven by the release of the public inquiry report, the messaging landscape this month was dominated by 'demonstrates operational inefficiency'. The next leading message, though modest in comparison, was 'improves knowledge about NZ's natural hazards', which has featured consistently in leading messages in previous months.
Prominent figures in conversions regarding the public inquiry report were John Campbell and political commentator Neale Jones. Campbell's tweets regarding the Commission's lack of 'leadership, empathy and fairness' and Jone's criticism of how 'horrendously the Christchurch Rebuild was botched' were widely shared.
The Commission’s #StayHomeNZ programme continued to generate positive education and research‐focused conversations throughout the month. These promoted EQC's focus on improving knowledge about NZ’s natural hazards.
Understanding the Media Impact Score
The change in metric from 'Average Favourability' to 'Media Impact Score' (MIS) is based on ensuring that the methodology we employ more accurately reflects the way audiences consume media and engage with digital news and social media.
The new methodology combines content analysis (what the coverage says, the tone, topics, and messaging) withsalience (its importance/ influence, by taking into account the audience size and potential reach of each piece of coverage, our positioning and prominence within that coverage, and the level of engagement for social media) to assess impact.
Our score sits on a scale of ‐10 to 10, with 0 being the neutral or balanced point.
6 8
213
3 8 192440
0
50
100
150
200
Claims &Customer Service
Research Education Organisational &Administration
CanterburyEarthquake
Volume
Leading Themes this Month
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable
22
59
16 2413
2411
3816
226
13
3919 20 29
39
13 6
5131
20
50 52 43 34 41
16
86
38
68
‐0.3‐0.3
1.8
1.01.3
0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7
‐1.7
‐4.0
‐3.0
‐2.0
‐1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Volume
EQC on Social Media ‐ Volume by Media Impact
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Media Impact Score
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 6 ‐ Official Information Act (OIA) Requests
276 295 259 235 167 161 85 129 81 62
248215
265 265
284
11160
156 157103
174 254248 218
101
151176
149 73
32
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
OIA req
uests (volume)
Customer OIA Requests
Received Completed On hand
26 20 5 3 10 5 10 5 14 6
1721
21
45 8 4 7 7
12
18 17
3 2
74
108
15
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
OIA req
uests (volume)
Organisational OIA Requests
Received Completed On hand
This month, our Customer OIA Team received 62 new OIA requests (vs. 81 received in Mar‐20) while the team resolved 103 requests. As at the end of this month the team have 32 open requests on hand.
Our Government Relations Team received 6 new high level OIA requests (vs. 14 received in Mar‐20). Coupled with the 15 on hand from the end of last month and 12 requests resolved this month, the team have 9 open requests on hand.
99% 96% 93% 96% 96% 99% 98% 95% 94% 99%
100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Compliance rate (%)
OIA Compliance Rate
Customer OIAs Organisational OIAs
Target = 100%
Our Customer OIA Team achieved an improved compliance result of 99% this month while our Government Relations Team continues to maintain a 100% compliance level for organisational/ high level OIA requests.
This month there was a single instance of non‐compliance contributing to the improved compliance result of 99% for our Customer OIA Team.
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 7 ‐ Privacy Breaches
Privacy Breaches
The three breaches this month relate to 'incorrect email address used' (2) and 'wrong email or letter content' (1). The
reported breaches were contained and no harm appears to have arisen as a result.
3 5 7 4 5 5 3 2 1 3
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20
Breaches (volume)
Privacy Breaches
Low Med High Critical
Low
•Non‐sensitive information disclosure;
•Single person affected
•No harm arising
•Contained and resolved
•Non‐sensitive information disclosure
•Single or few (less than 10) individuals affected
•Harm unlikely
•Not contained, or contained and possible complaint
Medium
•Sensitive information disclosure
•Multiple person repeat or continued failure
•Harm caused or likely to be caused to individuals
•Not contained
High
•Sensitive information disclosure
•Systems integrity compromised
•Disclosure of large amount of personal information
•Harm caused to individual/s
•Significant media or reputational damage likely
•Not contained and/or unresolved
Critical
Three privacy breaches, all classified as low severity, were recorded by the Risk and Compliance Team this month. All incidents were assessed against EQC’s guidelines, have been contained, and no harm appears to have arisen as a result.
Severity Scale
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2020
Section 8 ‐ HR Operations
Average annual leave balances have continued to rise on the back of the Covid‐19 Level: 4 and 3 conditions with employees cancelling future annual leave. Similarly, average sick leave usage continues its downward movement to 4.0 days (vs. 4.9 for Mar‐20). Both averages remain below their respective Public Sector averages of 15 days and 7.8 days.Regular reporting of leave balances is provided to our managers to encourage our people to take annual leave regularly for wellbeing purposes.
As reported above our workforce headcount has increased slightly due to onboarding for critical roles and employees due to leave our organisation in April having their contracts extended until the Alert Level: 3 rating is lowered.
Note: The reported headcount differs from Financial reporting, where consultants/ outsourced service providers may be engaged to fill vacant budgeted positions.
11.2 11.5 11.7 10.113.9
9.3 8.7 9.6 11.0 12.7
5.9 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.2
5.3 5.35.9
4.94.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0.0
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20Mar‐20 Apr‐20May‐20 Jun‐20
Sick leave (days)
Annual leave (days)
Annual and Sick Leave
Annual leave balance (days) Average sick leave usage (per employee)
During the reporting period our workforce headcount increased slightly, due to onboarding for critical roles coupled with the fact that employees who were due to leave our organisation in April had their contracts extended until the Alert Level: 3 rating is lowered. Our average annual leave balance continues to increase (12.7 days vs. 11.0 days for Mar‐20), while our average sick leave usage continues to decrease (4.0 days vs. 4.9 days for Mar‐20). Both averages compare favourably to their corresponding Public Sector Averages. Annualised turnover ('voluntary turnover') continued its downward movement to 21.8% (vs. 22.1% for Mar‐20). The movements reported this month are influenced by the advent of Covid‐19.
Based on statistics from the State Services Commission, we have a moderate rate of voluntary turnover compared to other Public Sector departments ('agencies') experiencing high volumes of change. In 2019, agencies with a similar volume of change profile reported annual turnover ranging from 19% to 51% with an average voluntary turnover of 25.5%. In comparison our voluntary turnover rate is 22.1%.
HR Ops at a glance ‐ EQC's performance against Public Service Sector Averages
Our Workforce Profile
Male54.0%
Female46.0%
Gender
CAN57.0%
BAU 43.0%
EventFocus
WLG28.0%
CHC72.0%
Location
18‐2910.0%
30‐3936.4%
40‐4925.9%
50‐5919.7%
60‐697.9%
Age
European78.6%
Māori4.7%
Asian8.1%
Pacific4.3%
Undisclosed4.3%
Ethnicity
12.7
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
Annual leave balance (days)
4.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Sick leave usage (days)
21.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Annualised Turnover (%)Sector AVG
11.8%Sector AVG7.8 days
Sector AVG15 days
vs.Sector AVG
vs.Profile AVG
Change Profile AVG25.5%
326 318 311 294 288246 246 234 228 233
11 13 20 21 1917 28 19 23 23
58 60 64 63 6356 55
52 50 50
2,455 2,463 2,457 2,418
1,8401,697 1,752
1,575 1,557 1,458
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Jul‐19 Aug‐19 Sep‐19 Oct‐19 Nov‐19 Dec‐19 Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20
Canterbury Claim
Population
Number of staff (Volume)
Headcount & Canterbury Claim Population Movement
Permanent Fixed Term & TempContractors Canterbury Claim Population