How to use this dashboard - EQC Performance Dashboard April 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
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 of 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_2020_Web.pdf
Section 2 ‐ Canterbury
This section tracks the progress of outstanding claims arising from the Canterbury sequence of earthquakes 2010‐11 ('Canterbury'). It
shows how many claims have been reopened (inflow), how many claims have been resolved during the month (resolved), and how
many are outstanding at the time of reporting (on hand). We also profile our remaining on hand claims by age, and by reason for
opening the claim. This section also provides visibility on our progress to resolve claims in dispute (claims subject to legal proceedings
or other dispute resolution pathways).
Government on‐sold support package
This section outlines our progress in the delivery of the Government on‐sold support package, on behalf of the Government, to
support owners of on‐sold over‐cap properties in Canterbury to access financial help to have their homes repaired.
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 claims
management 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). In this section we also profile our remaining on hand claims by
Section 4 ‐ Customer Focus
This section monitors the quality of our customer focus through customers’ satisfaction with their interactions with EQC. There are
three key strands which align to the customer focus metrics in the SoPE 2020‐21:
• 'Service Quality' of their overall claims experience and, for Canterbury customers, reflection on their most recent
experience;
• 'Timeliness and quality of Complaints Resolution'; and
• 'Enduring settlements'.
The data comes from the customer satisfaction survey that TNS Kantar undertakes on our behalf each month. This section also
summarises the volume of customer contacts by phone, email and post.
Section 5 ‐ Media
This section monitors the media impact of 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). The section also provides a view on what's driving our media impact and the leading messages and themes shaped by these
drivers in both media formats.
Section 6 ‐ Official Information Act (OIA) Requests
This section monitors the number of OIAs we've received, completed and have remaining on hand at the end of the month. Our OIAs
are divided into two types: those in which our customers’ request information and/or supportive information from us on their claim
(Customer OIA), and OIA requests that relate directly to EQC and/or operational activities (Organisational OIAs). Our compliance rate
for both request types is monitored and reported here.
Section 7 ‐ Privacy Breaches
This section provides a monthly update on EQC's compliance matters, in particular, severity and themes of privacy breaches.
Section 8 ‐ HR Operations
This section tracks EQC's average annual leave balance, sick leave usage and annualised turnover, compares them to the
corresponding Public Service average and provides visibility on what's influencing our averages and annualised turnover rate. This
section also provides a view on headcount movement overlayed by claim population movement and a broad profile of our workforce,
which is updated on a quarterly basis.
*A section on Kaikōura has been excluded as it includes private commercially sensitive insurer data.EQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 1 - Statement of Performance Expectation measures - monthly monitoring
Output Two - Event Response | Timeliness
Output 2.1 - Settlement of Canterbury 2010-11 Earthquake Sequence Remedial Claims
YTD
Ref Measure Target Progress - YTD Status/Trend
Result
Outstanding claims over six months old, on
2.1.1 hand at 30 June 2020, are settled by 30 June 75% 80%
2021
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
As at 30 April 2021, we have closed 518 of the 648 claims that were outstanding (over 6 months old) at 30 June 2020 (80%). We attained the 75% target
during March, with 3 months to spare.
New claims opened or reopened
2.1.2 between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 80% 74%
2020 are resolved within 6 months *
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
So far this financial year, 74% of claims that were reopened in January-October 2020 have been settled within 6 months of their reopened date, adrift of
our 80% target.
* Including claims opened from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 will give a financial year (1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021) result for
* “settled within six months”
Key:
Result not available Potential risk of not Performance trend increase
for the month achieving target
No change in performance trend
On track Target highly unlikely
Performance trend decreaseEQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 1 - Statement of Performance Expectation measures - monthly monitoring (cont.)
Output Two - Event Response | Customer Focus
Output 2.1 - Settlement of Canterbury 2010-11 Earthquake Sequence Remedial Claims
YTD
Ref Measure Target Progress - YTD Status/Trend
Result
More than 45% of surveyed customers
>45% 52%
2.1.4 are satisfied with their overall claims
experience
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
Our result this month decreased this month compared to last month's result.
Our YTD result against SOPE measure 2.1.4 remains above our target of >45%.
Reflecting on their most recent experience:
More than 70% of surveyed customers
agree or agree strongly that EQC
2.1.5 >70% 77%
(or its partner) were transparent
and fair in all interactions
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
Our result this month has remained relatively steady compared to last month's result.
Our YTD result against SOPE measure 2.1.5 continues to exceed its target of >70%.
More than 70% of surveyed customers
agree or agree strongly that EQC (or
2.1.6 its partner) was responsive to their >70% 76%
individual needs and situation during
their recent claim experience 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
Our result this month has remained relatively stable compared to last month's result.
Our YTD result against SOPE measure 2.1.6 continues to exceed its target of >70%.
More than 70% of surveyed customers indicate
that all communications from
2.1.7 EQC (or its partner) were clear, concise >70% 74%
and confident, and that they were
clear on next steps for their claim 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
Our result this month has remained relatively stable compared to last month's result.
Our YTD result against SOPE measure 2.1.7 continues to exceed its target of >70%.
More than 70% of surveyed customers
agree or strongly agree that EQC
2.1.8 (or its partner) acted as experts with >70% 75%
the skills, knowledge and desire to
help them 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
Our result this month has remained relatively stable compared to last month's result.
Our YTD result against SOPE measure 2.1.7 continues to exceed its target of >70%.
Key:
Result not available Potential risk of not Performance trend increase
for the month achieving target
No change in performance trend
On track Target highly unlikely
Performance trend decreaseEQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 1 - Statement of Performance Expectation measures - monthly monitoring (cont.)
Output Two - Event Response | Customer Focus (cont.)
Output 2.1 - Settlement of Canterbury 2010-11 Earthquake Sequence Remedial Claims
YTD
Ref Measure Target Progress - YTD Status/Trend
Result
Timeliness of complaints resolution:
• 90% simple complaints completed
• in 30 working days
2.1.9 • 90% standard complaints completed >90% 97%
• in 60 working days
• 90% complex complaints completed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
• in 120 working days
Commentary:
So far this financial year, 97% of complaints relating to Canterbury claims have been resolved within targeted timeframes.
Quality of complaints resolution:
2.1.10 75% customer satisfaction with >75% 0%
complaints process
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
Given the very low number of survey responses we are unable to provide a meaningful result for SOPE measure 2.1.10.
EQC settlements should be enduring.
2.1.11 Less than 10% of claims settled areEQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 1 - Statement of Performance Expectation measures - monthly monitoring (cont.)
Output Two - Event Response | Timeliness
Output 2.2 - Claims Relating to Natural Disaster Events (excluding Canterbury)
YTD
Ref Measure Target Progress - YTD Status/Trend
Result
Claims lodged between 1 Jan 2020 and 31
2.2.1 December 2020 are resolved 90% 97%
within 6 months
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Claims which have not been settled
within six months of lodgement are
2.2.2 95% 93%
settled within 90 working days of the
assessment process being completed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
Of 3,427 in-scope claims lodged in January-October 2020, all but 112 (97%) were resolved within 6 months (measure 2.2.1). Fifty seven of 61 in-scope
claims not settled within six months of lodgement, have subsequently been settled within 90 working days of the assessment process being completed
(93%).
Output Two - Event Response | Customer Focus
Output 2.2 - Claims Relating to Natural Disaster Events (excluding Canterbury)
More than 70% of surveyed customers
2.2.3 are satisfied with their overall claims >70% 70%
experience
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More than 70% of surveyed customers
agree or agree strongly that EQC
2.2.4 >70% 71%
(or its partner) were transparent, fair
and reasonable in all interactions 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More than 70% of surveyed customers
agree or agree strongly that EQC
2.2.5 (or its partner) was responsive to their >70% 69%
individual needs and situation during
their recent claim experience 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More than 70% of surveyed customers indicate
that all communications from
2.2.6 EQC (or its partner) were clear, concise and >70% 78%
confident, and that they were
clear on next steps for their claim 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More than 70% of surveyed customers
agree or strongly agree that EQC (or
2.2.7 its partner) acted as experts with the >70% 79%
skills, knowledge and desire to
help them 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
This month our YTD results across SOPE measures 2.2.3-7 have largely held steady in comparison to last month's results. The achievement of our targets
for SOPE measures 2.2.3-5 continue to remain at risk.
Key:
Result not available Potential risk of not Performance trend increase
for the month achieving target
No change in performance trend
On track Target highly unlikely
Performance trend decreaseEQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 1 - Statement of Performance Expectation measures - monthly monitoring (cont.)
Output Two - Event Response | Customer Focus (cont.)
Output 2.2 - Claims Relating to Natural Disaster Events (excluding Canterbury)
YTD
Ref Measure Target Progress - YTD Status/Trend
Result
Timeliness of complaints resolution:
• 90% simple complaints completed
• in 30 working days
2.2.8 • 90% standard complaints completed >90% 93%
• in 60 working days
• 90% complex complaints completed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
• in 120 working days
Quality of complaints resolution:
2.2.9 75% customer satisfaction with >75% 0%
complaints process
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Commentary:
So far this financial year, 93% of in-scope complaints relating to non-Canterbury claims have been resolved within targeted timeframes.
Given the very low number of survey responses we are unable to provide a meaningful result for SOPE measure 2.2.9.
EQC settlements should be enduring. Less than
2.2.10 10% of claims settled areEQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 2 - Canterbury
We resolved 613 claims during April, offset by inflow of 474 claims. This left 1,370 open Canterbury claims on hand at month end, a
healthy reduction of 139 since the end of March.
The focus of our Aged Claims Strategy is now on the achievement of our 30 June 2021 target which is to reduce our claims aged >12
months (‘aged claims’) population to under 100 by this date. The likelihood of achieving our 30 June target remains likely with 136
(29) of these claims remaining at month’s end.
Remaining Claims On Hand
Inflow Resolved Remaining Claims On Hand
1,200
1,824 1,892 2,000
1,811 1,743
1,000
Canterbury Remaining Claims
1,559 1,561 1,619 1,617
Inflow and Resolved Claims
1,448 1,474 1,509
1,370 1,600
800
782
1,200
600 652 665
629 613
571 556 541
524 800
400 488
746 720 701
389 614 404
575 526 557
514 503 474
200 379 400
336
0 0
May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21
The 613 claims resolved this month includes 26 claims open at 1 April, that are now subject to an application for Government
support for repair of on-sold over-cap properties ('on-sold claims', a total 2,628 of which are excluded). A further 11 SRES MOU
claims were settled and 1 claim returned to Claims Assurance for review.
Remaining Claims by Canterbury Claim Pathway
0.7%
5.8%
Of the 1,370 Canterbury claims remaining
Dispute Resolution on hand, 93% are being managed by
Construction Settlement teams, 6% are in Dispute
Resolution, andEQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 2 - Canterbury (cont.)
Claim Closures by Week
350
300
Count of Claim Closures
250
200
150
100
50
0
5-Nov
12-Nov
19-Nov
26-Nov
7-Jan
14-Jan
21-Jan
28-Jan
1-Apr
8-Apr
15-Apr
22-Apr
29-Apr
4-Feb
11-Feb
18-Feb
25-Feb
4-Mar
11-Mar
18-Mar
25-Mar
3-Dec
10-Dec
17-Dec
24-Dec
31-Dec
Reporting Week Ending (Fri - Thu)
On average, we closed 161 claims per week during April (shortened 3 days for Easter and ANZAC Day observance). This represents
an 11% increase on the weekly average in March (145). There were a total of 613 claims closed in April.
Age of Remaining Open Claims by Complexity
900
600
COMPLEX
300
MODERATE
0 SIMPLE
Apr-21
Apr-21
Apr-21
Apr-21
Apr-21
Apr-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
New 1 - 3 months 3 - 6 months 6 - 9 months 9 - 12 months More than 12
months
Resolution of aged claims remains a key priority for our settlement teams. During April there was a further 18% reduction in claims
aged > 12 months (165 down to 136). Claims aged 3-6 months reduced by 32% (537 down to 363), though claims aged 6-9 months
rose by 25% (257 up to 322).
Canterbury Event Headcount FTE
Total Canterbury & Contact Centre (includes OIA) Support Areas
200
158.2 157.2 148.4
FTE Volume
130.8 133.9 139.3 137.1 134.3 132.5
150 128.2
100
39.3 39.0 41.3 33.0 37.2 37.4 39.1
50 19.1 21.3 18.4
0
Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21
The Canterbury Event Headcount was relatively stable this month at 171.6, compared to 171.7 last month.EQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 2 - Canterbury (cont.)
Open Canterbury Claims by Reopen Reason
Repair Quality, 18.3%
Repair Methodology, 6.0%
Customer has identified defects or quality issues with
Claim has been reopened as the customer has repairs previously completed and managed by EQC*
concerns regarding additional damage on that need to be assessed to settle Natural Disaster
previously scoped or unscoped elements and Damage in accordance with EQC Act.
requires review and assessment.
*Note: Issues with repairs managed by the customer
following cash settlement need to be resolved
directly to the contractor by the customer.
Missed Damage, 37.5%
Claim has been reopened as the customer has
concerns regarding additional damage on
Requested information received from
previously scoped or unscoped elements and
requires review and assessment. customer, 9.5%
Claim is reopened as the Customer has returned with
information previously requested by EQC to progress
Customer Complaint, 0.4% the claim.
Claim is reopened due to formal expression
by the Customer of dissatisfaction with the
management of the claim. Not defined, 0.1%
Administrative, 2.3% Additional Payment, 10.6%
Claim has been reopened to complete Claim has been reopened to make additional
administrative tasks to be able to settle Natural payment/s to settle Natural Disaster Damage in
Disaster Damage in accordance with the EQC Act accordance with EQC Act, and any other payments
or facilitate enduring resolution for the customer. required to support resolution of the claim.
Claims in Dispute
Legal Proceedings Other Dispute Resolution claims
200
150
40 42
46 62
100
110 48
101
79 37 32 35 39
50 70 27
60
46 47 42 42 41
0
Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21
As at 30 April, 41 Canterbury claims remained subject to legal proceedings, reduced from 42 at the end of March. Other claims with
Dispute Resolution teams have increased from 35 at the end of March, to 39 as at April month end.EQC Performance Dashboard - April 2021
Section 2 - Canterbury (cont.)
Progress of On-Sold Over-Cap Expressions of Interest (EOI)
New Applications Received Completed in Month Open/On Hand
Received and Completed (Volume)
3,500 3,500
2,600 2,707 3,000
2,500 2,507
On Hand (Volume)
2,258 2,150 2,265 2,500
2,119
1,500 1,656
2,000
1,839
1,041
2,783
1,296
944 342
500 442 1,500
175 30 592 495 681 139
1,000
-500 -31 -200
-357 500
-1,500 0
Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21
Applications (expressions of interest - EOIs) for government support to repair On-Sold Over-Cap properties closed in October
resulting in nil inflow from Nov-20.
The following chart plots the flow of On-Sold EOIs through the value chain. To date, we have completed the assessment of
3,696 applications of which:
• 692 have received an On-Sold settlement agreement or have been resolved without the need to pay Crown funds;
• 376 have been transferred to EQC operations to be managed as these applications are not likely to exceed the EQC
cap, or do not fit the On-Sold eligibility criteria; and
• 1,318 have been closed due to insufficient information following a campaign to contact homeowners requesting
additional information customer to assess their eligibility and demonstrate they have additional damage.
We currently have 2,265 EOIs on hand that are being reviewed for eligibility or are being managed through our On-Sold
assessment/ settlement process.
Receive & process Closed
Validating Not an EoI Withdrawn
applications Insufficient Info.
1,646 291 184
5,961 1,318
Assess eligibility of
Declined
applications
835
2,522
Develop & confirm Assessment in SoW
Scope of Works (SoW) progress by OnSold agreed
1,687 469 150
Agree & execute Pending Tranche Settled Ex gratia
Settlement Agreement(SA) agreement payments under cap paid in full
0,692 67 125 386 114
KEY Pre-Settlement (reported as ‘On-Hand’) WIP (pending settlement) Post Settlement & ClosedEQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 3 ‐ Other Natural Disaster Events (Excluding Canterbury/Kaikōura)
This section provides details of claims that did not result from the Canterbury or Kaikōura earthquake events.
We recorded much reduced inflow of 210 new and reopened claims in April, down from 663 in March. Of this, 84% was
attributable to earthquake (EQ) and 16% to Landslip, Storms and Flood claims (LSF). These lodgements included 83
additional earthquake claims resulting from the magnitude 7.1 Te Araroa earthquake on 5th March 2021.
Progress of Earthquake Claims
EQ Inflow EQ Resolved EQ Outstanding
Cumulative outstanding (Volume)
1,500 1,322
Resolved and inflow (Volume)
1,200 1,089 1,200
900 773
800
560 557
600 417 298
257 307 318
400
300
446 391 219 448 273 588 192 404 177 319 88 246 210 160 179 185 610 350 176 415
0 0
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
Progress of Landslip, Storm and Flood Claims (LSF)
LSF Inflow LSF Resolved LSF Outstanding
Cumulative outstanding (Volume)
600 600
Resolved and inflow (Volume)
489
427 406 410
390 370
400 330 400
238
292 308
200 123 200
79
150 166 164 169
111 79 134
66 81 104 57 86 59 98 29 53 34 78
0 0
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
Open Earthquake Claims ‐ by Age Open LSF Claims ‐ by Age
< 3 months 3 ‐ 6 months > 6 months < 3 months 3 ‐ 6 months > 6 months
1,500 600
Claims (Volume)
Claims (Volume)
1,000 400
1,219
397
359
500 200
347
346
859
326
310
572
536
Oct‐20 152
Oct‐20 378
Nov‐20 303
Apr‐21 300
Feb‐21 260
Jan‐21 254
Dec‐20 192
Feb‐21 99
Mar‐21 58
Apr‐21 50
0 0
Sep‐20
Mar‐21
May‐21
Jun‐21
Jul‐20
Aug‐20
Jul‐20
Aug‐20
Sep‐20
Nov‐20
Dec‐20
Jan‐21
May‐21
Jun‐21
Note: Inflow refers to claims lodged as well as reopened.EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 4 ‐ Customer Focus
This month our overall customer satisfaction results have held steady in comparison to last month. During this period the
majority of our key measures returned results similar to last month.
Overall claim experience ‐ All
Overall claim 56% 54%
65% 58% 66% 62%
experience 68% 71% 70%
'How satisfied were
you with the overall 22% 21% 27%
quality of the 17% 20% 20% 23%
17% 16%
service you received 22% 14% 12% 15% 14% 21% 19% 14% 15%
making the claim?'
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
YTD AVG = 64% Trend
Overall claim experience by event response
Canterbury (SoPE 2.1.4) Our Canterbury customers
While our results this month have remained
37% 42%
50% 55% 49% 50% stable, ongoing focus is required around the
63% 63% 64%
28%
quality of our communication with
28% customers.
26% 25% 29% 33%
22% 18% 19%
35% 29% NB: With the exception of SoPE measure
23% 15% 20% 19% 23% 17% 16%
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
2.1.4, all other Canterbury customer focus
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied measures centre on recent experiences.
YTD AVG = 52% Target: > 45% Trend
Natural Disaster Events (excl. Canterbury) (SoPE 2.2.3) Our Natural Disaster Events (NDE) customers
This month, customer satisfaction with our
76% 75% 68% 72% 63% 59% 68% 67% service has remained stable in comparison to
79%
last month. No significant areas of focus were
18% 25%
identified in this month's results.
18% 16% 21% 19%
17% 12% 14%
10% 10% 14% 12% 19% 16% 11% 14%
7%
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
YTD AVG = 70% Target: > 70% Trend
Transparent, fair and reasonable interactions
Canterbury ‐ Recent Experiences Natural Disaster Events (excl. Canterbury)
(SoPE 2.1.5) (SoPE 2.2.4)
Jul‐20 8% 14% 78% Jul‐20 13% 17% 71%
12% 7% 81% 12% 15% 72%
Sep‐20 9% 9% 82% Sep‐20 11% 10% 79%
10% 15% 75% 13% 18% 69%
Nov‐20 9% 18% 73% Nov‐20 12% 14% 73%
10% 15% 75% 20% 16% 65%
Jan‐21 9% 19% 72% Jan‐21 17% 21% 63%
10% 14% 77% 12% 19% 68%
Mar‐21 9% 11% 80% Mar‐21 17% 13% 70%
May‐21 May‐21
Jul‐21 Jul‐21
Disagree Neutral Agree Unsure Disagree Neutral Agree Unsure
YTD AVG = 77% Target: > 70% Trend YTD AVG = 71% Target: > 70% TrendEQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 4 ‐ Customer Focus (cont.)
Responsive to individual needs and situation
Canterbury ‐ Recent Experiences Natural Disaster Events (excl. Canterbury)
(SoPE 2.1.6) (SoPE 2.2.5)
Jul‐20 7% 17% 75% Jul‐20 8% 23% 69%
Aug‐20 11% 7% 82% Aug‐20 11% 14% 75%
Sep‐20 8% 14% 77% Sep‐20 10% 14% 76%
Oct‐20 9% 16% 75% Oct‐20 13% 20% 67%
Nov‐20 7% 16% 77% Nov‐20 13% 15% 72%
Dec‐20 12% 13% 76% Dec‐20 19% 22% 59%
Jan‐21 10% 21% 70% Jan‐21 16% 24% 60%
Feb‐21 5% 14% 81% Feb‐21 7% 29% 64%
Mar‐21 10% 13% 76% Mar‐21 14% 18% 68%
Apr‐21 Apr‐21
May‐21 May‐21
Jun‐21 Jun‐21
Jul‐21 Jul‐21
Disagree Neutral Agree Unsure Disagree Neutral Agree Unsure
YTD AVG = 76% Target: > 70% Trend YTD AVG = 69% Target: > 70% Trend
Quality of communication and customer clarity on next steps
Canterbury ‐ Recent Experiences Natural Disaster Events (excl. Canterbury)
(SoPE 2.1.7) (SoPE 2.2.6)
Jul‐20 8% 10% 81% Jul‐20 6% 11% 84%
Aug‐20 8% 11% 81% Aug‐20 7% 11% 82%
Sep‐20 10% 13% 76% Sep‐20 5% 11% 85%
Oct‐20 8% 17% 74% Oct‐20 8% 13% 79%
Nov‐20 7% 24% 69% Nov‐20 9% 12% 79%
Dec‐20 10% 23% 67% Dec‐20 11% 16% 73%
Jan‐21 9% 24% 68% Jan‐21 8% 21% 70%
Feb‐21 5% 19% 76% Feb‐21 9% 16% 75%
Mar‐21 9% 13% 78% Mar‐21 6% 22% 72%
Apr‐21 Apr‐21
May‐21 May‐21
Jun‐21 Jun‐21
Jul‐21 Jul‐21
Disagree Neutral Agree Unsure Disagree Neutral Agree Unsure
YTD AVG = 74% Target: > 70% Trend YTD AVG = 78% Target: > 70% Trend
Demonstrating expertise and a desire to help
Canterbury ‐ Recent Experiences Natural Disaster Events (excl. Canterbury)
(SoPE 2.1.8) (SoPE 2.2.7)
Jul‐20 6% 17% 77% Jul‐20 9% 13% 79%
Aug‐20 8% 9% 83% Aug‐20 8% 11% 82%
Sep‐20 8% 10% 82% Sep‐20 6% 11% 82%
Oct‐20 11% 17% 72% Oct‐20 9% 15% 75%
Nov‐20 9% 23% 67% Nov‐20 9% 10% 81%
Dec‐20 10% 21% 68% Dec‐20 10% 11% 79%
Jan‐21 6% 25% 70% Jan‐21 9% 15% 76%
Feb‐21 6% 15% 78% Feb‐21 10% 14% 76%
Mar‐21 9% 9% 82% Mar‐21 7% 15% 79%
Apr‐21 Apr‐21
May‐21 May‐21
Jun‐21 Jun‐21
Jul‐21 Jul‐21
Disagree Neutral Agree Unsure Disagree Neutral Agree Unsure
YTD AVG = 75% Target: > 70% Trend YTD AVG = 79% Target: > 70% TrendEQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 4 ‐ Customer Focus (cont.)
Timeliness of complaint resolution
Canterbury Natural Disaster Events (Excl. Canterbury)
30 100% 88% 100% 100%100%100%100%100%100% 14 100%100% 100%100%100%100%100% 100%
100% 100%
80% 12 80%
5
2 75%
20 10 75%
4 2
8
50% 50%
6
10 22 22
17 7 6 25% 4 8
6 4 25%
6 2 5 1 5 4 3
5 5 4 5 3
0 2 3 2 0% 1 1
0 0%
Simple Standard Complex Timely result Simple Standard Complex Timely result
YTD AVG = 97% Target: > 90% Trend YTD AVG = 93% Target: > 90% Trend
Quality of complaint resolution
Canterbury Natural Disaster Events (excl. Canterbury)
(SoPE 2.1.10) (SoPE 2.2.9)
Jul‐20 Jul‐20
Aug‐20 Aug‐20
Sep‐20 Sep‐20
Oct‐20 Oct‐20
Nov‐20 Given the very low number of survey Nov‐20 Given the very low number of survey
Dec‐20 responses we are unable to provide a Dec‐20 responses we are unable to provide a
Jan‐21 Jan‐21
meaningful result for SOPE measure meaningful result for SOPE measure
Feb‐21 Feb‐21
Mar‐21
2.1.10 Mar‐21
2.2.9
Apr‐21 Apr‐21
May‐21 May‐21
Jun‐21 Jun‐21
Jul‐21 Jul‐21
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Unsure Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Unsure
YTD AVG = Target: > 75% Trend YTD AVG = Target: > 75% Trend
Progression of customer complaints
40 14 15 Complexity of Open We received inflow of 9 new
12
11 Complaints complaints in April offset by
10
30 9
8 7 8 10 10 resolution of 10 complaints. This
Complex
20 0% left 9 open complaints on hand at
4
29 25 5 Simple month end down from 10 open at
10 21 17 17 44% 31 March.
31 19 8 6 8 6 13 20 12 15 13 14 26 9 10
0 0
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21
Standard
Four of the 9 complaints open at
New Complaints Received Completed in Month 56% month end were simple
Open/On Hand complexity, and five standard
Total call, email and post volume
Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 Trend
Outbound ‐ Inbound Ratio 24:76 20:80 15:85 14:86 7:93 16:84
Grade of Service 99% 98% 98% 97% 98% 97%
Abandonment Rate 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Roll Over No Answer 24 39 16 35 45 27
Total Calls 4,523 3,017 2,444 2,732 3,633 2,619
Total Email and Post 6,117 5,703 4,296 4,943 5,298 3,737EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 5 ‐ Media (traditional)
Our volume of traditional media coverage continued on a downward trend in April, reaching its lowest total since
September 2020. Notably, however, this coverage was exclusively positive or neutral in tone, driving a significant rise in the
overall Media Impact Score (MIS) to 2.7 (1.3). Coverage this month was dominated by research, with coverage in other
areas nominal.
Media Statements Released
10
Media statements
30 proactive media releases
issued FY20-21
(volume)
5
6
4 4
3 3 3 3
2
1 1
0
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
Media Articles ‐ Volume by Media Impact
Other Canty Non‐Canty Canty Inquiry Media Impact Score
160 2.9
4
2.7
08 media articles 3
this month
Media Impact Score
120 1.2 1.4 1.4 2
104 0.7 0.9 involved EQC
0.4 engagement 1
Volume
‐0.5 78
80 ‐0.8 0
42 106 46 ‐1
29 34 34
40 26 28 ‐2
56
40 34 18 12 60 55 48 ‐3
44 2 38 4
19 2 1 1
0 ‐4
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
Media Score ‐ Canterbury/ Public Inquiry Media Score ‐ Other Canterbury
Negative Balanced Positive Negative Balanced Positive
100% 100%
30%
15% 20% 24% 14% 14%
12% 50% 50%
38% 41% 33%
16%
No coverage 44% 68%
50% 100% 100% 100% 50% 17% 47% 67% 25% 100%
during
66% 73% 23%
Jan‐21 to Apr‐21 57%
50% 23%
27% 45% 64% 29% 19% 42% 42%
0% 0%
Media Score ‐ Non Canterbury
Negative Balanced Positive
100%
29% 37% 33%
43% 44% 52%
62%
Score (%)
80% 82%
50% 91%
66% 43% 67%
50% 63%
33% 46%
13% 20% 18%
0% 9%
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 5 ‐ Media (social) cont.
Similarly to traditional media, social media conversations about EQC decreased sharply in April to half of last month's
volume. However, in contrast to traditional media reporting, almost a third of these conversations were negative in tone ‐
all of which centred on claims and customer service and were driven by a single tweet. This contributed to a small dip in our
overall MIS to 1.3 (0.2). Aside from conversations driven by this tweet, the balance of social media conversations were
EQC on Social Media ‐ Volume by Media Impact
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Media Impact Score
250 2.4 3
1.8
1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 2
200
Media Impact Score
1.0
1
150
Volume
217
0
100 ‐1.2 ‐1.0
‐1.4
‐1
127 118
50 82 85 ‐2
59 49 68 56 13 39 52 17 44 63 61
33 3 21 59 16 21 37 11 27
45 13 2 26
17
0 ‐3
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
Leading Themes this Month
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable Media Impact Score
100 5
Media Impact Score
3.6 3.2
75 3
Volume
1
50
‐1
25 13 ‐2.9 14 12 ‐3
1 1
0 ‐5
Claims & Customer Service Research Education
Our leading topic in this social media coverage was 'research funding', which drove this month's leading message of invests
adequately/ apropriately in natural hazards research & modelling (23 posts reaching an audience/ circulation of 100,496).
Most prominently, these included posts promoting the AF8 Roadshow, celebrating the It’s Our Fault research project in
south Wairarapa, lauding the volcanic ashfall forecasting enhancement project, and the awarding of the EQCNZ/NZSEE Ivan
Skinner Award to University of Auckland’s Dr Ashkan Hashemi. Conversely, our second leading message was the negative
tone associated with claims are managed and settled efficiently (13 posts reaching an audience/ circulation of 77,413).
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) with
salience (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.EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 6 ‐ Official Information Act (OIA) Requests
Customer OIA Requests
Received Completed On hand
200
148
OIA requests (volume)
150
119
100 103
89 84 82
100 76
63 182
58 148 151
50 107 118
86 95 88
75 76
131 77 105 122 166 80 60 125 142 139
0
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
This month, our Customer OIA Team received 118 new OIA requests (vs. 182 in Mar‐21). Coupled with the 103 requests on
hand from last month and resolution of 139 requests completed this month, the team have 82 requests on hand at month's
end.
Organisational OIA Requests
Received Completed On hand
12
OIA requests (volume)
10
8
8 7
6 5 5
11 4 4 4 4 10 9
4 9 3
8
2 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 14 5
2 3 3 3 0 2
0
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
This month, our Government Relations Team received 10 new high level OIA requests (vs. 5 in Mar‐21). Coupled with the 4
request on hand from last month and 9 requests resolved this month, the team have 5 open requests on hand at month's
OIA Compliance Rate
Customer OIAs Organisational OIAs Target = 100%
100%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
96%
Compliance rate (%)
80%
60%
99% 96% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 99% 99%
91%
40%
20%
0%
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
This month the compliance rate of our Customer OIA Team rose back up to 99% (vs. 91% last month), with a single instance
of non‐compliance.
During the same period the compliance rate of our Government Relations Team for organisational/ high level OIA requests
dipped to 96% with two responses that were not provided this month that were in the statutory timeframe required by the
Act. Administrative errors in both instances contributed to the outside of timeframe responses, with one response referred
to the team on the working day 19 and the other overlooked as a new request amongst several related emails.EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 7 ‐ Privacy Breaches
Seven privacy breaches (vs. 9 in Mar‐21), all classified as of minimal severity, were recorded by the Risk and Compliance
Team this month. All reported breaches were assessed against EQC's guidelines, have been contained, and no serious harm
appears to have arisen as a result.
Privacy Breaches
Minimal Minor Moderate Significant Severe
12
Breaches (volume)
8
1
4 8 9 9
5 5 5 5 7
4
2
0
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21
Privacy breaches
The seven reported breaches this month, all of minimal severity, relate to 'Wrong document sent' (3); 'Incorrect email
address used' (3); and 'Other' (1). All reported breaches have been contained, and no harm appears to have arisen as a
result. The 'other' breach relates to an invoice sent to the incorrect EQC employee containing another employee's name
and hourly rate.
New breach severity categories
Following the new Privacy Act 2020, which came in to effect on 1 December 2020, all breaches are now assessed against
the Government Chief Privacy Officer Tool (GCPO). The GCPO categorisation system allows for transparent internal and
external reporting on privacy incidents, and allows for benchmarking and direct comparisons of reported incidents across
government agencies. The new rating categories are: Minimal, Minor, Moderate, Significant, and Severe.”
Below is an explanation of each rating:
Severe Significant Moderate Minor Minimal
Breach of sensitive or Information is sensitive or Information is not Small number of people Small number of people
highly sensitive highly sensitive with sensitive or highly are affected with minor are affected with little
information with serious serious potential or actual sensitive. Potential or potential or actual harm. or no potential or actual
potential or actual harm. harm. There will be actual harm is more than Little or no indication of harm. Little or no
Indication of systemic measurable and ongoing minor. Customers and systemic problems. The indication of systemic
failure that could negative impact on clients may stop using, or incident may get short‐ problems. The incident
undermine government individuals and/or be reluctant to use, a term minor or isolated most likely won't get
systems. The incident will agencies with potential service or delivery media interest. media interest.
significantly affect the long‐term loss of trust channel. The incident
reputation of and and confidence in the may get media attention
undermine trust and agency. Possible or cause reputational risk
confidence in the public indication of systemic due to the number of
sector. The incident will failure that could people rather than the
get ongoing media undermine government information involved.
coverage. systems. The incident will
get ongoing media
coverage.EQC Performance Dashboard ‐ April 2021
Section 8 ‐ HR Operations
This month our workforce headcount has remained relatively static as expected. During the same period our average
annual leave balance increased slightly to 13.8 days (vs. 13.5 last month) and continues to remain below the corresponding
Public Sector ('sector') average of 15 days. Over the same period our average sick leave usage decreased slightly to 5.1 days
(vs. 5.2 last month), which also remains below the sector average of 7.6 days. With regards to our annualised turnover
('voluntary turnover'), we experienced an increase to 4.9% (vs. 4.5% last month), which still continues to compare
favourably to the sector average of 10.1%.
HR Ops at a glance ‐ EQC's performance against Public Service Sector Averages
Sick leave usage (days) Annual leave balance (days) Annualised Turnover (%)
Sector AVG Sector AVG Sector AVG
7.6 days 15 days 10.1%
5.1 13.8 4.9%
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Headcount & Canterbury Claim Population Movement Our Workforce Profile
Permanent Fixed Term & Temp British/ Irish Other
7.5% 8.9% Undisclosed
Contractors Canterbury Claim Population Pacific peoples 2.7%
600 3.6%
1,824 1,892 1,811 2,000
Māori
Canterbury Claim Population
1,743 3.1%
Number of staff (Volume)
500
1,559 1,561 1,619 1,617
1,509
Asia…
1,370 1,600 Ethnicity
European
400 7.0%
62 62 57 56 52 55 52 1,200 NZ European
300 62 64 66 63 68 70 69 62.2%
54 63 66
29 32 38
200 800 60‐69.9 18‐29.9
7.9% 8.7%
234 238 239 247 253 251 258 257 256 260 400
100
50‐59.9
21.1%
0 0
Age
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21 30‐39.9
31.3%
As expected, our workforce headcount has remained relatively static this month. Over the 40‐49.9
30.9%
past 5 months our permanent and temporary employment numbers have been the main
areas of increase. The 20% growth for temporary employment over that period reflects an
identified surge in workload, specifically within our Christchurch office along with several
Male
short‐term projects throughout EQC. 50.0%
Gender
Annual and Sick Leave Female
49.0%
Annual leave balance (days) Average sick leave usage (per employee)
Gender Diverse
25.0 5.2 6.0 1.0%
5.1
20.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 5.0 BAU
4.0
Annual leave (days)
3.9 54.0%
Sick leave (days)
3.7 4.0
15.0 3.1
2.6
3.0 Event
10.0 Focus
16.6 16.5 16.4 16.8 17.9 2.0
15.6 13.5 13.8
5.0 11.8 12.3
1.0 CAN
46.0%
0.0 0.0
Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20 Oct‐20 Nov‐20 Dec‐20 Jan‐21 Feb‐21 Mar‐21 Apr‐21 May‐21 Jun‐21 WLG
29.0%
This month our average annual leave balance increased to 13.8 days (vs. 13.5 last month),
remaining below the public sector average of 15 days. It is expected that this average will Location
reduce moderately during early May given the school holiday period. During the same
period our average sick leave usage decreased slightly to 5.1 days (vs. 5.2 last month). It CHC
should also be noted that Covid‐19 continues to influence our people data and trends. 71.0%You can also read
