fiscal year 2007 report - ct.gov-connecticut's … · web viewthis year paints a very...

Connecticut Bureau of Education and Services for the Blind

Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program

Survey Report:Fiscal Year 2017

Diana T. Cohen, Ph.D. Principal Investigator

Kimberly A. IacinoCo-Principal Investigator

Conducted by:

Issued November 2017

Table of Contents

Summary of Study Background.................................1

Summary of Notable Findings....................................2

Ratings for BESB Services.........................................9

BESB Counselor Ratings..........................................46

Overall Satisfaction with BESB Services..............104

Methodology............................................................128

Annotated Questionnaire........................................129

Study Background

The State of Connecticut Department of Rehabilitative Services, Bureau of Education and Services for the Blind (BESB) Program, commissioned the Center for Public Policy and Social Research (CPPSR) at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU) to conduct a customer satisfaction survey of their service recipients for fiscal year 2017. This work represents a continuation of research conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis (CSRA) at the University of Connecticut (UConn) from fiscal years 2003 through 2008. The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the services that clients received from the Vocational Rehabilitation Division at BESB.

From July 31st through August 10th, 2017, CPPSR completed 49 interviews with BESB service recipients. “Complete” interviews are defined as instances when a respondent followed the interview to its entirety. Both the sample and the instrument were provided by BESB. Each client was called a minimum of seven times. A maximum of ten attempts were made per individual.

CPPSR is utilizing CSRA’s data to draw longitudinal comparisons. For reasons not detailed in their report, CSRA states that results from fiscal year 2005 cannot be compared with data from other years; thus, data from 2005 does not appear in this analysis. Keeping in line with past reports, references to each year (e.g., 2013, 2012, etc.) refers to the “fiscal year.”

1

Notable Findings for Fiscal Year 2017

A. Overall

BESB continues to receive high marks for their Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services and counselors. Similar to 2016, almost all of the clients surveyed (96%, down 2 percentage points) reported that they would recommend BESB VR services to a friend. This figure ties the second-highest rating for this question in the history of the survey, bettered only by the all-time high (98%) set last fiscal year. Reported satisfaction regarding overall experiences with BESB services, as rated on a scale from 1 to 10-point scale, remains strong.

Reported satisfaction with BESB services increased in all of the areas surveyed in 2017. The most significant improvement was seen in the extent to which clients felt that their expectations were met (8.54, up 0.97 in rating), an all-time high. Overall satisfaction with BESB services also increased substantially over the past year, setting a new record high (8.78, up 0.43 in mean rating). This replaces the previous record of 8.6 set in 2010.

Ratings of counselors rebounded from the dips in satisfaction observed last year, with average ratings improving in all but one area. The remaining area remained unchanged from last year. In 2016, two dimensions of counselors improved, while the remaining seven dimensions declined in mean ratings. Two dimensions of counselors that saw particularly large increases in 2017 were identifying career goals (setting an all-time high of 8.96, up 1.51 in mean rating) and understanding the process for complaint resolution (7.92, up 1.21 in mean rating). Counselors’ ability to provide information in a format that clients can use remained unchanged from last year (8.51 in mean rating).

Since survey reporting began in 2003, Low Vision and Rehabilitation and Adaptive Equipment have been the most widely-used BESB services, with each respectively averaging

2

over a three-in-four utilization rate. For the second year in a row, Low Vision takes the top spot as the most highly utilized service (84%, no percentage point change), maintaining its third-best utilization percentage in the history of this survey. On the other end of the usage spectrum, use of Reader Services was cut in half from last year (10%, down 10 percentage points). This represents the second-lowest utilization rate in the history of the survey, second only to the all-time low set in 2012 (8%) by 2 percentage points. Overall, of the eight services offered to VR clients, four of them experienced an increase in use, three reported declines in utilization rates, and one remained at the same level of use this fiscal year.

Of those services that saw an uptick in use, Transportation experienced the largest increase. One-quarter of all VR clients (25%, up 9 percentage points) reported using this service, notching the second-highest utilization rate in the history of the survey. Personal Care Attendant Services also enjoyed an uptick in use (8%, up 6 percentage points), matching the third-highest utilization rate. Small Business Services climbed (14%, up 3 percentage points), also matching its third-highest utilization rate. Finally, Skills Training Services experienced a modest increase (45%, up 1 percentage point), recoding the third-highest utilization rate in the history of the survey.

The remaining three services all experienced a decline in use this year, with Higher Education Training being the most notable. This service plummeted to its lowest utilization rate in the history of the survey (4%, down 23 percentage points). Prior to this fiscal year, the lowest recorded use was 11%, a percentage found in both the 2004 and 2012 surveys. Also notable was the drop in the percentage of clients utilizing Rehabilitation Equipment Services (71%, down 12 percentage points). While rates still remain high, with Rehabilitation Equipment representing the second most widely-used service, the 2017 survey recorded the lowest rate since 2009 (67%).

3

This year, the BESB Vocational Rehabilitation Division had 114 clients who achieved employment outcomes, an uptick of 23 individuals from 2016. It should be noted that it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions with a population of this size. Given this small population, no shifts in figures from 2016 to 2017 were deemed to be statistically significant.

B. Services

Using a 1 to 10-point scale, clients were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with BESB services. Compared to 2016 findings, five services experienced an increase in mean satisfaction rating, while the remaining three services saw declines. Transportation Services saw the most dramatic increase in satisfaction rating (9.67, up 2.87 in mean rating), notching an all-time high. Last year, this service reported the third-lowest satisfaction rating in the history of the survey. This year, the mean rating bests the previous all-time high set in 2006 (8.92). Small Business Services saw the second-highest increase in mean satisfaction rating among all services this year (8.71, up 1.71 in mean rating), also notching an all-time high. Higher Education Training reported a notable uptick in rating (8.50, up .71 in mean rating), with 2017 representing the fourth-highest mean in the history of the survey. Low Vision Services also enjoyed a healthy boost in rating (8.66, up .66 in mean rating); this mean rating is the best this service has seen since 2013. Finally, Skills Training (8.55, up .39 in mean rating) rebounded from one of the service’s lower historical marks observed in 2016. The 2017 mean rating is slightly above the historical average for the service (8.47).

The three remaining services experienced a decline in mean satisfaction rating. Personal Care Attendant satisfaction ratings tumbled (7.0, down 3.0 in mean rating), plummeting from the perfect score recorded last year. The 2017 mean satisfaction rating represents its lowest level since 2012 (6.0), also falling well below the historical average for this service (8.19). While much more modest of a decline comparatively, Reader Services also

4

saw a drop in mean satisfaction rating (8.0, down .25 in mean rating). After breaking the 9.0 mean rating threshold in 2015, this service has declined in satisfaction for the second-consecutive year. The 2017 mean satisfaction rating observed for this service falls considerably below the historical average (8.45). Finally, Rehabilitation Equipment Services experienced a very modest decline (8.66, down .04 in mean rating). Despite this small downturn, Rehabilitation Equipment still remains one of the most highly-rated services.

Clients were asked to rate their overall experiences with BESB services on a 1 to 10-point scale, in addition to their IPE, timeframe of delivery of service, and the extent to which the services provided met their expectations. They were also asked, based on their personal experience, if they would recommend BESB to others.

Reported satisfaction with BESB services increased in all of the areas surveyed in 2017. This is clearly an improvement from 2016, where satisfaction ratings increased more modestly in only two of the four dimensions surveyed. The most significant improvement was seen in the extent to which clients felt that their expectations were met (8.54, up 0.97 in rating), an all-time high. Historically, most of the mean ratings for this dimension fall within the upper end of the neutral range, with the second-highest rating (8.3) occurring back in 2009. Overall satisfaction with BESB services also increased substantially over the past year to a record high (8.78, up 0.43 in mean rating), replacing the previous record of 8.6 set in 2010.

Client satisfaction with the extent to which services met their IPE (8.06, up 0.2 in mean rating) experienced a more modest increase, which nevertheless brought this metric above the overall historical mean of 7.9. The most modest increase occurred in the extent to which clients felt that BESB services met their needs (8.3, up 0.11 in mean rating). Still, this rating represents the second-highest value reported in the history of the survey, only

5

0.05 below the all-time high of 8.35 reported in 2013. Taken together, these results reveal a very high level of current satisfaction with BESB services. In fact, 2017 was a remarkable year for satisfaction with BESB services on a broader spectrum, notching the highest average rating across dimensions of service ever recorded (8.42). Last year, this figure was 7.99, with the second-highest average across all dimensions of service (8.25) occurring back in 2010.

C. Counselors

In 2017, average ratings of counselors increased in all areas but one, with the remaining dimension remaining stable from 2016. This greatly contrasts the pattern of results reported last year, in which seven of the nine areas surveyed experienced declines in ratings. Two dimensions of counselors that saw particularly large increases in 2017 were identifying career goals (all-time high of 8.96, up 1.51 in mean rating) and understanding the process for complaint resolution (7.92, up 1.21 in mean rating). These dimensions were those with the lowest overall means for all years combined (7.83 and 7.67, respectively), showing that BESB improved on an area of weakness. Also exhibiting significant increases in ratings: satisfaction with referrals from counselors (setting an all-time high of 9.22, up 0.68 in mean rating), counselors’ ability to recognize clients’ special needs (8.38, up 0.56 in mean rating), and counselors’ effectiveness in helping the client understand his or her vocational rehabilitation rights (8.67, up 0.52 in mean rating). Among these, the increase in clients’ satisfaction with referrals was the most notable, as its all-time high mean rating in 2017 of 9.22 is well above the second-highest value for this dimension (8.80), which was reported a decade ago in 2007. In fact, it is the second-highest mean value ever reported for any of the dimensions since the survey began in 2003. Slightly more modest increases were seen in counselors’ ability to help clients develop their IPE (8.44, up 0.4 in mean rating), the overall professionalism of counselors (8.85, up 0.3 in mean rating), and the perceived knowledge of the counselor (8.63, up 0.2 in mean

6

rating). Counselors’ ability to provide information in the format used by the client remained unchanged at 8.51, while notably, none of the dimensions experienced a decline in ratings from the previous year.

The overall improvement in ratings across dimensions of counselors this year is especially powerful when compared to the pattern seen in 2016, where mean ratings in most dimensions declined (in several cases to some of the lowest values ever recorded in the survey), and the largest increase was less than 0.4 points. In 2017, mean ratings for all but one dimension (professionalism of counselors) fell above the historical mean rating for their respective dimension (8.85 compared to a historical mean of 8.93). This is juxtaposed with data from 2016, where six of the nine mean ratings for that year fell below their respective historical means. This suggests that, in general, clients are highly satisfied with their counselors.

In 2017, only in the dimension of understanding the process for complaint resolution does the mean rating barely fall within the neutral satisfaction range (7.92).

D. Regional Trends

Last fiscal year, for the first time, CCSU performed a regional analysis on nine dimensions of counselors. The South Central was dislodged by the Southwest as the region reporting the highest levels of satisfaction. Last year, the Southwest region notched the top ratings on five of the nine dimensions measured, while the Southwest region took the top spot on three dimensions. This year, the Southwest region moved from second to first place in the rankings, notching the top spot in three of the nine dimensions measured (knowledge of counselors, satisfaction of referrals, identifying career goals), and tying for the top spot in a fourth dimension (understanding the process for formal complaint resolution). The Eastern region moved into the second spot in the regional rankings, earned highest honors in two dimensions of

7

counselors (understanding VR rights and responsibilities and recognizing special needs in regards to employment), and tying for the top spot in a third dimension (understanding the process for formal complaint resolution). The South Central region enjoyed outstanding satisfaction ratings last year, ranking either first or second in satisfaction in eight out of the nine areas surveyed. This year paints a very different picture, with the region earning the top spot for only two dimensions of counselors (professionalism of counselor and helping to develop clients’ IPE).

In 2016, the Northwestern and North Central regions saw the lowest levels of satisfaction. The Northwestern region expressed the lowest rates of satisfaction on five dimensions of counselors, while the North Central hit the low spot on the remaining four dimensions. The trend of low performance for these two regions continued in 2017. The North Central region had the lowest satisfaction rating for three dimensions of counselors (identifying career goals, helping to develop an IPE, and providing information in a format that clients can use). Meanwhile, both the Southwest and Northwestern region had the lowest for two dimensions of counselors, respectively.

8

Frequency of BESB Services

Clients were asked to identify the types of services that they received from BESB. For 2017, of the eight services offered, four of them experienced an increase in use, three reported declines in utilization rates, and one remained at the same level of use.

Since reporting began in 2003, Low Vision and Rehabilitation and Adaptive Equipment have been the most widely-used BESB services, with each service respectively averaging over a three-in-four utilization rate (no data available for 2005). This trend continued in 2017, with Low Vision Services retaining its top position as the most widely-used service. The service reported an identical use rate from last year (84%, no percentage change), maintaining its third-best utilization percentage in the history of this survey. Low Vision was the only service to record a use rate identical to that found in last year’s survey.

Of those services that saw an uptick in use, Transportation experienced the largest increase. One-quarter of all VR clients (25%, up 9 percentage points) reported using this service, notching the second-highest utilization rate in the history of the survey. Personal Care Attendant Services also enjoyed an uptick in use (8%, up 6 percentage points), matching the third-highest utilization rate. Small Business Services climbed (14%, up 3 percentage points) similarly matched its third-highest utilization rate. Finally, Skills Training Services experienced a modest increase (45%, up 1 percentage point), recoding the third-highest utilization rate in the history of the survey.

The remaining three services all experienced a decline in use this year, with Higher Education Training being the most notable. This service plummeted to its lowest utilization rate in the history of the survey (4%, down 23%). Prior to this fiscal year, the lowest recorded use was 11%, a percentage found in both the 2004 and 2012 surveys. Also notable was the drop in the percentage of clients utilizing Rehabilitation Equipment Services (71%, down 12 percentage points). While rates still remain high, with

9

Rehabilitation Equipment representing the second most widely-used service, the 2017 survey recorded the lowest rate since 2009 (67%). Finally, use of Reader Services was cut in half from last year (10%, down 10 percentage points). This represents the second-lowest utilization rate in the history of the survey, only bettering the all-time low set in 2012 (8%) by 2 percentage points.

Frequency of Services Received

Low Vision 2017 84%Low Vision 2016 84%Low Vision 2015 89%Low Vision 2014 80%Low Vision 2013 78%Low Vision 2012 79%Low Vision 2011 80%Low Vision 2010 76%Low Vision 2009 81%Low Vision 2008 75%Low Vision 2007 78%Low Vision 2006 76%Low Vision 2004 81%Low Vision 2003 87%

10

Rehab Equipment 2017 71%Rehab Equipment 2016 83%Rehab Equipment 2015 76%Rehab Equipment 2014 86%Rehab Equipment 2013 76%Rehab Equipment 2012 79%Rehab Equipment 2011 88%Rehab Equipment 2010 88%Rehab Equipment 2009 67%Rehab Equipment 2008 73%Rehab Equipment 2007 81%Rehab Equipment 2006 75%Rehab Equipment 2004 71%Rehab Equipment 2003 71%

Skills Training 2017 45%Skills Training 2016 44%Skills Training 2015 40%Skills Training 2014 31%Skills Training 2013 48%Skills Training 2012 37%Skills Training 2011 35%Skills Training 2010 47%Skills Training 2009 23%Skills Training 2008 32%Skills Training 2007 27%Skills Training 2006 32%Skills Training 2004 29%Skills Training 2003 31%

11

Reader 2017 10%Reader 2016 20%Reader 2015 14%Reader 2014 12%Reader 2013 13%Reader 2012 8%Reader 2011 30%Reader 2010 22%Reader 2009 13.50%Reader 2008 15%Reader 2007 18%Reader 2006 32%Reader 2004 29%Reader 2003 31%

Higher Education Training 2017 4%Higher Education Training 2016 27%Higher Education Training 2015 24%Higher Education Training 2014 20%Higher Education Training 2014 20%Higher Education Training 2013 22%Higher Education Training 2012 11%Higher Education Training 2011 26%Higher Education Training 2010 20%Higher Education Training 2009 17%Higher Education Training 2008 14%Higher Education Training 2007 21%Higher Education Training 2006 20%Higher Education Training 2004 11%Higher Education Training 2003 14%

12

Transportation 2017 25%Transportation 2016 16%Transportation 2015 21%Transportation 2014 8%Transportation 2013 15%Transportation 2012 13%Transportation 2011 26%Transportation 2010 24.50%Transportation 2009 17%Transportation 2008 14%Transportation 2007 14%Transportation 2006 14%Transportation 2004 16%Transportation 2003 14%

Small Business 2017 14%Small Business 2016 11%Small Business 2015 22%Small Business 2014 12%Small Business 2013 11%Small Business 2012 11%Small Business 2011 8%Small Business 2010 16%Small Business 2009 11.50%Small Business 2008 11%Small Business 2007 7%Small Business 2006 14%Small Business 2004 10%Small Business 2003 9%

13

Personal Care Attendant 2017 8%Personal Care Attendant 2016 2%Personal Care Attendant 2015 4%Personal Care Attendant 2014 4%Personal Care Attendant 2013 4%Personal Care Attendant 2012 3%Personal Care Attendant 2011 8%Personal Care Attendant 2010 2%Personal Care Attendant 2009 6%Personal Care Attendant 2008 5%Personal Care Attendant 2007 2%Personal Care Attendant 2006 7%Personal Care Attendant 2004 11%Personal Care Attendant 2003 12%

14

Mean Satisfaction Service Ratings

To measure the satisfaction of services received, clients were asked to rate each service on a 1 to 10-point scale. A rating of “10” meant the client was “very satisfied” and a rating of “1” meant the client was “very dissatisfied.” The mean scores for these ratings are reported below. Clients who rated the services on the high (8-10) and low (1-3) end of the scale were asked a follow-up question about the reason for their rating.

Compared to 2016 findings, five services experienced an increase in mean satisfaction rating, while the remaining three saw declines. Transportation Services saw the most dramatic increase in satisfaction rating (9.67, up 2.87 in mean rating), notching an all-time high. Last year, this service reported the third-lowest satisfaction rating in the history of the survey. This year, the mean rating bests the previous all-time high set in 2006 (8.92). Small Business Services saw the second-highest increase in mean satisfaction rating among all services this year (8.71, up 1.71 in mean rating), also notching an all-time high. Higher Education Training reported a notable uptick in rating (8.50, up .71 in mean rating), with 2017 representing the fourth-highest mean in the history of the survey. Low Vision Services also enjoyed a healthy uptick in rating (8.66, up .66 in mean rating); this mean rating is the best this service has seen since 2013. Finally, Skills Training (8.55, up .39 in mean rating) rebounded from one of the service’s lower historical marks observed in 2016. The 2017 mean rating is slightly above the historical average for the service (8.47).

The three remaining services experienced a decline in mean satisfaction rating. Personal Care Attendant satisfaction ratings tumbled (7.0, down 3.0 in mean rating), plummeting from the perfect score recorded last year. The 2017 mean satisfaction rating represents its lowest level since 2012 (6.0), also falling well below the historical average for this service (8.19). While much more modest of a decline comparatively, Reader Services also saw a drop in mean satisfaction rating (8.0, down .25 in mean

15

rating). After breaking the 9.0 mean rating threshold in 2015, this service has declined in satisfaction for the second-consecutive year. The 2017 mean satisfaction rating observed for this service falls considerably below the historical average (8.45). Finally, Rehabilitation Equipment Services experienced a very modest decline (8.66, down .04 in mean rating). Despite this small downturn, Rehabilitation Equipment still remains one of the most highly-rated services.

It is important to note the issue of sample size when reviewing these figures. Historically, Small Business and Personal Care Attendant Services have attracted particularly small response rates – a trend that continued in 2017. Seven clients offered a satisfaction rating for Small Business Services, while only four offered a rating for Personal Care Attendant Services. Further, a new observation made this year was the particularly low response rate associated with Higher Education. Only two respondents offered a satisfaction rating of this service. Given the comparatively small sample sizes, particularly for these three services, one should not place too much significance on the changes in satisfaction from year to year.

16

Mean Satisfaction Ratings

Transportation 2017 9.67Transportation 2016 6.8Transportation 2015 8.67Transportation 2014 7.25Transportation 2013 7.71Transportation 2012 6.0Transportation 2011 6.75Transportation 2010 7.58Transportation 2009 8.13Transportation 2008 9.0Transportation 2007 8.38Transportation 2006 8.92Transportation 2004 8.27Transportation 2003 8.09

Reader 2017 8.00Reader 2016 8.25Reader 2015 9.27Reader 2014 8.67Reader 2013 7.0Reader 2012 7.40Reader 2011 7.52Reader 2010 8.36Reader 2009 9.57Reader 2008 9.0Reader 2007 9.40Reader 2006 8.44Reader 2004 8.58Reader 2003 8.89

17

Rehab Equipment 2017 8.66Rehab Equipment 2016 8.70Rehab Equipment 2015 8.47Rehab Equipment 2014 8.60Rehab Equipment 2013 8.80Rehab Equipment 2012 8.90Rehab Equipment 2011 7.55Rehab Equipment 2010 8.88Rehab Equipment 2009 8.80Rehab Equipment 2008 8.62Rehab Equipment 2007 8.43Rehab Equipment 2006 8.38Rehab Equipment 2004 8.76Rehab Equipment 2003 8.68

Higher Education Training 2017 8.50Higher Education Training 2016 7.79Higher Education Training 2015 8.18Higher Education Training 2014 8.70Higher Education Training 2013 7.80Higher Education Training 2012 5.0Higher Education Training 2011 5.0Higher Education Training 2010 4.20Higher Education Training 2009 8.33Higher Education Training 2008 8.62Higher Education Training 2007 7.79Higher Education Training 2006 8.47Higher Education Training 2004 8.07Higher Education Training 2003 8.86

18

Low Vision 2017 8.66Low Vision 2016 8.00Low Vision 2015 8.62Low Vision 2014 7.89Low Vision 2013 8.79Low Vision 2012 8.75Low Vision 2011 7.72Low Vision 2010 8.25Low Vision 2009 7.79Low Vision 2008 8.47Low Vision 2007 8.87Low Vision 2006 8.65Low Vision 2004 8.95Low Vision 2003 8.89

Skills Training 2017 8.55Skills Training 2016 8.16Skills Training 2015 8.79Skills Training 2014 8.67Skills Training 2013 9.09Skills Training 2012 8.69Skills Training 2011 7.96Skills Training 2010 8.87Skills Training 2009 7.92Skills Training 2008 8.47Skills Training 2007 8.50Skills Training 2006 7.89Skills Training 2004 8.41Skills Training 2003 8.62

19

Personal Care Attendant 2017 7.0Personal Care Attendant 2016 10.0Personal Care Attendant 2015 9.0Personal Care Attendant 2014 9.0Personal Care Attendant 2013 8.0Personal Care Attendant 2012 6.0Personal Care Attendant 2011 4.25Personal Care Attendant 2010 8.0Personal Care Attendant 2009 9.0Personal Care Attendant 2008 7.80Personal Care Attendant 2007 10.0Personal Care Attendant 2006 9.33Personal Care Attendant 2004 8.87Personal Care Attendant 2003 8.45

20

Small Business 2017 8.71Small Business 2016 7.0Small Business 2015 8.38Small Business 2014 7.14Small Business 2013 6.75Small Business 2012 7.43Small Business 2011 3.57Small Business 2010 7.33Small Business 2009 8.17Small Business 2008 7.78Small Business 2007 8.33Small Business 2006 7.75Small Business 2004 6.71Small Business 2003 7.0

Low Vision Services

Most of the individuals surveyed (84%) indicated that they had received Low Vision Services. Client satisfaction with these services was high, with four of every five respondents (81%) indicating a high level of satisfaction. This represents an increase of 10 percentage points in highly satisfied ratings over the past year, rebounding from the decrease of 15 percentage points found in the 2016 survey. Neutral ratings, which increased by 13 percentage points in 2016 to a total of 15%, remained stable in 2017 (16%). Low satisfaction ratings decreased by 6 percentage points (3%), which is the lowest percentage since 2013. Overall, client satisfaction with Low Vision Services has improved since 2016.

When asked to indicate the main reason for their satisfaction, more than half of respondents attributed their satisfaction to the knowledge and/or care exhibited by the service provider (55%, compared to 40% in 2016). Approximately one-quarter (26%) of satisfied respondents felt that the products or services met their needs or expectations, which is comparable to the proportion of respondents who selected this option in 2016 (28%). As in the previous year, 13% of respondents attributed their satisfaction to the timeliness of the service.

Twenty-seven respondents chose to elaborate on their satisfaction with Low Vision Services in open-ended responses. The primary sentiment expressed in these comments was consistent with the most commonly cited reason for satisfaction -- the knowledge and care exhibited by the service provider. Respondents noted that their service providers were personable, understanding, and considerate, as well as knowledgeable. Clients also noted that service providers were highly responsive to and concerned about their needs, providing highly valuable services, which in some cases the client may not have even been aware were available. Several respondents mentioned the

21

timeliness of the service in terms of both appointment availability and receipt of equipment.

Only one respondent reported dissatisfaction with Low Vision Services, for the given reason that they were not able to receive needed equipment in a timely manner due to limited operating hours of the service facility. In 2016, four individuals (9%) indicated dissatisfaction with Low Vision Services, with the primary theme being limited product selection (e.g., frames, glasses). Notably, no respondents in 2017 mentioned limited product selection as a major factor in their dissatisfaction with Low Vision Services.

How satisfied were you with Low Vision Services?

2003 n=142, 2004 n=114, 2006 n=64, 2007 n=69, 2008 n=71, 2009 n=34, 2010 n=32, 2011 n=54, 2012 n=40, 2013 n=34, 2014 n=51, 2015 n=42, 2016 n=41, 2017 n=38

1-3 Rating 2017 3%1-3 Rating 2016 9%1-3 Rating 2015 7%1-3 Rating 2014 5%1-3 Rating 2013 0%1-3 Rating 2012 7%1-3 Rating 2011 17%1-3 Rating 2010 0%1-3 Rating 2009 9%1-3 Rating 2008 6%1-3 Rating 2007 0%1-3 Rating 2006 3%1-3 Rating 2004 3%1-3 Rating 2003 4%

22



23

Rehabilitation Technology and Adaptive Equipment Services

Client satisfaction with Rehabilitation Technology and Adaptive Equipment Services decreased somewhat since 2016. Dissatisfied ratings increased from 4% in 2016 to 6% in 2017, while satisfied ratings decreased from 83% to 77%. Still, most clients expressed satisfaction with these services, with more than half of satisfied clients (58%) indicating they were satisfied primarily because the products and/or services met their needs and/or expectations. Slightly less than one-in-five (17%) attributed their satisfaction to the knowledge and/or care exhibited by the service provider. These proportions are similar to those reported in 2016 (61% and 20%, respectively). A greater proportion of respondents in 2017 (13%) cited effective coordination of access to the service as their primary reason for satisfaction, compared to 5% in 2016. Less common reasons for satisfaction with Rehabilitation Technology and Adaptive Equipment Services were good follow-up after the service (8%) and timeliness of the service (4%).

In a qualitative follow-up question, clients were prompted to elaborate on the reason for their satisfaction with Rehabilitation Technology and Adaptive Equipment Services. Most clients noted that they received the services and products they needed to function effectively in their daily lives, with several also noting the timely manner in which they received services, and the amount of attention given by service providers to ensuring that the client’s needs were met and any questions answered. The two respondents (6%) who reported dissatisfaction with these services either did not feel that the service was timely, or wanted a different product.

24

How satisfied were you with Rehabilitation Technology and Adaptive Equipment Services?

2003 n=113, 2004 n=114, 2006 n=60, 2007 n=72, 2008 n=69, 2009 n= 35, 2010 n=42, 2011 n =65, 2012 n=50, 2013 n=36, 2014 n=49, 2015 n=55, 2016 n=47, 2017 n=35



25


26

Skills Training Services

Client satisfaction ratings of Skills Training Services, which dropped significantly in 2016, rebounded in 2017. Satisfied ratings increased by 3 percentage points (from 76% in 2016 to 78% in 2017). The percentage of respondents who were dissatisfied with these services dropped (4%), which was a notable finding given the spike witnessed in 2016 (12%).

Among the majority expressing high satisfaction with Skills Training Services in the present survey, more than half (53%) attributed this satisfaction to the knowledge and/or care exhibited by their service provider. This was followed by products and/or services meeting expectations (27%), effective coordination to service access (13%), and good follow-up after the service (7%). This pattern differs somewhat from 2016, where products and/or services meeting expectations was the majority reason (53%) for satisfaction, followed by knowledge and care exhibited by the service provider (37%). Respondents who offered qualitative elaboration on their satisfaction with Skills Training Services primarily noted effective and reassuring instructors who exhibited patience and attention to detail in teaching valuable skills. Several also mentioned good follow-up by instructors, who arranged for other programs and services as well as job opportunities for clients.

Only one respondent in 2017 indicated dissatisfaction with Skills Training Services, although qualitative comments revealed that this dissatisfaction lay in a schedule conflict with the service rather than qualities of the service itself. This seems to reflect an improvement since 2016, at which time three times as many respondents indicated dissatisfaction with Skills Training Services, citing multiple reasons including unreturned phone calls and untimely service.

27

How satisfied were you with Skills Training Services?

2003 n=50, 2004 n=41, 2006 n=27, 2007 n=24, 2008 n=30, 2009 n=13, 2010 n=23, 2011 n=28, 2012 n=23, 2013 n=22, 2014 n=15, 2015 n=29, 2016 n=25, 2017 n=25



28


29

Higher Education Training Services

Only two of the forty-nine individuals surveyed (4%) reported receiving Higher Education Training Services in 2017, compared to 14 individuals in 2016. Considering this extremely small sample size, one should be cautious in making any wide generalizations from the data. Still, results are encouraging; both respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the traditional college programs from which they graduated. Only ten of the fourteen individuals surveyed in 2016 rated Higher Education Training Services as highly satisfactory, with three reporting neutral feelings and one reporting dissatisfaction. Respondents in 2017 were split between knowledge and/or care demonstrated by the service provider and good follow-up as primary reasons for their satisfaction. When prompted to elaborate on the reasons for this satisfaction, it was noted that service providers helped obtain necessary accommodations.

30

How satisfied were you with Higher Education Training Services?

2003 n=22, 2004 n=15, 2006 n=17, 2007 n=19, 2008 n=13, 2009 n=10, 2010 n=10, 2011 n=35, 2012=7, 2013 n=10, 2014 n=10, 2015 n=17, 2016 n=14, 2017 n=2



31


32

Reader Services

Four out of five (80%) clients receiving Reader Services reported high satisfaction – a percentage that remains steady from 2016 (83%). While high satisfaction ratings remain strong, the proportion of dissatisfied responses rose sharply in 2017 (from 9% in 2016 to 20% in 2017). Low sample size may account for this spike.

Those who were satisfied with Reader Services in 2017 felt so equally because the service provider was knowledgeable and/or caring, and because follow-up after the service was good. More specifically, clients felt that service providers were helpful, accurate, and patient, and that their needs were accommodated by the service when contacted.

Only one respondent expressed dissatisfaction, for the given reason that it was felt his or her needs were ignored.

33

How satisfied were you with Reader Services?

2003 n=22, 2004 n=15, 2006 n=9, 2007 n=15, 2008 n=14, 2009 n=7, 2010 n=11, 2011 n=23, 2012 n=5, 2013 n=6, 2014 n=6, 2015 n=11, 2016 n=12, 2017 n=5

1-3 Rating 2017 20%1-3 Rating 2016 8.5%1-3 Rating 2015 0%1-3 Rating 2014 0%1-3 Rating 2013 17%1-3 Rating 2012 20%1-3 Rating 2011 22%1-3 Rating 2010 0%1-3 Rating 2009 0%1-3 Rating 2008 0%1-3 Rating 2007 0%1-3 Rating 2006 0%1-3 Rating 2004 0%1-3 Rating 2003 7%


34


35

Transportation Services for Training Programs or Employment

As was noted in the previous year’s report, client ratings of Transportation Services have historically been subject to sizable swings from year to year. In 2017, this swing was towards greater satisfaction with these services, with 92% of respondents indicating a high level of satisfaction compared to only 60% in 2016. Neutral ratings decreased from 20% in 2016 to 8% in 2017, while dissatisfied ratings dropped from 20% in 2016 to 0% in 2017. Despite the fluctuations in the data, this decrease is notable as it reflects the lowest level of client dissatisfaction in eight years.

Overall, clients attributed their high level of satisfaction with Transportation Services to the fact that the service met their needs (30%, or three individuals), the knowledge and/or care of the service provider (30%), and the timeliness of the service (40% or four individuals). While the first two of these reasons were endorsed by an approximately equal percentage of respondents in 2016, timeliness was not noted as a reason for satisfaction that year, although several did note this factor in open-ended responses. The qualitative responses provided in 2017 revealed that clients were grateful that Transportation Services were available to them free of charge, and particularly that they appreciated the time and concern given by service providers who helped set up and introduce clients to these services.

While no respondents in 2017 gave a dissatisfied rating to Transportation Services, a couple did note in open-ended responses that transportation, particularly bus transportation, was still lacking in the state. However, unlike in 2016, no respondents complained of transportation being late or failing to show up, nor mentioned the need to rely on outside services such as Uber or Lyft to fully meet their transportation needs, which is encouraging.

36

How satisfied were you with Transportation Services for Training Programs or Employment?

2003 n=23, 2004 n=22, 2006 n=12, 2007 n=13, 2008 n=13, 2009 n=8, 2010 n=12, 2011 n =21, 2012 n=8, 2013 n=7, 2014 n=4, 2015 n=15, 2016 n=10, 2017 n=12


4-7 Rating 2017 8%4-7 Rating 2016 20%4-7 Rating 2015 7%4-7 Rating 2014 25%4-7 Rating 2013 14%4-7 Rating 2012 37.50%4-7 Rating 2011 24%4-7 Rating 2010 42%4-7 Rating 2009 37.50%4-7 Rating 2008 15%4-7 Rating 2007 31%4-7 Rating 2006 8%4-7 Rating 2004 14%4-7 Rating 2003 35%

37

8-10 Rating 2017 92%8-10 Rating 2016 60%8-10 Rating 2015 80%8-10 Rating 2014 50%8-10 Rating 2013 72%8-10 Rating 2012 37.50%8-10 Rating 2011 52%8-10 Rating 2010 50%8-10 Rating 2009 62.50%8-10 Rating 2008 77%8-10 Rating 2007 69%8-10 Rating 2006 92%8-10 Rating 2004 77%8-10 Rating 2003 61%

38

Personal Care Attendant Services

Personal Care Attendant (PCA) experienced a decline in satisfaction in 2017, with reports of high satisfaction being cut in half (50%, down 50 percentage points). Both low (25%) and neutral (25%) satisfaction ratings saw an uptick from 2016.

It is worth pointing to the continued volatility of these percentages. Only four of the forty-nine survey respondents indicated having received Personal Care Attendant Services in 2017, a very low percentage to analyze. Given that only five or fewer individuals have rated PCA Services each year since 2012, and this number has exceeded ten on only two occasions (2003 and 2004), the longitudinal satisfaction trends should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the relatively low percentage of highly satisfied clients (50%) in this case may merit some attention. While those who were satisfied with PCA Services in 2017 felt that either their provider was knowledgeable and/or caring or that the follow-up after the service was good, one felt as though his or her PCA could have been more helpful and attuned to the particular needs of the client.

39

How satisfied were you with Personal Care Attendant Services?

2003 n=23, 2004 n=22, 2006 n=6, 2007 n=2, 2008 n=5, 2009 n=3, 2010 n=1, 2011 n=8, 2012 n=2, 2013 n=2, 2014 n=2, 2015 n=3, 2016 n=1, 2017 n=4



40


41

Small Business Ventures Services

Client satisfaction with Small Business Ventures Services rebounded in 2017 to an all-time high of 86%, up from only 33% in 2016. Prior to this, the highest client satisfaction level was 69% in 2015. No respondents in 2017 expressed dissatisfaction for Small Business Ventures Services in 2017 and only 14% expressed neutrality, with this single rating falling on the higher end of the neutral spectrum (7 on a 10-point scale). Most of the satisfied clients (50%) attributed their satisfaction to the fact that the services met their needs and/or expectations, which was the same percentage as in 2016. The remaining satisfied clients were evenly split among timely service, good follow-up, and “other” reasons. In qualitative feedback, satisfied clients expressed gratitude for the ability to run their own business successfully with all the equipment that they needed, as well as the opportunity to get answers to any questions they had.

42

How satisfied were you with Small Business Ventures Services?

2003 n=15, 2004 n=14, 2006 n=12, 2007 n=6, 2008 n=10, 2009 n=6, 2010 n=9, 2011 n=8, 2012 n=7, 2013 n=4, 2014 n=7, 2015 n=16, 2016 n=6, 2017 n=7



43


45

BESB Counselor Ratings

In 2017, average ratings of counselors increased in all areas but one, with the remaining dimensions remaining stable from 2016. This greatly contrasts with the pattern of results reported last year, in which seven of the nine areas surveyed experienced declines in ratings. Two dimensions of counselors that saw particularly large increases in 2017 were identifying career goals (all-time high of 8.96, up 1.51 in mean rating) and understanding the process for complaint resolution (7.92, up 1.21 in mean rating). These dimensions are also those with the lowest overall means for all years combined (7.83 and 7.67, respectively). Also exhibiting significant increases in ratings were satisfaction with referrals from counselors (all-time high of 9.22, up 0.68 in mean rating), counselors’ ability to recognize clients’ special needs (8.38, up 0.56 in mean rating), and counselors’ effectiveness in helping the client understand his or her vocational rehabilitation rights (8.67, up 0.52 in mean rating). Among these, the increase in clients’ satisfaction with referrals was the most notable. Its all-time high mean rating in 2017 of 9.22 is well above the second-highest value for this dimension (8.80) reported in 2007. In fact, it is the second-highest mean value ever reported for any of the dimensions since the survey began in 2003. Slightly more modest increases were seen in counselors’ ability to help clients develop their IPE (8.44, up 0.4 in mean rating), the overall professionalism of counselors (8.85, up 0.3 in mean rating), and the perceived knowledge of the counselor (8.63, up 0.2 in mean rating). Counselors’ ability to provide information in the format used by the client remained unchanged at 8.51, while, as mentioned earlier, none of the dimensions experienced a decline in ratings from the previous year.

The overall improvement in ratings across dimensions this year is especially notable when compared to the pattern seen in 2016, where mean ratings in most dimensions declined (in several cases to some of the lowest values ever recorded in the survey), and the largest increase was less than 0.4 points. In 2017, mean

46

ratings in 2017 for all but one dimension (professionalism of counselors; 8.85 compared to a historical mean of 8.93) fell above the historical mean rating for their respective dimensions. This is juxtaposed with data from 2016, where six of the nine mean ratings for that year fell below their respective historical means. Overall clients are highly satisfied with their counselors.

In 2017, only in the dimension of understanding the process for complaint resolution does the mean rating barely fall within the neutral satisfaction range (7.92). In summary, clients were most satisfied with referrals from their counselor, the counselor’s ability to help the client identify career goals, the professionalism of the counselor, and his or her ability to help the client understand their vocational rehabilitation rights. As mentioned, clients were least satisfied with their counselors’ help in understanding the process for complaint resolution, followed by the counselor’s understanding of the client’s special needs and their ability to assist with the development of the client’s IPE.

Last fiscal year, for the first time, CCSU performed a regional analysis on nine dimensions of counselors. The South Central was dislodged by the Southwest as the region reporting the highest levels of satisfaction. Last year, the Southwest region notched the top ratings on five of the nine dimensions measured, while the Southwest region took the top spot on three dimensions. This year, the Southwest region moved from second to first place in the rankings, notching the top spot in three of the nine dimensions measured (knowledge of counselors, satisfaction of referrals, identifying career goals), and tying for the top spot in a fourth dimension (understanding the process for formal complaint resolution). The Eastern region moved into the second spot in the regional rankings, earned highest honors in two dimensions of counselors (understanding VR rights and responsibilities and recognizing special needs in regards to employment), and tying for the top spot in a third dimension (understanding the process for formal complaint resolution). The South Central region enjoyed outstanding satisfaction ratings last year, ranking either first or

47

second in satisfaction in eight out of the nine areas surveyed. This year paints a very different picture, with the region earning the top spot for only two dimensions of counselors (professionalism of counselor and helping to develop clients’ IPE).

In 2016, the Northwestern and North Central regions saw the lowest levels of satisfaction. The Northwestern region expressed the lowest rates of satisfaction on five dimensions of counselors, while the North Central hit the low spot on the remaining four dimensions. The trend of low performance for these two regions continued in 2017. The North Central region had the lowest satisfaction rating for three dimensions of counselors (identifying career goals, helping to develop an IPE, and providing information in a format that clients can use). Meanwhile, both the Southwest and Northwestern region had the lowest for two dimensions of counselors, respectively.

Mean Counselor Ratings Professionalism of Counselor 2017 8.85Professionalism of Counselor 2016 8.55Professionalism of Counselor 2015 9.06Professionalism of Counselor 2014 9.06Professionalism of Counselor 2013 8.79Professionalism of Counselor 2012 9.0Professionalism of Counselor 2011 8.63Professionalism of Counselor 2010 9.16Professionalism of Counselor 2009 9.12Professionalism of Counselor 2008 8.68Professionalism of Counselor 2007 8.83Professionalism of Counselor 2006 9.19Professionalism of Counselor 2004 9.13Professionalism of Counselor 2003 9.01

48

Knowledge of Counselor 2017 8.63Knowledge of Counselor 2016 8.43Knowledge of Counselor 2015 8.91Knowledge of Counselor 2014 8.28Knowledge of Counselor 2013 8.67Knowledge of Counselor 2012 8.54Knowledge of Counselor 2011 8.23Knowledge of Counselor 2010 8.88Knowledge of Counselor 2009 8.86Knowledge of Counselor 2008 8.36Knowledge of Counselor 2007 8.51Knowledge of Counselor 2006 8.84Knowledge of Counselor 2004 8.90Knowledge of Counselor 2003 8.68

Satisfaction of Referral 2017 9.22Satisfaction of Referral 2016 8.54Satisfaction of Referral 2015 8.45Satisfaction of Referral 2014 8.20Satisfaction of Referral 2013 8.40Satisfaction of Referral 2012 8.69Satisfaction of Referral 2011 8.16Satisfaction of Referral 2010 8.49Satisfaction of Referral 2009 8.34Satisfaction of Referral 2008 8.20Satisfaction of Referral 2007 8.80Satisfaction of Referral 2006 8.42Satisfaction of Referral 2004 8.67Satisfaction of Referral 2003 8.50

49

Provide information in the format you use 2017 8.51Provide information in the format you use 2016 8.51Provide information in the format you use 2015 8.75Provide information in the format you use 2014 9.36Provide information in the format you use 2013 8.09Provide information in the format you use 2012 7.70Provide information in the format you use 2011 7.70Provide information in the format you use 2010 8.86Provide information in the format you use 2009 8.03Provide information in the format you use 2008 8.06Provide information in the format you use 2007 8.78Provide information in the format you use 2006 8.57Provide information in the format you use 2004 8.53Provide information in the format you use 2003 8.30

Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2017 8.67Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2016 8.15Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2015 8.46Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2014 8.47Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2013 8.47Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2012 8.71Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2011 7.80Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2010 8.42Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2009 8.39Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2008 7.64Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2007 8.30Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2006 8.09Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2004 8.20Understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights 2003 8.07

50

Develop your IPE 2017 8.44Develop your IPE 2016 8.04Develop your IPE 2015 7.70Develop your IPE 2014 7.84Develop your IPE 2013 8.23Develop your IPE 2012 8.08Develop your IPE 2011 7.70Develop your IPE 2010 8.05Develop your IPE 2009 7.83Develop your IPE 2008 7.62Develop your IPE 2007 8.06Develop your IPE 2006 7.87Develop your IPE 2004 7.90Develop your IPE 2003 7.80

Recognize your special needs 2017 8.38Recognize your special needs 2016 7.82Recognize your special needs 2015 8.62Recognize your special needs 2014 7.84Recognize your special needs 2013 8.22Recognize your special needs 2012 8.60Recognize your special needs 2011 8.05Recognize your special needs 2010 8.49Recognize your special needs 2009 7.22Recognize your special needs 2008 7.56Recognize your special needs 2007 8.12Recognize your special needs 2006 8.03Recognize your special needs 2004 8.05Recognize your special needs 2003 7.84

51

Identify your career goals 2017 8.96Identify your career goals 2016 7.45Identify your career goals 2015 8.06Identify your career goals 2014 8.05Identify your career goals 2013 7.78Identify your career goals 2012 8.36Identify your career goals 2011 7.35Identify your career goals 2010 7.94Identify your career goals 2009 7.47Identify your career goals 2008 7.43Identify your career goals 2007 7.71Identify your career goals 2006 7.75Identify your career goals 2004 7.88Identify your career goals 2003 7.47

Understand the process for complaint resolution 2017 7.92Understand the process for complaint resolution 2016 6.71Understand the process for complaint resolution 2015 7.45Understand the process for complaint resolution 2014 8.85Understand the process for complaint resolution 2013 7.71Understand the process for complaint resolution 2012 7.76Understand the process for complaint resolution 2011 7.62Understand the process for complaint resolution 2010 7.64Understand the process for complaint resolution 2009 7.82Understand the process for complaint resolution 2008 7.12Understand the process for complaint resolution 2007 7.83Understand the process for complaint resolution 2006 7.51Understand the process for complaint resolution 2004 7.95Understand the process for complaint resolution 2003 7.52

52

Helping Develop an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE)

Client satisfaction with counselors’ ability to develop an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) reached 66% in 2017, improving upon the previous all-time high of 64% in 2016. Although this increase of two percentage points seems modest, the larger sample size for this question (n=49) makes these estimates more reliable than those discussed in the previous sections. Furthermore, this modest increase was combined with a more substantial decline in dissatisfied ratings from 13% in 2016 to 4% in 2017. Neutral ratings increased by five percentage points to 14%, and don’t know/refused responses by two percentage points to 16%.

The main reason for client satisfaction in this domain was the perception that the provider was knowledgeable and/or caring, with well over half (57%) of satisfied clients citing this as their primary reason. This was followed by the perception that the follow-up after the service was good (19%), clients’ needs and expectations were met (14%), and that the service was timely (5%). In qualitative follow-up questions, satisfied clients emphasized the respect and attention given to them by their counselors, and how they felt listened to and understood. Clients also noted that counselors were readily available to help and answer questions, were knowledgeable and thorough in their explanations of the IPE and related opportunities, and were efficient in arranging for services for the client.

Clients who were dissatisfied primarily felt so because their counselor had failed to adequately meet their needs; specifically, clients did not feel they had enough contact with the counselor, or that the counselor was not adequately responsive to the client’s needs. One client felt as though his or her counselor was argumentative and blameful, while another felt that although the counselor’s demeanor was generally positive, they were unrealistic in their promises of what could be done or obtained for the client.

53

Clients residing in the Eastern region rated counselors’ ability to develop an IPE most highly (9.6 mean rating, 1.16 above the overall mean). This was a significant jump from last year, where the mean rating of clients living in the Eastern region was 8.25. Also reporting high mean satisfaction ratings were clients residing in the South Central region (9.14 mean rating, 0.7 above the overall mean) and Northwestern region (8.55 mean rating, 0.11 above the overall mean). Falling below the overall mean for the sample were ratings from clients living in the Southwestern (8.0 mean rating, 0.62 below the overall mean) and North Central (7.82 mean rating, 0.62 below the overall mean) regions. The overall mean satisfaction rating increased by 0.4 from 2016 to 2017, with the largest increase (1.98) occurring in the Northwestern region. Meanwhile, slight decreases were seen in only two of the regions, with the largest of these decreases being only 0.26.

…helping you to develop your Individualized Plan for Employment, or IPE?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=85, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=45, 2011 =74, 2012 n=63, 2013 n=43, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=66, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

54



55


DK/Ref 2017 16%DK/Ref 2016 14%DK/Ref 2015 18%DK/Ref 2014 14%DK/Ref 2013 18%DK/Ref 2012 16%DK/Ref 2011 9%DK/Ref 2010 18%DK/Ref 2009 33%DK/Ref 2008 28%DK/Ref 2007 21%DK/Ref 2006 21%DK/Ref 2004 38%DK/Ref 2003 38%

56

Regional Mean Satisfaction Ratings2016 2017

Eastern 8.25 9.6South Central 9.4 9.14Northwestern 6.57 8.55Southwestern 8.4 8.0North Central 7.29 7.82

Overall Mean 8.04 8.44

57

Identifying Career Goals

Just under half (49%) of clients surveyed in 2017 reported satisfaction with their counselor’s ability to help them identify career goals; only slightly lower than in 2016 where the percentage was 51%. Encouragingly, the number of individuals who expressed dissatisfaction with their counselor’s ability to help identify career goals decreased by 12 percentage points in 2017 to an unprecedented 0%; however, as neutral ratings also dropped from 2016 (14% to 7%), the corresponding increase was seen in the domain of don’t know/refused answers, with 44% of respondents choosing this option. This represents the highest level of unsureness in this area since data collection began in 2003, and is 21 percentage points higher than the 23% who chose this option in 2016.

The clients who felt satisfied with their counselor’s ability to help them identify career goals felt so because the counselor was knowledgeable and/or caring (47%), the product or service met their needs and expectations (29%), the follow-up was good (12%), the service was timely (6%), and access to the service was coordinated effectively (6%). In qualitative responses, satisfied clients elaborated that they felt the communication between themselves and their counselor was good, and that they were given plenty of information on various careers opportunities, as well as help pursuing these opportunities. Clients also felt that their counselor was caring and available, as well as helpful in laying out the options available to the client and adapting and innovating in ways which were consistent with the client’s needs.

Unfortunately, respondents who indicated that they did not know or refused to answer were not asked to provide qualitative elaboration on their responses. Thus, it is difficult to know why such a substantial proportion (44%) of the 2017 sample apparently felt unsure as to their feelings regarding their counselor’s ability to help them identify career goals.

58

Consistent with the previous year, the Southwestern region showed the highest rating of VR counselors’ ability to help identify career goals (10.0 mean rating, 1.04 above the overall mean and 0.4 greater than the previous year). The second-highest mean rating occurred in the Eastern region (9.5 mean rating, 0.54 above the overall mean), followed by the South Central (9.33 mean rating, 0.37 above the overall mean) and Northwestern (9.0 mean rating, 0.04 above the overall mean) regions. Least satisfied with VR counselors’ ability to help identify career goals were clients living in the North Central region (8.55 mean rating, 0.41 below the overall mean). Significant increases in client satisfaction ratings since 2016 occurred across all regions, with both the Eastern and Northwestern regions exhibiting especially large (3 point) increases.

…helping you identify your career goals?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=85, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=41, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=58, 2013 n=42, 2014 n=49, 2015 n=63, 2016 n=49, 2017 n=41


59



60



Southwestern 9.6 10.0Eastern 6.5 9.5South Central 8.0 9.33Northwestern 6.0 9.0North Central 7.08 8.55


61

Recognizing Special Needs in Regards to Employment

Client satisfaction ratings of counselors’ ability to recognize their special needs regarding employment also showed a marked increase in the proportion of respondents who indicated that they did not know or refused to answer the question; with one-quarter (25%) falling into this category in 2017 compared to only 7% in 2016. While it was noted in 2016 that the rise in low satisfaction ratings seen that year could be at least partially accounted for by the drop in the percentage of clients who were unable or unwilling to answer the question, the opposite pattern was apparent in the 2017 data. Dissatisfied ratings dropped 11 percentage points from 13% in 2016 to 2% in 2017, while neutral ratings increased only slightly (from 14% in 2016 to 16% in 2017) and satisfied ratings decreased from 66% to 57%.

Probably unsurprisingly, clients who were satisfied with their counselor’s ability to recognize their special needs related to employment most frequently attributed their satisfaction to the knowledge and/or care exhibited by the provider (46%), followed by the fact that the product or service met the client’s needs and expectations (31%). Less frequently cited were timely service and good follow up (each 8%). Themes that emerged from qualitative feedback were that counselors were prompt, knowledgeable, thorough, and helpful in obtaining services and/or equipment, which clients found invaluable to their employment situation. Another theme, which was also noted in the previous year, was that clients appreciated being encouraged by their counselor to persist despite challenges. Overall, satisfied clients felt that their counselors were both perceptive to and efficient in meeting their special employment needs. Only one individual expressed dissatisfaction with their counselor’s ability to recognize special needs related to employment, for the reason that the client’s business plan request was reduced or denied.

Overall mean satisfaction with counselors’ ability to recognize special needs increased in 2017, with the largest increases

62

occurring in the Northwestern (1.37) and Eastern (1.13) regions. As was the case in 2016, clients across regions rated counselors similarly on this dimension comparative to other dimensions. Clients in the Eastern region were most satisfied with their counselor’s ability to recognize their special needs (8.8 mean rating, 0.42 above overall mean), followed by those in the Northwestern region (8.75 mean rating, 0.37 above overall mean). High satisfaction ratings were also evident in the South Central (8.25 mean rating, 0.13 below overall mean), North Central (8.15 mean rating, 0.23 below overall mean), and Southwestern (8.0 mean rating, 0.38 below overall mean) regions.

…recognizing your special needs in regards to employment?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=85, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=35, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=62, 2013 n=42, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=65, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49


63



64



Eastern 7.67 8.8Northwestern 7.38 8.75South Central 9.0 8.25North Central 7.42 8.15Southwestern 7.43 8.0


65

Understanding Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Rights and Responsibilities

Clients’ satisfaction with their counselors’ ability to help them understand their vocational rehabilitation (VR) rights was up four percentage points from last year to 72% in 2017. An increase was also seen in the percentage of don’t know or refused responses, which increased from 9% in 2016 to 14% in 2017. Dissatisfied ratings remained stable, decreasing by one percentage point to 4% in 2017, while the largest decrease was seen in neutral ratings, which dropped from 18% in 2016 to 10% in 2017.

Clients who reported satisfaction with their counselor’s understanding of their VR rights and responsibilities overwhelmingly cited the knowledge and/or concern of the provider as the primary reason for their satisfaction (71%). Thirteen percent felt that the product or service met their needs and expectations, while 3% felt that access to the service was coordinated effectively. Another 13% indicated that they either had an alternate reason, did not know, or refused to answer. This is somewhat less than the 20% of clients whose responses fell into one of these categories in 2016. In qualitative commentary, satisfied clients were nearly unanimous in their mention of the thorough, detailed, and clear explanations given by counselors who were patient and able to answer their questions.

The two clients who were dissatisfied with their counselors’ help in understanding their VR rights and responsibilities explained that the counselor either did not discuss the subject at all, or offered only vague explanations, which the client did not find particularly helpful. One client noted that the majority of correspondence about this subject occurred through email, and may have been more effectively explained through another means of communication. Additionally, it is worth noting that even one satisfied client mentioned in qualitative commentary that they had received a booklet of information but remained unsure what their rights were. This echoes some of the sentiments expressed

66

by dissatisfied clients in 2016 that they had received an abundance of textual information regarding their VR rights and responsibilities, but had not thoroughly understood the information given. Thus, it is possible that the proportion of highly satisfied clients is being overestimated slightly by the inclusion of those who may not feel that a clear understanding of these rights is particularly relevant or imperative.

Regionally, clients living in the Eastern region showed complete satisfaction with their counselors’ help in understanding their VR rights and responsibilities, with a mean rating of 10 (1.33 above the overall mean and 1.67 greater than the previous year). The Northwestern region (8.71 mean rating, 0.04 above overall mean) also experienced a substantial increase from the previous year, by 1.14 points. The South Central region experienced a modest 0.19 point decline in satisfaction ratings from the previous year, with an 8.56 mean rating (0.11 below overall mean). Satisfaction in the North Central region (8.56 mean rating, 0.11 below overall mean) declined by 0.74 points from 2016 to 2017, while satisfaction in the Southwestern region (7.33 mean rating, 1.34 below overall mean) experienced a similar shift in the opposite direction by 0.79 points.

…help you understand your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights and responsibilities?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=85, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=47, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=62, 2013 n=44, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=69, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

67



68



69


Eastern 8.33 10.0Northwestern 7.57 8.71South Central 8.75 8.56North Central 7.82 8.56Southwestern 8.12 7.33


70

Understanding the Process for Formal Complaint Resolution

Only slightly over one-quarter (27%) of clients who responded to the survey provided a numerical rating for their satisfaction with their counselor’s explanations of the formal complaint resolution process, with the remaining proportion refusing to respond or indicating that they did not know or that the subject was not applicable. This represents a very substantial increase in the proportion of respondents who did not offer a numerical rating for this question up from only 42% last year. In fact, this year has seen the highest proportion of refused, don’t know, or not applicable responses since the survey began, with the second highest reported as 60% in 2012. This vast increase in uncertain client responses accounted for significant decreases across all other rating categories since 2016: satisfied ratings fell 17 percentage points to 16%, neutral ratings fell 3 percentage points to 8%, and dissatisfied ratings fell 12 percentage points to 2% in 2017.

Thus, while relatively few clients expressed outright dissatisfaction with their counselor’s understanding of the formal complaint resolution process, the percentage who expressed clear satisfaction is also by far the lowest since the survey began in 2003. The high proportion of individuals who did not rate their counselor in this domain likely reflects the fact that most clients did not need to resolve a complaint and therefore found the question inapplicable. In fact, clients may not have even been aware that a formal complaint process existed, as was mentioned in qualitative feedback in 2016. It is unclear why this should be particularly true in 2017 compared to other years; however, it is possible that potential methodological differences in this year’s administration of the survey accounted for some of this difference. Regardless, clients should ideally be aware of and made familiar with the formal complaint resolution process prior to having any reason to use it; therefore, the percentage of don’t know and not applicable responses may suggest that clients generally need additional education in this area.

71

The majority of those who were satisfied, and did rate their counselors’ understanding of the process for formal complaint resolution again cited knowledge and/or concern exhibited by the caregiver (43%). Other reasons, each accounting for 14% of satisfied respondents, were that the product or service met the client’s needs and expectations, follow-up was good, and access was coordinated effectively. In qualitative feedback, clients again stressed the importance of counselors who understood the processes and procedures and explained these clearly to the client. Only one client expressed dissatisfaction with their counselor’s help in understanding the process for formal complaint resolution, as there was no follow-up by the counselor.

Both the Eastern and Southwestern regions had a mean client satisfaction rate of 10 (2.08 above overall mean); however, the small sample size should be taken into consideration. Client satisfaction with counselors’ explanations of the formal complaint resolution process was significantly lower in the remaining regions. The Northwestern (7.5 mean rating, 0.42 below overall mean) and North Central (7.4 mean rating, 0.52 below overall mean) regions nevertheless experienced substantial increases of 2.5 and 1.25, respectively. In contrast, mean client satisfaction ratings decreased by 1 point in the South Central region from 2016 to 2017.

…help you understand the process for formal complaint resolution?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=46, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=62, 2013 n=23, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=66, 2016 n=55, 2017 n=36

72



73


DK/Ref/NA 2017 74%DK/Ref/NA 2016 42%DK/Ref/NA 2015 26%DK/Ref/NA 2014 58%DK/Ref/NA 2013 31%DK/Ref/NA 2012 60%DK/Ref /NA 2011 39%DK/Ref/ NA 2010 40%DK/Ref/ NA 2009 36%DK/Ref/NA 2008 38%DK/Ref/NA 2007 20%DK/Ref/NA 2006 29%DK/Ref /NA 2004 43%DK/Ref/NA 2003 35%

74


Eastern 10.0 10.0Southwestern 5.4 10.0Northwestern 5.0 7.5North Central 6.15 7.4South Central 8.0 7.0


75

Information in the Format You Use

Once again, clients surveyed in 2017 appear to have increased levels of uncertainty regarding their satisfaction with their counselor’s ability to provide information in the format that they use. While the rate of dissatisfaction remained stable at 4%, the percentage who were satisfied decreased 10 percentage points from 67% in 2016 to 57% in 2017, while neutral ratings decreased 5 percentage points from 15% in 2016 to 10% in 2017. At the same time, the proportion of respondents who refused to answer or responded that they did not know increased 14 percentage points since 2016 to reach an all-time high of 29% in 2017.

More than half (55%) of satisfied clients attributed their satisfaction to the fact that the product or service met their needs and expectations. One-quarter (25%) felt that the provider was knowledgeable and/or caring, while 5% each noted that the service was timely, follow-up was good, or access to the service was coordinated effectively. In qualitative follow-up comments, respondents noted that they appreciated the wide range of alternative formats available to them, and that service providers were helpful in relaying these options and helping clients with the process of obtaining them.

One dissatisfied client felt that the product or service did not meet his or her needs and expectations, elaborating that the counselor was not helpful in providing information about the process. Unlike in 2016, no respondents in 2017 noted issues with technological malfunctions, and overall were appreciative of the benefits of audio, braille, and large print.

Clients residing in the Northwestern region were most satisfied with their counselors’ ability to provide information in the format that they use, unanimously giving this dimension a perfect 10 rating (1.49 above overall mean and 1.71 points higher than in 2016). Clients in the Southwestern region also rated this dimension very highly (9.83 mean rating, 1.32 above overall mean), although this number was unchanged from the previous

76

year. Client satisfaction in the Eastern (8.75 mean rating, 0.24 above overall mean) and South Central (8.29 mean rating, 0.22 below overall mean) regions declined by 0.5 and 0.21, respectively; however still reflect a high degree of client satisfaction. As was the case in the previous year, clients living in the North Central region expressed the lowest levels of satisfaction with their counselors’ ability to provide information in a format they used (8.13 mean rating, 0.38 below overall mean); however, this figure regardless reflects a 0.36 point increase since 2016, bringing it out of the neutral satisfaction range.

…providing any information in the format you use?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=46, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=63, 2013 n=35, 2014 n=46, 2015 n=71, 2016 n=55, 2017 n=49


77



78

DK/Ref 2017 29%DK/Ref 2016 14.5%DK/Ref 2015 10%DK/Ref 2014 22%DK/Ref 2013 6%DK/Ref 2012 25%DK/Ref 2011 17%DK/Ref 2010 21%DK/Ref 2009 33%DK/Ref 2008 19%DK/Ref 2007 18%DK/Ref 2006 17%DK/Ref 2004 30%DK/Ref 2003 25%


Northwestern 8.29 10.0Southwestern 9.83 9.83Eastern 9.25 8.75South Central 8.5 8.29North Central 7.94 8.13


79

Referrals Provided by Counselors

In 2017, client satisfaction with referrals provided by counselors was 71%, up 5 percentage points since 2016 and the second-highest satisfaction mark on record. Decreases were seen in the percentage of neutral (4%, down 7 percentage points) and dissatisfied (0%, down 5 percentage points) ratings since last year. Don’t know or not applicable responses accounted for one-quarter (25%) of respondents, up 7 percentage points from last year. As don’t know/not applicable and neutral responses both increased and decreased by 7 percentage points respectively, it may be that for some reason respondents to this year’s survey were more inclined to choose don’t know/not applicable over a neutral rating. As is the case for most questions on the survey, 2017 represents an all-time high percentage of don’t know and not applicable responses. As it is unclear whether this upsurge is due to some methodological difference, or perhaps a decline in the amount of contact clients have with counselors, the 2018 survey should ask these respondents to elaborate on their reason(s) for choosing this response. Regardless, the 5 percentage point differences in satisfied and dissatisfied ratings since last year are encouraging.

Of the majority who were satisfied with the referrals provided by their counselors, nearly three-in-five (58%) indicated that the service met their needs and expectations. About one-in-five (19%) noted that the provider was knowledgeable and/or caring. The remainder of clients were split between timely service (15%) and effective coordination to the service (8%) as the main reason for their satisfaction. This reflects a somewhat different pattern than last year, where nearly half (49%) of clients indicated that their provider was knowledgeable and/or caring, and 30% found the service to meet their needs and expectations. Timely service was also a larger factor in client satisfaction this year, with only 3% of satisfied clients selecting this response last year.

80

In qualitative follow-up responses, clients noted a number of positive factors related to their satisfaction with referrals provided by counselors. Clients explained that counselors generally referred them to providers who were explanatory, thorough, and sensitive to their needs. A great number also stressed the timeliness of the process, noting that referrals took only a couple of days to complete. Finally, clients were appreciative of their counselor’s willingness to meet with them when requested, as well as drive them to their appointments.

Consistent with the previous year, clients residing in the Southwestern region expressed the greatest satisfaction with referrals provided by their counselor (10.0 mean rating, 0.78 above overall mean), a 0.57 point increase from 2016. Clients from the South Central (9.57 mean rating, 0.35 above overall mean) and Eastern (9.5 mean rating, 0.28 above overall mean) regions also expressed very high satisfaction levels on this dimension, with increases from the previous year of 0.24 and 1.17, respectively. Clients residing in the North Central region provided a slightly lower mean rating (8.8, 0.42 below overall mean), but still reported higher satisfaction than in the previous year by 1.4 points, bringing it out of the neutral range. Only clients living in the Northwestern region (8.0 mean rating, 1.22 below overall mean) reported lower levels of satisfaction in 2017 than in 2016, and the magnitude of this change was small (0.17 points).

...any referral provided by your counselor?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=46, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=63, 2013 n=45, 2014 n=49, 2015 n=68, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

81



82


DK/Ref/NA 2017 25%DK/Ref/NA 2016 18%DK/Ref/NA 2015 15%DK/Ref/NA 2014 15%DK/Ref/NA 2014 18%DK/Ref/NA 2013 11%DK/Ref/NA 2012 19%DK/Ref/NA 2011 14%DK/Ref/NA 2010 19%DK/Ref/NA 2009 15%DK/Ref/NA 2008 14%DK/Ref/NA 2007 16%DK/Ref/NA 2006 8%DK/Ref/NA 2004 18%DK/Ref/NA 2003 18%

83


Southwestern 9.43 10.0South Central 9.33 9.57Eastern 8.33 9.5North Central 7.4 8.8Northwestern 8.17 8.0


84

The Knowledge of Counselors

Levels of satisfaction regarding the knowledge of counselors continued to decline this year, though to a smaller degree than the previous year (3 percentage point versus 6 percentage point decrease). Still, nearly three-quarters (74%) of clients indicated that they were satisfied with the knowledge of their counselor, while a minority (4%, down 5 percentage points from last year) expressed dissatisfaction. Neutral and don’t know/not applicable responses both increased in 2017: neutral by 5 percentage points to 16%, and don’t know/not applicable by 3 percentage points to 6%. Overall, this represents a clear positive shift in client satisfaction over the past year.

In qualitative responses regarding the knowledge of counselors, satisfied clients noted the competence and timeliness of their counselor, and their ability to meet their needs. For instance, clients explained that their counselor had knowledge of many available resources such as specialists, and that services were arranged very quickly. If a counselor did not know the answer to a question, it was noted that the counselor was timely in researching the answer. Clients also appreciated the thorough manner in which counselors explained processes, and many felt that their counselor was proactive and went above and beyond in helping the client. Finally, satisfied clients felt that their counselor was caring, and that they encouraged a sense of teamwork in addressing the client’s needs.

Some dissatisfied clients explained that they had never met with their counselor or had not met with them for a few years, and thus could not rate their level of knowledge. One individual felt that his or her counselor was not courteous or helpful in their interactions.

In 2017, all of the BESB regions reported high levels of satisfaction with their counselors’ knowledge levels, with a collective mean 0.2 points greater than the previous year. The pattern of increase and decrease since 2016 was mixed across

85

counties; however, regional ratings in 2017 generally became more consistent with one another comparative to the previous year. Clients in the Southwestern region (8.67 mean rating, 0.04 above overall mean) issued the highest average mean rating on the knowledge of counselors, followed by those residing in the South Central and Northwestern regions, both with an 8.55 mean rating (0.08 below overall mean). This in turn was followed by clients living in the North Central (8.44 mean rating, 0.19 below overall mean) and Eastern (8.0 mean rating, 0.63 below overall mean) regions.

How would you rate the knowledge of your counselor?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=45,2011 n=74, 2012 n=61, 2013 n=44, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=69, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49


86



87



Southwestern 8.88 8.67South Central 9.24 8.55Northwestern 8.0 8.55North Central 7.47 8.44Eastern 9.0 8.0


88

Professionalism of Counselors

The proportion of clients who were dissatisfied with their counselor’s professionalism decreased by 5 percentage points to 6% in 2017, partially reversing the 8 point increase that was reported in 2016. At the same time, however, the proportion of clients who were satisfied with their counselor’s professionalism decreased by 12 percentage points to approximately three-quarters (74%) of respondents. These decreases were accounted for by substantial increases in the percentage of don’t know/not applicable and neutral responses. Don’t know and not applicable responses increased from 0% of respondents in 2016 to 6% in 2017, the highest figure since 2009. Neutral ratings experienced an even more substantial increase of 13 percentage points to 16%, or nearly one-in-six respondents.

In qualitative follow-up commentary, most clients simply noted that their counselor was always professional. Others offered further insights, explaining that their counselor was always on time, returned phone calls, dressed nicely, and was well-spoken. At the same time, satisfied clients also appreciated the personable and caring nature of their counselors and the effort they put into staying in touch with the client. The few clients who were dissatisfied with their counselor’s professionalism did not provide much qualitative elaboration beyond the fact that they found them unprofessional or disrespectful in some way.

Clients from all five geographic regions issued high satisfaction averages for the professionalism of counselors, with an overall average of 8.85, 0.30 higher than the average in 2016. As in 2016, clients living in the South Central region (9.78 mean rating, 0.93 above overall mean) reported the highest level of satisfaction, increased by 0.37 since the previous year. Clients from the Eastern region also reported a very high level of satisfaction with the professionalism of their counselors, with a 9.50 mean rating, 0.65 above overall mean and increased by 0.25 since 2016. The Southwestern region (8.67 mean rating, 0.18

89

below overall mean, 0.79 greater than last year), North Central region (8.50 mean rating, 0.35 below overall mean, 0.92 greater than last year), and Northwestern region (8.33 mean rating, 0.52 below overall mean, 1.05 less than last year).

How would you rate the professionalism of your counselor?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=45,2011 n=74, 2012 n=61, 2013 n=44, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=69, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=48

1-3 Rating 2017 6%1-3 Rating 2016 11%1-3 Rating 2015 3%1-3 Rating 2014 2%1-3 Rating 2013 5%1-3 Rating 2012 5%1-3 Rating 2011 5.5%1-3 Rating 2010 2%1-3 Rating 2009 0%1-3 Rating 2008 5%1-3 Rating 2007 3%1-3 Rating 2006 0%1-3 Rating 2004 2%1-3 Rating 2003 3%

90



91



South Central 9.41 9.78Eastern 9.25 9.50Southwestern 7.88 8.67North Central 7.58 8.50Northwestern 9.38 8.33


92

Experience Working with Counselors

Client satisfaction ratings of experiences working with counselors jumped 8 percentage points in 2017 to 92%, the highest this figure has been since 2010 and the second-highest it has been to date. In comparison, client satisfaction was at an all-time low in 2016, with the highest percentage of dissatisfied clients (16%) to date occurring that year as well. This year, the proportion of dissatisfied clients decreased by 10 percentage points to 6%, while neutral ratings increased by only 2 percentage points to 2%. Consistent with previous years, no clients selected don’t know as a response to this question. Overall then, clients are clearly highly satisfied with their experiences working with counselors. Indeed, most respondents who indicated satisfaction (69%) rated their experience as very positive, while less than one-quarter (23%) rated it as somewhat positive.

Those reporting positive experiences felt that their counselors had helped them ultimately be able to do things they couldn’t do before. Clients also mentioned counselors who kept in frequent contact and were organized and proactive in obtaining services. Once again, the care and concern expressed by counselors was a theme in these responses, with one respondent noting that they considered their counselor a friend.

Again, those who were dissatisfied with their experience did not provide much qualitative feedback, simply stating that the counselor was disrespectful, not helpful, or that they would not recommend him or her to others. Overall, this area is one of the most well-received by clients, which is encouraging considering that “experience working with counselors” is a rather broad area encompassing a number of more specific aspects.

Just as they did last year, clients residing in the South Central and Eastern regions universally issued a positive rating of their experience working with counselors (100%). For the remaining regions, substantial increases were seen since 2016: an increase

93

of 25 percentage points in the Southwestern region (100% positive rating), an increase of approximately 16.7 percentage points in the Northwestern region (91.67% positive rating), and an increase of approximately 10.2 percentage points in the North Central region (84.21% positive rating).

Experience working with the counselor

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=45,2011 n=74, 2012 n=60, 2013 n=45, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=68, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

Positive Rating 2017 92%Positive Rating 2016 84%Positive Rating 2015 90%Positive Rating 2014 88%Positive Rating 2013 90%Positive Rating 2012 88%Positive Rating 2011 86%Positive Rating 2010 96%Positive Rating 2009 88%Positive Rating 2008 86%Positive Rating 2007 87%Positive Rating 2006 92%Positive Rating 2004 92%Positive Rating 2003 85%

94

Neutral Rating 2017 2%Neutral Rating 2016 0%Neutral Rating 2015 6%Neutral Rating 2014 2%Neutral Rating 2013 0%Neutral Rating 2012 4%Neutral Rating 2011 4%Neutral Rating 2010 2%Neutral Rating 2009 4%Neutral Rating 2008 2%Neutral Rating 2007 3%Neutral Rating 2006 1%Neutral Rating 2004 1%Neutral Rating 2003 4%

Negative Rating 2017 6%Negative Rating 2016 16%Negative Rating 2015 4%Negative Rating 2014 6%Negative Rating 2013 6%Negative Rating 2012 8%Negative Rating 2011 10%Negative Rating 2010 2%Negative Rating 2009 4%Negative Rating 2008 11%Negative Rating 2007 6%Negative Rating 2006 6%Negative Rating 2004 4%Negative Rating 2003 4%

95


Regional Data, Percentage Issuing Positive Rating2016 2017

South Central 100% 100%Eastern 100% 100%Southwestern 75% 100%Northwestern 75% 91.67%North Central 74% 84.21%

96

Explanation of Delays

Client satisfaction with their counselor’s explanation of delays increased this year by 9 percentage points to 74%, reversing the 13point decrease seen in 2016. Still, the percentage of clients who indicated that they did not receive an explanation from their counselor remained virtually unchanged at about one-quarter (24%, down 1 percentage point), the second-highest figure in the survey’s history. Thus, the increase in positive ratings this year appears to be accounted for by a decline in don’t know/refused responses, which decreased by 7 percentage points to 3% of respondents. Despite the lack of change in the proportion of negative responses, the magnitude of positive shifts is still encouraging. At the very least, clients this year appear to have received more explicit explanations of delays from their counselors, as evidenced by the significant increase and decrease in “yes” and “don’t know” responses, respectively.

Once again, clients in the South Central and Eastern regions showed the highest levels of satisfaction with their counselors’ explanation of delays, with 100% of respondents in these counties indicating that they had received an explanation of delays from their counselor, if applicable. Those from the Northwestern region were markedly less satisfied (70% receiving an explanation), with those in the North Central (58.33%) and Southwestern (50%) regions even less so.

Did your counselor explain to you the delays encountered in providing the Services on time?

2003 n=108, 2004 n=111, 2006 n=60, 2007 n=78, 2008 n=81, 2009 n=50, 2010 n=45, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=45, 2013 n=35, 2014 n=38, 2015 n=54, 2016 n=40, 2017 n=34

97

Yes 2017 74%Yes 2016 65%Yes 2015 78%Yes 2014 81%Yes 2013 74%Yes 2012 78%Yes 2011 74%Yes 2010 86%Yes 2009 91%Yes 2008 75%Yes 2007 74%Yes 2006 85%Yes 2004 75%Yes 2003 75%

No 2017 24%No 2016 25%No 2015 20%No 2014 16%No 2013 20%No 2012 18%No 2011 11%No 2010 8%No 2009 6%No 2008 21%No 2007 19%No 2006 12%No 2004 16%No 2003 18%

98


Regional Data, Percentage Reporting “yes” (explanation of delay received)

2016 2017South Central 91% 100%Eastern 50% 100%Northwestern 50% 70%North Central 69.2% 58.33%Southwestern 66.7% 50%

99

Satisfaction with Services Arranged

Relative to other aspects of counselors that were measured, client satisfaction with services arranged by counselors experienced very little change from the previous year. While clients did appear to have somewhat more clarity as to their satisfaction in this area (as evidenced by a 3.5 percentage point decline in don’t know/refused responses to 0%); the corresponding shift was largely towards neutral ratings, which increased by 2.5 percentage points to 6% in 2017. Satisfied ratings did increase by 1.5 percentage points to 84% in 2017; however, dissatisfied ratings declined by only half a percentage point to 10%, or one-in-ten respondents. Historically, client satisfaction with the services arranged by their counselors has remained relatively stable from year to year and indicates no clear pattern of change, with a large majority of respondents reporting that they are very satisfied.

Satisfaction with the services arranged by counselors was mixed across regions, with the highest levels occurring in the Eastern (100% satisfaction rating), North Central (90% satisfaction rating), and South Central (88.89% positive rating) regions. Those living in the Southwestern and Northwestern regions were significantly less likely to provide a satisfied rating of the services arranged by their counselors, with only 66.67% providing a “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” rating. While this 66.67% reflected an increase of 4.17 percentage points from last year for the Northwestern region, it signified a 33.33 percentage point drop for the Southwestern region from 100% satisfaction last year.

Overall, how satisfied were you with the Services your counselor arranged for you?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=51, 2010 n=44, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=61, 2013 n=43, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=18, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

100

Satisfied Rating 2017 84%Satisfied Rating 2016 82.5%Satisfied Rating 2015 95%Satisfied Rating 2014 84%Satisfied Rating 2013 82%Satisfied Rating 2012 93%Satisfied Rating 2011 85%Satisfied Rating 2010 98%Satisfied Rating 2009 79%Satisfied Rating 2008 87%Satisfied Rating 2007 83%Satisfied Rating 2006 85%Satisfied Rating 2004 85%Satisfied Rating 2003 83%

Neutral Rating 2017 6%Neutral Rating 2016 3.5%Neutral Rating 2015 3%Neutral Rating 2014 0%Neutral Rating 2013 2%Neutral Rating 2012 0%Neutral Rating 2011 5%Neutral Rating 2010 2%Neutral Rating 2009 6%Neutral Rating 2008 1%Neutral Rating 2007 0%Neutral Rating 2006 6%Neutral Rating 2004 3%Neutral Rating 2003 2%

101

Dissatisfied Rating 2017 10%Dissatisfied Rating 2016 10.5%Dissatisfied Rating 2015 2%Dissatisfied Rating 2014 6%Dissatisfied Rating 2013 9%Dissatisfied Rating 2012 7%Dissatisfied Rating 2011 6%Dissatisfied Rating 2010 0%Dissatisfied Rating 2009 4%Dissatisfied Rating 2008 9%Dissatisfied Rating 2007 10%Dissatisfied Rating 2006 7%Dissatisfied Rating 2004 6%Dissatisfied Rating 2003 7%

DK/Ref 2017 0%DK/Ref 2016 3.5%DK/Ref 2015 0%DK/Ref 2014 10%DK/Ref 2013 7%DK/Ref 2012 0%DK/Ref 2011 4%DK/Ref 2010 0%DK/Ref 2009 11%DK/Ref 2008 2%DK/Ref 2007 7%DK/Ref 2006 2%DK/Ref 2004 6%DK/Ref 2003 9%

102

Regional Data, Percentage Issuing Satisfied Rating2016 2017

Eastern 100% 100%North Central 72.2% 90.0%South Central 100% 88.89%Southwestern 100% 66.67%Northwestern 62.5% 66.67%

103

Overall Satisfaction with BESB Services

Finally, clients were asked to rate their overall experiences with BESB services on a 1 to 10-point scale, in addition to their IPE, timeframe of delivery of service, and the extent to which the services provided met their needs and/or expectations. They were also asked, based on their personal experience, if they would recommend BESB to others.

Reported satisfaction with BESB services increased in all of the areas surveyed in 2017. This is clearly an improvement from 2016, where satisfaction ratings increased more modestly in only two of the four dimensions surveyed. The most significant improvement: the extent to which clients felt that their expectations were met (8.54, up 0.97 in rating), an all-time high and 0.61 points above the mean rating for all years combined. Historically, most of the mean ratings for this dimension fall within the upper end of the neutral range, with the second-highest rating (8.3) occurring back in 2009. Overall satisfaction with BESB services also increased substantially over the past year to a record high (8.78, up 0.43 in mean rating), replacing the previous record of 8.6 set in 2010.

Client satisfaction with the extent to which services met their IPE (8.06, up 0.2 in mean rating) experienced a more modest increase, which nevertheless brought this metric above the overall historical mean of 7.9 on this dimension. The most modest increase occurred in the extent to which clients felt that BESB services met their needs (8.3, up 0.11 in mean rating). Still, this rating represents the second-highest value reported in the history of the survey, only 0.05 below the all-time high of 8.35 reported in 2013. In sum, 2017 was a remarkable year for overall satisfaction with BESB services, with the highest average rating across dimensions ever seen (8.42). Last year, this figure was 7.99, with the second-highest average across all dimensions (8.25) occurring back in 2010.

104

BESB Vocational Rehabilitation Services Mean Ratings

Overall satisfaction 2017 8.78Overall satisfaction 2016 8.35Overall satisfaction 2015 8.33Overall satisfaction 2014 7.96Overall satisfaction 2013 8.44Overall satisfaction 2012 8.40Overall satisfaction 2011 7.54Overall satisfaction 2010 8.60Overall satisfaction 2009 8.28Overall satisfaction 2008 8.02Overall satisfaction 2007 8.39Overall satisfaction 2006 8.12Overall satisfaction 2004 8.54Overall satisfaction 2003 8.48

Services met expectations 2017 8.54Services met expectations 2016 7.57Services met expectations 2015 8.03Services met expectations 2014 7.46Services met expectations 2013 7.79Services met expectations 2012 7.93Services met expectations 2011 8.20Services met expectations 2010 8.04Services met expectations 2009 8.30Services met expectations 2008 7.80Services met expectations 2007 7.72Services met expectations 2006 7.59Services met expectations 2004 8.14Services met expectations 2003 7.96

105

Services met your IPE 2017 8.06Services met your IPE 2016 7.86Services met your IPE 2015 8.19Services met your IPE 2014 7.89Services met your IPE 2013 8.31Services met your IPE 2012 7.93Services met your IPE 2011 7.25Services met your IPE 2010 8.33Services met your IPE 2009 7.83Services met your IPE 2008 7.69Services met your IPE 2007 8.23Services met your IPE 2006 7.39Services met your IPE 2004 7.89Services met your IPE 2003 7.69

Services met needs 2017 8.30Services met needs 2016 8.19Services met needs 2015 7.92Services met needs 2014 8.16Services met needs 2013 8.35Services met needs 2012 8.16Services met needs 2011 7.18Services met needs 2010 8.04Services met needs 2009 7.73Services met needs 2008 7.58Services met needs 2007 8.06Services met needs 2006 7.46Services met needs 2004 7.91Services met needs 2003 7.78

106

Extent that Services Met IPE

Client ratings of the extent to which services met their IPE experienced universal declines in all but the don’t know/refused category in 2017. These declines were substantial: an 11 percentage point decrease in satisfied ratings (53% in 2017), an 8 point decrease in neutral ratings (6% in 2017), and a 5 point decrease in dissatisfied ratings (8% in 2017). These shifts were accompanied by a large 24 percentage point increase in don’t know/refused answers, with one-in-three clients (33%) selecting this option, the most since 2012. This stands in contrast to figures from last year, which saw a somewhat anomalous all-time low of 9% in this category.

Regional mean satisfaction ratings regarding the extent to which services met the client’s IPE continued to show significant variation across regions, as was the case in 2016; however, there was a positive shift in the overall mean from 7.86 in 2016 to 8.09 in 2017, with the largest jump in satisfaction (1.75 points) occurring in the Eastern region (10 mean rating, 1.91 above overall mean). Falling slightly below the Eastern region in satisfaction ratings was the South Central region (9.5 mean rating, 1.41 above overall mean), followed by the Northwestern region (7.7 mean rating, 0.39 below overall mean), North Central region (7.58 mean rating, 0.51 below overall average), and Southwestern region (5.5 mean rating, 2.59 below overall mean), which all had averages within the neutral satisfaction range. Among these, the Southwestern region experienced the greatest decline in satisfaction from 2016 to 2017, with a 0.64 point drop from 6.14 in 2016 to 5.5 in 2017.

To what extent have the Services you received met your Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE)?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, n=52, 2010 n=45, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=60, 2013 n=40, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=67, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

107


4-7 Rating 2017 6%4-7 Rating 2016 14%4-7 Rating 2015 14%4-7 Rating 2014 4%4-7 Rating 2013 12.5%4-7 Rating 2012 12%4-7 Rating 2011 14%4-7 Rating 2010 13%4-7 Rating 2009 17%4-7 Rating 2008 16%4-7 Rating 2007 19%4-7 Rating 2006 23%4-7 Rating 2004 11%4-7 Rating 2003 9%

108

8-10 Rating 2017 53%8-10 Rating 2016 64%8-10 Rating 2015 58%8-10 Rating 2014 56%8-10 Rating 2013 62.5%8-10 Rating 2012 48%8-10 Rating 2011 47%8-10 Rating 2010 56%8-10 Rating 2009 46%8-10 Rating 2008 47%8-10 Rating 2007 56%8-10 Rating 2006 44%8-10 Rating 2004 45%8-10 Rating 2003 39%


109

Regional Mean Satisfaction RatingsRegion 2016 2017

Eastern 8.25 10.0South Central 9.12 9.5Northwestern 6.43 7.7North Central 7.82 7.58Southwestern 6.14 5.5


110

Extent Vocational Rehabilitation Services Met Needs

Client ratings of the extent to which Vocational Rehabilitation Services met their needs increased in 2017, continuing a consistent pattern of improvement beginning in 2014. The percentage of clients reporting satisfaction with these services reached an all-time high of 78% (up 7 percentage points), while the percentage reporting low satisfaction dropped 7 percentage points to 4%, the second-lowest value recorded in the history of the survey. Neutral ratings decreased by 2 percentage points to 12% in 2017, while don’t know or refused responses increased an identical amount to 6%. Thus, in regards to Vocational Rehabilitation Services, there seems to be a definite shift of responses away from the lower end of the satisfaction continuum towards high satisfaction levels.

To what extent did Vocational Rehabilitation Services meet your needs?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=52, 2010 n=44, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=61, 2013 n=40, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=66, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

111


4-7 Rating 2017 12%4-7 Rating 2016 14%4-7 Rating 2015 14%4-7 Rating 2014 18%4-7 Rating 2013 17.5%4-7 Rating 2012 16.5%4-7 Rating 2011 23%4-7 Rating 2010 22%4-7 Rating 2009 10%4-7 Rating 2008 19%4-7 Rating 2007 16%4-7 Rating 2006 25%4-7 Rating 2004 18%4-7 Rating 2003 20%

112


DK/Ref 2017 6%DK/Ref 2016 4%DK/Ref 2015 7%DK/Ref 2014 10%DK/Ref 2013 7.5%DK/Ref 2012 16.5%DK/Ref 2011 3%DK/Ref 2010 13%DK/Ref 2009 20%DK/Ref 2008 17%DK/Ref 2007 5%DK/Ref 2006 6%DK/Ref 2004 20%DK/Ref 2003 10%

113

Timeframe for Delivery of Services

Satisfaction ratings regarding the timeframe for the delivery of services rebounded from an all-time survey low of 71% in 2016 to 80% in 2017. This was accompanied by a 4 percentage point decrease in dissatisfied ratings from the previous year to 16% in 2017. Neutral ratings decreased by 5 percentage points to 4%, while don’t know/refused responses remained stable at 0%. While there certainly seems to have been improvement in client satisfaction over the previous year, the 16% of dissatisfied clients leaves ample room for further improvement in this area.

How satisfied were you with the overall timeframe for delivery of Services?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=51, 2010 n=45, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=61, 2013 n=43, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=68, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

Satisfied Rating 2017 80%Satisfied Rating 2016 71%Satisfied Rating 2015 80%Satisfied Rating 2014 76%Satisfied Rating 2013 79%Satisfied Rating 2012 86%Satisfied Rating 2011 80%Satisfied Rating 2010 93%Satisfied Rating 2009 84%Satisfied Rating 2008 74%Satisfied Rating 2007 80%Satisfied Rating 2006 80%Satisfied Rating 2004 82%Satisfied Rating 2003 82%

114

Neutral Rating 2017 4%Neutral Rating 2016 9%Neutral Rating 2015 4%Neutral Rating 2014 4%Neutral Rating 2013 7%Neutral Rating 2012 3%Neutral Rating 2011 4%Neutral Rating 2010 2%Neutral Rating 2009 2%Neutral Rating 2008 1%Neutral Rating 2007 2%Neutral Rating 2006 4%Neutral Rating 2004 0%Neutral Rating 2003 1%

Dissatisfied Rating 2017 16%Dissatisfied Rating 2016 20%Dissatisfied Rating 2015 14%Dissatisfied Rating 2014 16%Dissatisfied Rating 2013 14%Dissatisfied Rating 2012 9%Dissatisfied Rating 2011 15%Dissatisfied Rating 2010 5%Dissatisfied Rating 2009 8%Dissatisfied Rating 2008 18%Dissatisfied Rating 2007 15%Dissatisfied Rating 2006 17%Dissatisfied Rating 2004 14%Dissatisfied Rating 2003 14%

115


116

Overall Satisfaction with Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Overall client satisfaction with the services provided by the Vocational Rehabilitation Division of BESB jumped an encouraging 7 percentage points to a record high of 82% in 2017. Neutral ratings dropped 2 percentage points to 16%, while low satisfaction ratings dropped 3 percentage points to 2% and don’t know/refused responses dropped 2 percentage points to 0%, collectively making this one of the most positive shifts in this year’s data.

As a follow-up question, clients were asked which single service exceeded their expectations. As in 2016, the most commonly cited service was Rehabilitation and Adaptive Equipment, with over one-third of clients (35.5%) specifying this response. This represents a sizable increase from the previous year, where slightly over one-quarter of clients (27%) gave this answer. Skills Training continued to occupy the second-highest position in 2017 (17%), with a 5 percentage point increase since last year, followed by Low Vision Services (11%). Transportation Services (8%) and Personal Care Attendants (6%) were less often cited as exceeding clients’ expectations, and no respondent chose Reader Services in response to this question. One notable difference from 2016 data is the percentage of clients who chose Higher Education Training Services as the service most exceeding their expectations, with only 2% choosing this response compared to 11% in 2016. The proportion of respondents who were unwilling or unable to answer the question also decreased substantially (9 percentage points) from the previous year, accounting for 19% of clients in 2017.

In qualitative follow-up responses, clients stressed the importance of Rehabilitation and Adaptive Equipment Services and related technology in allowing them to function more effectively at home, school, and/or work. Consistent with the theme throughout this survey, a number of clients also mentioned the care and

117

assistance given to them by their counselors as going above and beyond their expectations.

What is your overall satisfaction with the Services provided by the Vocational Rehabilitation Division of BESB?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, 2008 n=95, 2009 n=51, 2010 n=46, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=61, 2013 n=43, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=68, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49


118



119


120

Extent Services Met Expectations

This year, neutral ratings saw a noticeable uptick (20%, up 5 percentage points), while reports of low satisfaction experienced a more modest increase (11%, up 2 percentage points). The percentage of clients who were unable or unwilling to answer the question also experienced a modest increase (5%, up 4 percentage points).

Ratings of the extent to which services provided by BESB exceeded client expectations (74%) rebounded from last year’s rating of 64%, only one percentage point below the all-time high of 75% reported in 2015. In another encouraging trend, dissatisfied ratings dropped 9 percentage points in 2017 to only 2% of clients, equal to the all-time low reported in 2010. Neutral ratings increased by 2 percentage points to 22%, and don’t know/refused responses decreased by 3 percentage points to 2% in 2017. Taken together, these results suggest that BESB services are meeting clients’ expectations to a larger extent than ever before in the 14 years this survey has been conducted.

As a follow-up question, clients were also asked which service provided by BESB most fell short of their expectations. The majority of clients (38%) were unable or unwilling to answer the question, which in this case is encouraging, though lower than last year’s value of 49%. A little over one-in-seven (15%) respondents noted that Rehabilitation and Adaptive Equipment Services fell short of their expectations, with the same number (15%) citing Skills Training. Eleven percent cited Higher Education Training, and Low Vision and Transportation Services were each cited by 8.5% of respondents. Fewer participants (4%) noted that Small Business Venture Services were lacking, and none chose Reader Services in response to this question. Compared to last year’s data, transportation appears to be less of an issue (down 8.5 percentage points), while the dissatisfaction level with Skills Training remained the same.

121

In qualitative follow-up commentary, many clients acknowledged that their disappointment with services was beyond the control of BESB; for example, the technology simply did not exist or there were difficulties with outside parties. Others noted that they did not use many of the services and thus could not provide comment, however, several clients mentioned that communication with their counselors was poor, the counselor was unhelpful or unprofessional, and/or processes were not always completed in a timely manner. The most specific comments involved educational and employment opportunities, with the prominent sentiment being that clients felt their requests were being ignored, particularly regarding education. While dissatisfaction with transportation was the dominant qualitative theme in 2016, only one client mentioned this service in 2017.

To what extent have the Services met your expectations?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, n=2008 = 95, 2009 n=51, 2010 n=46, 2011 n=74, 2012 n=61, 2013 n=43, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=67, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49


122



123


124

Recommending BESB Vocational Rehabilitation Services

The percentage of clients who would recommend BESB to a friend decreased slightly from an all-time high of 98% in 2016 to 96% in 2017. At the same time, the proportion of clients who would not recommend BESB services to a friend increased by 4 percentage points to 4%, replacing the unprecedented 0% reported the previous year. The percentage of clients who were unable or unwilling to answer the question decreased by 2 percentage points to 0% in 2017, returning to 2015 levels. In fact, the proportion of clients selecting yes, no, or don’t know in response to this question in 2017 is identical to the proportion of clients selecting these options in 2015. Looking historically at the proportion of respondents who indicated that they would recommend BESB to a friend, it is only within the past three years that this percentage has risen and remained above 95%, with the 2017 findings continuing this notable trend.

Based on your experience, would you recommend BESB Vocational Rehabilitation Services to a friend?

2003 n=163, 2004 n=141, 2006 n=84, 2007 n=90, n=2008=95, 2009 n=51, 2010 n=49, 2011 n=73, 2012 n=61, 2013 n=45, 2014 n=50, 2015 n=70, 2016 n=56, 2017 n=49

125

Yes 2017 96%Yes 2016 98%Yes 2015 96%Yes 2014 90%Yes 2013 91%Yes 2012 94%Yes 2011 92%Yes 2010 94%Yes 2009 90%Yes 2008 89%Yes 2007 92%Yes 2006 92%Yes 2004 93%Yes 2003 90%

No 2017 4%No 2016 0%No 2015 4%No 2014 8%No 2013 9%No 2012 3%No 2011 7%No 2010 4%No 2009 4%No 2008 9%No 2007 7%No 2006 7%No 2004 5%No 2003 8%

126


127

Methodology

The Vocational Rehabilitation Division at the Bureau of Education and Services for the Blind (BESB) commissioned the Center for Public Policy and Social Research (CPPSR) at Central Connecticut State University to conduct an annual customer satisfaction survey for clients who received services during the 2017 fiscal year.

This survey represents a continuation of the research previously conducted at the University of Connecticut from 2003 through 2008. For 2017, a total of 49 complete interviews were conducted from July 31st through August 10th. Complete interviews are defined as instances when a respondent followed the interview to its entirety. The instrument, as well as the list of clients from which this survey data is drawn, was provided by BESB.

Out of the sample of 113 clients1 who received services from BESB during the 2017 fiscal year, twenty-two individuals refused to respond to the survey – a figure that contributes to the unusually high margin of error. Thirteen clients were deemed to be unreachable. The remaining twenty-nine clients did not answer the phone following numerous attempts. CPPSR called each client a minimum of seven times, though in most cases attempted contact reached upwards of ten calls. Privacy devices were not a major hindrance to reaching clients in 2017; instead, clients appeared to either outright refuse to participate or use voicemail to screen calls at higher rates than in the past.

CPPSR noted no statistically significant changes in responses from 2016 to 2017. Out of respondents who CPPSR was able to reach, this survey has a 8.0% margin of error at the 90% confidence interval. This means that statistical anomalies outside of the +/-8.0% margin of error will only exist approximately ten percent of the time. Connecticut Bureau of Education and Services for the Blind1 114 clients received VR Services during the 2017 fiscal year, but one individual passed away.

128

Vocational Rehabilitation Division

Annotated Questionnaire:Fiscal Year 2017

Conducted by:

Issued November 2017

129

Hello. May I speak with <FNAME> <LNAME>, please? My name is <FNAME>. I am calling on behalf of the Vocational Rehabilitation Division at the Connecticut Bureau of Education and Services for the Blind (BESB). We are conducting a survey evaluating the Services you received and need your opinions. The results of the study will be kept confidential and will only be used in an effort to improve the program. For questions dealing with employment and career issues, please keep in mind that for many BESB clients, homemaker is considered as employment.

Q1a. Have you received Low Vision Services?

Yes 84%No 16%Don't know --Total Respondents 49

Q1b. Did you see an eye doctor referred to you by BESB as part of the Low Vision Services you received?

Yes 84%No 14%Don’t Know 2%Total Respondents 44

130

Q1c. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means "Very Dissatisfied" and 10 means "Very Satisfied", how satisfied were you with these Services?

1-3 3%4-7 16%8-10 81%Total Respondents 38

Q1d. We are interested in improving the Services that are offered. You mentioned that overall you were not very satisfied. What was the main reason you were not satisfied with the Services you received?

Product did not meet my needs/expectations --

The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely 100%Wanted different product --Other --Total Respondents 1

131

Q1e. What was the main reason you were satisfied with the Services you received?

Products/service met my needs/expectations 26%

The provider was knowledgeable/caring 55%

The service was timely 13%Follow-up after the service was good 3%

Access to the service was coordinated effectively --

Other 3%Total Respondents 31

Q2a. Have you received Rehabilitation Technology and Adaptive Equipment Services?

Yes 71%No 27%Don’t know 2%Total Respondents 49

Q2b. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means “Very Dissatisfied” and 10 means “Very Satisfied”, how satisfied were you with these Services?

1-3 6%4-7 17%8-10 77%

132

Total Respondents 35

133

Q2c. We are interested in improving the Services that are offered. You mentioned that overall you were not very satisfied. What was the main reason you were not satisfied with the Services you received?

Product/service did not meet my needs/expectations --

The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely 50%Wanted different product 50%Don’t know --Other --Total Respondents 2

134

Q2d. What was the main reason you were satisfied with the Services you received?




Access to the service was coordinated effectively 13%

Other --Total Respondents 24

Q3a. Have you received Skills Training Services?

Yes 45%No 53%Don't know/Refused 2%Total Respondents 49

Q3b. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means "Very Dissatisfied" and 10 means "Very Satisfied", how satisfied were you with these Services?

1-3 4%4-7 18%8-10 78%Don’t know --

135




The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely 100%Other --Total Respondents 1




The service was timely --Follow-up after the service was good 7%


All of the above --

136


Q4a. Have you received Higher Education Training Services?

Yes 4%No 94%Don’t know 2%Total Respondents 49

Q4b. What type of higher education training did you receive? Was it a traditional college that offered a college degree, or was it a vocational training program that provided a certificate?

Traditional College 100%Vocational Program --Don't Know --Total Respondents 2

Q4c. Did you participate as a full-time or part-time student?

Full-Time 100%Part-Time --Don't Know --Total Respondents 2

137

Q4d. Did you graduate?

Yes 100%No --Don't Know --Total Respondents 2

Q4e. On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means "Very Dissatisfied" and 10 means "Very Satisfied", how satisfied were you with these Services?

1-3 --4-7 --8-10 100%Don’t know --Total Respondents 2

Q4f. We are interested in improving the Services that are offered. You mentioned that overall you were not very satisfied. What was the main reason you were not satisfied with the Services you received?


The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other --

138

Total Respondents 0Q4g. What was the main reason you were satisfied with the Services you received?

Products/service met my needs/expectations --




All of the above --Other (specify) --Total Respondents 2

Q5a. Have you received Reader Services?

Yes 10%No 90%Don't know/Refused --Total Respondents 49

139


1-3 20%4-7 --8-10 80%Total Respondents 5



The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored 100%Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other --Total Respondents 1

140



The provider was knowledgeable/caring 33.3%

The service was timely --Follow-up after the service was good 33.3%


All of the above --Other 33.3%Total Respondents 3

Q6a. Have you received Transportation Services for Training Programs or Employment?

Yes 24.5%No 75.5%Don’t know --Total Respondents 49

141


1-3 --4-7 8%8-10 92%Don’t know --Total Respondents 12



The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other --Total Respondents 0

142




The service was timely 40%Follow-up after the service was good --



Q7a. Have you received Personal Care Attendant Services?

Yes 8%No 92%Don’t know/Refused --Total Respondents 49


1-3 25%4-7 25%

143

8-10 50%Total Respondents 4



The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other 100%Total Respondents 1






All of the above --

144


Q8a. Have you received Small Business Ventures Services?

Yes 14%No 86%Don't know/Refused --Total Respondents 49


1-3 --4-7 14%8-10 86%Total Respondents 7

145



The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Business plan request was reduced or denied --


146



The provider was knowledgeable/caring --



All of the above --Other 17%Total Respondents 6

IQ9. Now I would like you to rate your counselor on the following subjects using a 1 to 10 scale where 1 means "Very Dissatisfied" and 10 means "Very Satisfied." Again, please keep in mind that for many BESB clients, homemaker is considered as employment. First...

Q9a. Helping you to develop your Individualized Plan for Employment also known as an IPE?

1-3 4%4-7 14%8-10 66%Don’t Know/Refused 16%Total respondents 49

147

Q9b. We are interested in improving the Services that are offered. You mentioned that overall you were not very satisfied. What was the main reason you were not satisfied with the Services you received?


The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely 100%Other --Don’t know --Total Respondents 2

148

Q9c. What was the main reason you were satisfied with the Services you received?





All of the above --Other --Don’t know/Refused 5%Total Respondents 21

Q10a. Help you identify your career goals whether they are to find a job, stay in your current job or as a homemaker and the Services you need to achieve that goal?

1-3 --4-7 7%8-10 49%Don’t Know/Refused 44%Total respondents 41

149



The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other --Don't know/refused --Total Respondents 0

150






All of the above --Other --Don’t know --Total Respondents 17

Q11a. Recognize your special needs in regards to employment?


151



The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other 100%Don’t know --Total Respondents 1

152




The service was timely 7.5%Follow-up after the service was good 7.5%


All of the above --Other 4%Don’t know/Refused 4%Total Respondents 26

Q12a. Help you understand your Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Rights and Responsibilities?


153


Product/service did not meet my needs/expectations 100%

The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other --Total Respondents 1






All of the above --Other 7%Don’t know/refused 6%

154

Total Respondents 31Q13a. Help you understand the process for formal complaint resolution (PROBE: review process)?

1-3 2%4-7 8%8-10 16%Don’t Know/Not applicable/Refused 74%Total respondents 36



The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up 100%My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --All of the above --Other --Don’t know/Refused --Total Respondents 1

155






Other --Don’t know/refused 14%Total Respondents 7

Q14a. Provide any information in the format you use, for example Braille, Large Print, Audiotape, or other Language?


156


Product/service did not meet my needs/expectations 100%

The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other --Don't know/Refused --Total Respondents 1

157






All of the above --Other --Don’t know 5%Total Respondents 20

Q15a. How satisfied were you with any referral provided by your counselor such as referral for mobility, low vision, etc.?

1-3 --4-7 4%8-10 71%Don’t Know/Refused/Not Applicable 25%Total respondents 49

158



The quality of the product was poor --There was no follow-up --My needs were ignored --Lack of transportation --The service was not timely --Other --Don’t know/Refused --Total Respondents 0

159






All of the above --Other --Don’t know/Refused --Total Respondents 26

Q16a. The knowledge of your Counselor?

1-3 4%4-7 16%8-10 74%Don’t Know 6%Total respondents 49

160

Q16b. The professionalism of your Counselor?

1-3 6%4-7 6%8-10 88%Don’t Know --Total respondents 48

Q17. Overall, would you say that working with your Counselor has been very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative?

Very Positive 69%Somewhat Positive 23%Neutral 2%Somewhat Negative 4%Very negative 2%Don't know/Refused --Total Respondents 49

Q18. Considering the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) you developed with your Counselor, to what extent have the Services you received met your PLAN? 1 now means, "Falls short of your PLAN" and 10 means "Follow exactly your PLAN."

1-3 8%4-7 6%8-10 53%Don’t Know/Refused 33%

161


Q19. Using the same scale, to what extent did Vocational Rehabilitation Services meet your needs? 1 now means "Did not meet my needs" and 10 means “Perfectly met my needs."

1-3 4%4-7 12%8-10 78%Don't know/Refused 6%Total Respondents 49

Q20. How satisfied were you with the overall timeframe for delivery of Services?

Very Satisfied 61%Somewhat Satisfied 19%Neutral (vol.) 4%Somewhat Dissatisfied 10%Very Dissatisfied 6%Don’t Know --Total Respondents 49

Q21. If applicable, did your Counselor explain to you the delays encountered in providing the Services on time?

Yes 51%No 16%Not Applicable (volunteered) 31%

162

Don’t Know/Refused 2%Total Respondents 49

Q22. Overall, how satisfied were you with the Services your counselor arranged for you?

Very Satisfied 70%Somewhat Satisfied 14%Neutral (vol.) 6%Somewhat Dissatisfied 4%Very Dissatisfied 6%Don’t Know/Refused --Total Respondents 49

Q23. Utilizing a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means "Very Dissatisfied" and 10 means "Very Satisfied", what is your overall satisfaction with the Services provided by the Vocational Rehabilitation Division of the Connecticut Board of Education and Services for the Blind?

1-3 2%4-7 16%8-10 82%Don’t Know --Total Respondents 49

163

Q24a. To what extent have the Services met your expectations? 1 now means "Falls short of my expectations" and 10 means "Exceeds my expectations.”

1-3 2%4-7 22%8-10 74%Don’t Know/Refused 2%Total Respondents 49

Q24b. What ONE service falls short of your expectations?

Low Vision 8.5%Rehabilitation and Adaptive Equipment 15%

Skills Training 15%Higher Education Training 11%Reader --Transportation 8.5%Personal Care Attendant --Small Business Venture 4%Don’t Know/Refused 38%Total Respondents 49

164

Q24c. What ONE service exceeds your expectations?

Low Vision 10.5%Rehabilitation and Adaptive Equipment 35.5%

Skills Training 17%Higher Education Training 2%Reader --Transportation 8%Personal Care Attendant 6%Small Business Venture 2%Don’t Know/Refused 19%Total Respondents 49

Q25. Based on your experience, would you recommend BESB Vocational Rehabilitation Services to a friend?

Yes 96%No 4%Don’t Know --Total Respondents 49

165

Q26. Finally, when you were working with your BESB Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, what town did you live in? (towns were correlated to BESB VR regions)

Eastern 10%North Central 41%Northwest 24.5%South Central 18.5%Southwest 6%Total Respondents 49

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today.

166

fiscal year 2007 report - ct.gov-connecticut's … · web viewthis year paints a very...

Documents