Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
Dissertation/2010 One Stop Career Centers: An assessment of satisfaction from customers using service of a disability program navigator
Contact the author of this 2010 dissertation at: mklecuyer@hotmail.com
Dedication
The rationale for this study was that it is crucial to obtain an assessment as to what extent the Disability Program Navigator Initiative has met the needs of its customers. An evaluation of the Initiative’s customer satisfaction levels allows the one-stop career centers, decision makers, and policy makers to identify whether the program provided quality services and achieved the one-stop career center system’s goals. Obtaining information on these issues enables future modifications to increase customer satisfaction levels and use, improve the services provided by the disability program navigator in the one-stop career centers, and obtain future funding. In light of the implications of three major trends for the future of work; which are shifting demographic patterns, the pace of technological change, and the path of economic globalization; it is imperative that there is greater labor force recruitment and participation by people with disabilities (Rand Labor & Population, 2004). Due to advances in medical care, improvements in the prevention and treatment of disease, and improved workplace conditions that have reduced the physical demands of labor, disability subsequently is less of a health concern for working age men and women (Wilson, Burton, & Howell, 2005).
ONE-STOP
CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF
SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
by
Mary Reicher Noble
(aka Mary K. Lecuyer)
(aka Mary K. Lecuyer)
NANCY
POMEROY, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor
and Chair
PAULA
STECHSCHULTE, Ph.D., Committee Member
DEBRA
HURD, Ph.D., Committee Member
Charles
Tiffin, PhD, Dean, School of Public
Service Leadership
A
Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of
the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor
of Philosophy
Capella University
November
2010
Abstract
Created by the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998, the one-stop career center system was designed to ensure that
effective employment and training services were available to everyone, thereby increasing
the available workforce and employment of individuals with and without
disabilities (Jobs bill gives power to locals, Barlas, 1998). Measures, calculations of performance levels,
and assessment of customer satisfaction were required (Training and employment guidance letter no. 7-99, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training Administration, 2000). In 2002, the Disability Program Navigator Initiative was developed to specifically
assist individuals with disabilities in one-stop career centers, directly and
indirectly (Disability Program
Navigator Initiative, U.S. Department
of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). To gain insight on
whether the goals of the one-stop career center system were met, levels of
satisfaction of one-stop career center customers who used the services provided
by a disability program navigator were
assessed. A sample of 41 ranged from 25-74 years of age with educational levels
from 9-19 years. More than 50% of respondents scored the disability program
navigator service with favorable response ratings on all eight items of the
survey used in this study, the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (The USCF client
satisfaction scales, Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999). Data
analysis results indicated no significant differences in total customer
satisfaction scores between women and men or between participants who
self-identified as having a disability and those who did not. There were no
significant differences in total customer satisfaction scores between
participants who found out about the disability program navigator from the
one-stop career center, from a website/online, from the Social Security office,
unemployment office, or from family/friends. Older respondents gave lower total
client satisfaction scores. Higher total client satisfaction scores were given
by participants with more years of education, who met with the disability
program navigator sooner, and those who spent more time in their meetings. A
low percent of shared variance and small overlap between age, years of
education, number of days until customers’ meetings with the disability program
navigator, or minutes in the meeting, and total customer satisfaction scores,
explained little of the variance in customer satisfaction scores.
Dedication
This academic
milestone is dedicated to several individuals. The most important person was my
loving, supportive, and understanding husband, Scott, who was instrumental in
starting my academic journey and vital to finishing it, and was always there
for me. My caring parents, Beatrice and Jacob, encouraged and supported my
education pursuits in more ways than one. Lastly, I hope that my sons, Kevin
and Rob, accepted and understood all the time I spent on this endeavor.
I acknowledge and
offer my sincere gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Wendy Andberg and Dr. Nancy
Pomeroy, for their ongoing encouragement, guidance, support, and advice. I am
grateful to my dissertation committee, Dr. Paula Stechschulte and Dr. Debra
Hurd, several of my former college professors, Paige Berry, Dr. Amy Armstrong,
Dr. Allen Lewis, and Dr. Christine Reid, as well as Dr. Joann Richardson, who
inspired me to continue my education. I am thankful to several colleagues, Laurie
Meadows, Richard Kriner, Dr. Joe Ashley; to the staff at the Richmond Career
Advancement Center
in Virginia; as well as Dr. Beth Bader, Sarah Littlebear, and Margaret McCall,
who listened to me, and provided feedback and/or encouragement. A special
thank-you to Patty and the deceased Dr. D. Dale Kleppinger, and in particular,
Patty’s never-ending commitment to me. I acknowledge, too, my family’s support,
Peggy, Denise, Eric, April, my in-laws, Sue and Ray, my parents, Beatrice and
Jacob, and especially my wonderfully supportive husband, Scott. I extend a
sincere thank-you to each of these individuals.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments v
List of
Tables ix
List of
Figures xi
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the
Problem 1
Background of the
Study 3
Statement of the
Problem 6
Purpose of the
Study 8
Rationale 10
Research Questions 12
Significance of the
Study 13
Definition of Terms 15
Assumptions 18
Limitations 18
Nature of the Study
and Theoretical Framework 20
Organization of the
Remainder of the Study 22
CHAPTER 2.
LITERATURE REVIEW 23
People with
Disabilities 23
Federal Legislation Targeting
People with Disabilities 27
One-Stop Career Centers 37
Customer Satisfaction 40
Customer
Satisfaction in the One-Stop Career Center System 43
Disability Program
Navigator Initiative 54
CHAPTER 3.
METHODOLOGY 62
Researcher’s
Philosophy 62
Theoretical
Framework 63
Research Design
Strategy 66
Sampling Design 66
Measures 67
Description of the
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) 68
Data Collection
Procedures 71
Data Analysis
Procedures 73
Limitations of
Methodology 75
Expected Findings
and Ethical Issues 76
CHAPTER 4. DATA
COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 80
Introduction 80
Description of the
Sample 80
Summary of Results 85
Details of Analysis
and Results 86
Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire Sample Characteristics 95
Conclusion 115
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 119
Introduction 119
Summary of the Results 119
Discussion of the Results 123
Limitations 126
Recommendations for Further Research 127
Conclusion 125
REFERENCES 133
Appendix A. disability program navigator position
description 145
Appendix B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION SHEET 150
Table
1. Responses
to Item 1. How would you rate the
quality of service you received.
Table 2.
Responses
to Item 2. Did you get the kind
of service you wanted.
Table 3.
Responses
to Item 3. To what extent has the
program met your needs.
Table 4.
Responses
to Item 4. Would you recommend
the program to a friend.
Table 5.
Responses
to Item 5. How satisfied are you
with the amount of help received.
Table 6.
Responses
to Item 6. Have the services helped
with your problems.
Table 7.
Responses
to Item 7. Overall general
satisfaction with service.
Table 8.
Responses
to Item 8. Would you come back
to the program.
Table 9.
Descriptive
Statistics 8 Items on Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8).
Table
10. Pearsons Correlation Results for Age
and Total
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
Scores.
Table
11. Pearsons Correlation Results for
Years of
Education and Total Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) Scores.
Table 12.
Pearsons Correlation Results for
Days until Meeting
with Disability Program Navigator and Total
Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire Scores.
Table
13. Pearsons Correlation Results
for Minutes Spent
in Meeting with Disability Program Navigator and
Total Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire Score.
Table
14. Independent Samples Test for Means
of Total
Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores for
WOMEN AND MEN.
Table
15. Independent Samples Test for Means
of Total Client
Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores and Participants who
Self-Identified a Disability.
Table
16. Independent Samples Test for
Means of Total Client
Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores and Participants Who
Found Out About Disability Program
Navigator From One-Stop
Career Center.
Table
17. Independent Samples Test for Means
of Total Client
Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores and Participants Who
Found Out About Disability Program
Navigator From a
Website/Online.
Table
18. Independent Samples Test for Means
of Total Client
Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores and Participants Who
Found Out About Disability Program
Navigator From the Social Security Office.
Table
19. Independent Samples Test for Means
of Total Client
Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores and Participants Who
Found Out About Disability Program
Navigator From the Unemployment Office.
Table
20. Independent Samples Test for Means
of Total Client
Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores and Participants Who
Found Out About Disability Program Navigator
From Family/Friends.
Table 21. Coefficients
of Determination for Client
Satisfaction Scores.
Table
22. Mean and Standard Deviation on 8
Items on
Client Satisfaction CSQ-8.
List of Figures
Figure
1. Ages
of participants.
83
Figure 2. Years of education of participants. 84
Figure
3. Box-and-whiskers
plot of ages of participants.
88
Figure 4. Box-and-whiskers plot of years of
education of participants.
89
Figure 5. Box-and-whiskers plot for number of days until
participants’ meeting with
disability program
navigator. Outlier at 14-day
mark. 90
Figure 6. Box-and-whiskers plot for minutes in
participants’
meeting with disability program navigator.
Outliers at 2-minute mark and 45-minutes mark. 91
Figure 7. Box-and-whiskers plot for participants’ total
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores. 92
Figure 8. Number of days until meeting with disability
program navigator.
93
Figure 9. Minutes in meeting with disability
program navigator.
95
Figure 10. Distribution
of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) scores. Histogram shows bimodal shape. 96
In 1998, the
one-stop career center system was created by the Workforce Investment Act to
ensure that effective employment and training services were available to all
individuals, including people with disabilities (Barlas, 1998). Measures
and calculation of performance levels regarding core and customer satisfaction
in the one-stop career centers were required under the Workforce Investment Act
(U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2000). The
levels of performance standards that were expected, however, had considerable
bearing on the ability of each state’s workforce system to include people with
significant disabilities (Bader, 2003). To address this problem, the Department of Labor and the
Social Security Administration established the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative in 2002 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training
Administration, 2005). This
initiative was specifically designed to assist individuals with disabilities to
secure the most favorable employment outcomes in the one-stop center career
center system, through a variety of ways, both directly and indirectly.
The
Disability Program Navigator Initiative provided an individual with expertise
on workforce development issues, not only to assist people with disabilities in
the one-stop center career centers and to facilitate their access to disability
services, but to increase the capacity of the one-stop career center to serve
this population (Emery et al., n.d., Holcomb & Barnow, 2004). This was
accomplished by working directly with customers, referring them to other
relevant programs and services, training one-stop career center staff, and
conducting community outreach (Emery et al., n.d.). Through funding in state
grants, disability program navigators also were utilized in the 2005 Disability
Program Navigator Hurricane Initiative, which provided temporary assignments of
workforce professionals for people with disabilities in the Gulf Coast
area (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of
Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.; U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005).
Although the one-stop career center system has been in
existence since 1998, there is limited information regarding the experiences
and satisfaction of its customers who used the services provided by a
disability program navigator. Customers who met with a disability program
navigator included individuals, one-stop career center staff, community
organizations, employers, and local businesses (Emery et al., n.d.). More
specifically, customers included people with multiple employment challenges,
and who had non-visible, undiagnosed, and non-reported disabilities, such as
psychiatric, learning or other cognitive disabilities, or traumatic brain
injuries. This also consisted of people who were not only disabled, but were
youth in the foster care and juvenile justice systems, ex-offenders, TANF
recipients, disabled veterans, older workers, customers in need of English as a
Second Language services, and customers who were illiterate and/or homeless
(Federal News Service, 2009). Despite the fact that in 2009, the Office of
Workforce Investment with the Employment and Training Administration reported
450 disability program navigators across 42 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam (Federal News Service, 2009),
there is a significant deficit of data regarding the utilization of the
services of a disability program navigator by one-stop career center customers.
Therefore, customer satisfaction levels with the Disability Program Navigator Initiative cannot be determined, or to
what extent customers were satisfied.
Assessment of satisfaction from one-stop career center
customers who used the services of a disability program navigator would provide
insight and understanding for improvement and modifications of the Initiative, as
well as future funding for it. Findings would contribute to a greater understanding of the needs of people with
disabilities, and ultimately, possibly increase the employment of
individuals with disabilities in the workforce. Obtaining information regarding
the levels and differences of customer satisfaction with the services of a
disability program navigator could also be used to determine how effectively the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative accomplished the goals of both the
one-stop career center program and the Workforce Investment Act. This would
allow for modifications by decision-makers and policy-makers, as well as
continued and future funding.
President
Clinton signed the Workforce Investment Act as Public Law 105-220 on August 7,
1998 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998). The intentions of the Workforce
Investment Act were to consolidate funds into the Workforce
Development System, thereby replacing a number of smaller federally supported
employment programs, and to combine, coordinate, and improve employment,
training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs in organized labor
(National Council on Disability, 2005). The Workforce Investment Act is organized into five titles
concerning job training; adult education; amendments to both previous
employment acts and vocational rehabilitation acts; and general provisions
targeting all adults ages 18 and older, dislocated workers, and youths aged
14-21 with low incomes (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training
Administration, 1998). Title I of the Workforce Investment Act specifically
established the one-stop career center delivery system as an access point for
employment-related and training services (Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training Administration, 1998). The
one-stop career center system was also designed to integrate, collaborate, and
upgrade relevant community programs and resources, and to provide employers
with a larger pool of qualified, skilled workers (Rutgers,
2002). Federally mandated partnerships in one-stop career centers provided
individuals with meaningful and seamless access to information, services, and
opportunities in the world of work.
The
Workforce Investment Act expired on September 30, 2003, and the Job Training
Improvement Act, House Bill H.R. 27, was passed on March 2, 2005, reauthorizing
the Act (Lordeman, 2006). The bill also contained amendments to Title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 that affected the one-stop career center system (Lordeman,
2006). The bill affected the one-stop career center systems by increasing the
role and flexibility of the State Workforce Investment Board, streamlining
funding and bureaucracy, eliminating duplication, strengthening resource
allocation, and improving accountability.
Despite
the efforts of the Workforce Investment Act and the one-stop career center
system, only about 37% of people with disabilities are reported in the national
workforce (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Six percent of adults aged 16 to 64 with
a disability report the presence of a condition that makes it difficult to
remain employed or to find a job (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Average
earnings of workers with disabilities are lower; they are under-represented in
the workforce, and experience both higher rates of poverty and limited access
to employee benefits (Timmons, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
The
Workforce Investment Act’s Standardized Record Data revealed a
significant decrease from 2001 to 2003 in percentages of people with a
disability successfully exiting the one-stop career center program (National
Council on Disability, 2005). A case study of one-stop career centers in six
states also found that the number of people with disabilities who used the
one-stop career centers was lower than what was expected (Hamner & Timmons,
2005). Reasons suggested for the underutilization were that data collection
systems lacked the ability to clearly identify people with disabilities; non-disclosure
of a disability by customers; insufficient appropriate services for people with
more significant disabilities; and limitations of staff time to assist them in accessing
services (Bader, 2003; Hamner & Timmons, 2005). Other reasons that one-stop
career centers were not used by more individuals with disabilities were the
customers’ lack of ability and personal comfort levels in using the one-stop
career center’s self-directed services (Bader, 2003; Hamner & Timmons,
2005). There was also reluctance by the one-stop career center staff to serve
people with disabilities because investment of the additional time and support
required to assist those with disabilities could possibly result in inadequate
outcomes to meet mandatory performance measures (Bader, 2003; Hamner &
Timmons, 2005). It was found that employers who were aware of one-stop career
centers and used its services were more likely to be large and medium-sized
employers (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005). Reasons given by
employers for not using the one-stop career centers’ services were a lack of
information on the services offered or the breadth of services available,
and/or the use of other training/hiring resources (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005).
In
an effort to streamline services and create seamless service delivery among the
one-stop career center partners, one of the additions jointly developed by the
U.S. Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration was the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative. Established in 2002, the Initiative
provided an expert in the one-stop center career centers who had knowledge and
experience on workforce development issues relative to people with disabilities
(U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). Appendix A provides a
description of the disability program navigator position. In 2004, there were
approximately 227 disability program navigators who facilitated access to
disability services to secure the most favorable employment outcome for
one-stop career center customers with disabilities (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004;
U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 2005). On June 30,
2006, additional U.S. Department of Labor grant monies were awarded to both
fund disability program navigators in 13 states and to maintain the program in
17 states (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006). This study assessed the
satisfaction of one-stop career center customers who utilized the services of
the disability program navigator in two one-stop career centers, thereby providing
insight on the program’s effectiveness in meeting its goals.
Performance
accountability for customer-focused results in the one-stop career center
system was required by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which involved data collection, tracking of
performance, analysis of information, and modification of strategies for
improvement (D’Amico, Kogan, Kreutzer, Wiegand, Baker, Carrick & McCarthy,
2001). A Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL 7-99) issued by
the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (2000)
addressed core and customer satisfaction measures in one-stop career centers
required under the Workforce Investment Act. A survey approach was mandated,
using a small set of questions to form a customer satisfaction index, and based
on the American Customer Satisfaction Index (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment
& Training Administration, 2000). History of usefulness of the American
Customer Satisfaction Index in tracking change over time, indicated it assessed
performance accountability
for customer-focused results required by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training
Administration, 2000).
The
performance standards of the Workforce Investment Act, however, did not address
employment issues of any special populations, such as individuals with a
disability (Bader, 2003). Furthermore, although significant studies are
available on one-stop career center customer satisfaction, limited research has
been conducted addressing satisfaction of one-stop career center customers. Initially,
the disability program navigator’s role in the one-stop career centers was to
assist people with disabilities navigate through the challenges of the job
search process and develop comparable disability expertise in other
one-stop career center staff (Virginia Commonwealth University, 2005; Emery et
al., n.d.).
As the program grew, disability program navigators’ responsibilities expanded to include developing links, providing assistance to employers with recruitment needs, conducting outreach to organizations serving people with disabilities, and serving as a resource on federal disability incentives and benefits; thereby improving the coordination of one-stop career centers’ resources for people with disabilities (Institute for Community Inclusion, 2004). Nevertheless, only a few studies are presently available regarding customers’ levels of satisfaction with the services provided by a disability program navigator. Since implementation in 2002, the Disability Program Navigator Initiative continued to evolve, and information from the individuals it was designed to assist is valuable to determine if, in fact, it has satisfactorily met the needs of its customers.
As the program grew, disability program navigators’ responsibilities expanded to include developing links, providing assistance to employers with recruitment needs, conducting outreach to organizations serving people with disabilities, and serving as a resource on federal disability incentives and benefits; thereby improving the coordination of one-stop career centers’ resources for people with disabilities (Institute for Community Inclusion, 2004). Nevertheless, only a few studies are presently available regarding customers’ levels of satisfaction with the services provided by a disability program navigator. Since implementation in 2002, the Disability Program Navigator Initiative continued to evolve, and information from the individuals it was designed to assist is valuable to determine if, in fact, it has satisfactorily met the needs of its customers.
One of the best
practices found at one-stop career centers serving people with disabilities was
an individual with expertise in disability issues, termed a disability program
navigator, and previously referred to as a disability resource specialist
(Bader, 2003). The Disability
Program Navigator Initiative provided funding for such an expert, who could
provide on-site disability consultation, screenings, assistance in identification,
coordination, and facilitation of communication among the one-stops, community
disability providers, and disability resources (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment
& Training Administration,
2005). Often opportunities, participation, and involvement of people
with disabilities are frequently denied or limited due to agency regulations,
lack of accessibility, inadequate supports, and stereotypical attitudes
(Kosciulek, 2004). Assumptions are frequently made that limit choices by people
with disabilities, and are based on the avoidance of undesirable or unavailable
alternatives and/or a lack of knowledge of capabilities and desires (Kosciulek,
2004). The Disability Program Navigator Initiative sought to address the lack
of informed choices for people with disabilities. In addition to serving as a
point of contact for people with disabilities, disability program navigators
assisted one-stop career center staff, management, and partner agencies with
disability-related issues (Bader, 2003).
The purpose of
this quantitative study was to assess and analyze levels of customer
satisfaction at one-stop career centers that participated in the Disability
Program Navigator Initiative, in an effort to augment the limited research in
this area. The survey used in this study allowed for a determination of
customer satisfaction levels and incorporated the “voice of the customer.” The
“voice of the customer” has been a frequent focus of business research to
improve customer satisfaction and develop a more competitive edge (Stank,
Daugherty, & Ellington, 1997). A tenet of management approaches, such as
Deming’s Total Quality Management, Quality Function Deployment, and the Kano
Model of customer satisfaction, the “voice of the customer” indicates that assumptions
are not made regarding the customer wants (Spencer, 2000; Stank et al., 1997).
Rather, it is what the customers themselves want that drives service
development and delivery, and it is achieved through measurement of their
perceptions of services as they are, not as the organizations imagine services
are, or as they believe customers want (Fournier-Bonilla, 1998; Spencer, 2000).
A basic rule of business and an age-old adage is that if
you do not measure it, you cannot manage it (Customer
Focus Consulting, 2003). A customer-driven focus enables an organization to
maximize limited funding and resources to provide what the customers want, and
to determine what is not needed (Spencer, 2000).
Findings in this study contributed
to increased insight as to what extent the Initiative has achieved the goals of
the one-stop career center system. The study could be replicated in future
studies for evaluations and research with programs that have a disability
program navigator.
The
Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (2001) indicated
that key goals of the one-stop career center approach, in its application to
people with disabilities, were to streamline services, empower individuals, and
provide universal accessibility. Streamlined services from all partners enabled
activities and information to be co-located, coordinated, and integrated as a
whole (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001). Financial
empowerment for individuals was achieved with Individual Training Accounts that allowed eligible adults to purchase
training services, in conjunction with advice, guidance, and support through
the one-stop career center system (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability
Employment Policy, 2001). Universal accessibility to core employment-related
services ensured that any individual was able to access a variety of employment
services (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001;
Timmons, Fesko & Cohen, 2004). Accessibility included physical access to a
center, as well as virtual and computer-based resources, programs, and services
(Funaro & Dixon, 2002; Hoff, 2002). Universal accessibility in all aspects
of the one-stop career center enables use by diverse populations, including
people with a disability, such as physical, sensory, and learning disabilities,
mental retardation, mental health issues, and head injuries (Hoff, 2002).
Other
goals of the one-stop career center system were to develop an accurate
performance assessment of its responsiveness to people with disabilities (Hall
& Parker, 2005), and to create meaningful and seamless service delivery
between the workforce and disability systems (Cohen, Timmons, & Fesko,
2005). Seamless service delivery consists of a streamlined delivery of services
by different agencies, and is smooth, coordinated, and efficient, reduces
paperwork, avoids duplication, and links multiple programs into one system
(Cohen et al., 2005). Therefore, a person with a disability would not need to
navigate multiple services systems in order to access a variety of necessary
services, which can be overwhelming (Cohen et al., 2005). Instead, the partner
agencies of the one-stop career center negotiate with each other to collaborate
and coordinate their services, resulting in improved consumer outcomes and
simplification of the process for customers (Cohen et al., 2005).
If
the one-stop career center system was successful in achieving the goal of
increasing the employment rate of people with disabilities, economic statistics
would reflect this, and should likewise, reflect an increase in their
employment. Evaluation of the performance of the one-stop career center’s
employment services, however, revealed that Workforce Investment Act customers with disabilities were
typically less likely to enter employment and retain employment when compared
to peers without disabilities (Hall & Parker, 2005). Holcomb & Barnow
(2004) found that, although the program enrolled a number of people with
disabilities, only a small proportion of them were actually served.
Furthermore, people with disabilities who exited the program had lower
employment and earnings than other exiting customers (Holcomb & Barnow,
2004). The Center for an Accessible Society (2005) has also indicated that the
percentage of people with disabilities in the workforce remains at 30%, the
same as when the Americans with Disabilities Act became law.
The rationale for this study was that it is crucial to obtain an assessment as to what extent the Disability Program Navigator Initiative has met the needs of its customers. An evaluation of the Initiative’s customer satisfaction levels allows the one-stop career centers, decision makers, and policy makers to identify whether the program provided quality services and achieved the one-stop career center system’s goals. Obtaining information on these issues enables future modifications to increase customer satisfaction levels and use, improve the services provided by the disability program navigator in the one-stop career centers, and obtain future funding. In light of the implications of three major trends for the future of work; which are shifting demographic patterns, the pace of technological change, and the path of economic globalization; it is imperative that there is greater labor force recruitment and participation by people with disabilities (Rand Labor & Population, 2004). Due to advances in medical care, improvements in the prevention and treatment of disease, and improved workplace conditions that have reduced the physical demands of labor, disability subsequently is less of a health concern for working age men and women (Wilson, Burton, & Howell, 2005).
The purpose of this quantitative
study was to assess customer satisfaction and examine the factors that
influence customer satisfaction of individuals who were referred to, and used
the services of a disability program navigator in a sample of one-stop career
centers. The quantitative research design was descriptive and included a survey
of customer demographics and levels of satisfaction, allowing for a systemic
analysis and description of the data and characteristics of the one-stop career
center’s customers (Simon, 2001). There was no manipulation of variables or
attempts to establish causality (Simon, 2001). The survey in this study was
used to elicit respondents’ rated opinions of relevant satisfaction concepts,
and since these were ordinal measures of internal states in terms of less and
more to classify and/or rank them (Bernard, 2000), statistical data was
obtained indicating differences in satisfaction levels (Sproull, 2002).
The
following research questions were addressed.
- To what extent are customers satisfied with the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop career centers?
- What are the areas that customers identify as needing improvement?
- How do the customers’ levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting?
Significance of
the Study
The rationale for this study’s research problem was
based on the national emphasis toward assisting more people with disabilities
to obtain employment, and the continuing desire and drive to utilize the
one-stop career center system more efficiently and effectively. The one-stop
career center system continues to experience substantial developments and
changes, which have contributed toward the lack of studies regarding the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative. Neither the levels of satisfaction by
customers who received services under the Initiative, or the success of the
Initiative in achieving the goals of the one-stop career program can be
determined. This study addressed this deficiency by providing data and
information for future studies, and contributed to greater insight and
understanding of the needs of people with disabilities in the job-seeking
process.
A change in
approximately 58.3% of the state vocational rehabilitation agencies had a
significant impact on the referrals of people with disabilities to the one-stop
career centers (Anderson, Boone, & Watson, 2002). The nationwide change was
the “order of selection.” Under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, all states
receive federal funds to provide vocational rehabilitation services to people
with disabilities. However, if a state determines there will be insufficient
resources to provide vocational rehabilitation services to all eligible
individuals who apply, an order of selection process can be implemented (United
States Code, 29 USC, 721). In the order of selection process, eligible
individuals with the most significant disabilities are served first, and then
eligible individuals with a significant disability may be served next, on a
first-applied, first-served basis (United States Code, 29 USC, 721). The
procedure established categories of priorities based on the significance of the disability and the
associated functional limitations, thereby creating a waiting list for eligible
individuals who fall into categories that cannot be served until funding is
available (Virginia Dept. of Rehabilitation Services, 2004).
Individuals on the Order of
Selection waiting list are entitled to appropriate referrals to other
state and federal programs, including other providers within the state
workforce investment system, such as the one-stop career centers (United States Code, 29 USC, 721). If an individual
qualifies for services from a vocational rehabilitation agency, under the Workforce Investment Act, he or she
can choose not to utilize these services, since it is not mandated that an
individual must use vocational rehabilitation (Hoff, 1992-2005). Alternatively,
the individual can use a combination of both vocational rehabilitation and
one-stop career center services (Hoff, 1992-2005). Past studies have found that
the one-stop career center system alone has not met the needs of its customers
with disabilities, and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative was
subsequently created to address this deficiency.
In light of the order of
selection process implemented by over one-half of state vocational
rehabilitation departments, as well as the deficit in research on people with
disabilities in the one-stop career center system, it is imperative to
determine whether the Disability Program Navigator Initiative met this
population’s needs. Therefore, an assessment of customer satisfaction was
crucial for obtaining information that can be used to ascertain this.
Terms used in this study are defined as
follows.
Customer. An individual who directly benefits from the serviced provided (Deese, 2002).
Customer Satisfaction. The degree to which an agency meets or exceeds the expectations of the individual (Deese, 2002).
Individual With a Disability. An individual with any disability, as defined in section
3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC, 2102). The Act defines a person with a disability as an individual with a physical or mental disability that substantially limits a major life activity, or has a record of such a disability, or is regarded as having such a disability.
Informed Consent. A principle that was first included in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, enabling a person to make meaningful decisions and choices (Kosciulek, 2004). In the informed consent process, a person can achieve his or her goals because he or she has been provided the information required in order to consciously consider all the available options. During the informed consent process, information is presented in an environment that facilitates an understanding by the person as to options available, the services needed to achieve desired outcomes, and how the services will be provided (Kosciulek, 2004). Thus, the informed consent allows for full and active involvement by the individual (Kosciulek, 2004).
One-Stop Career Center. The federal term given to the states' creation of comprehensive centers for employment and training access and information (Deese, 2002). A comprehensive one-stop career center provides a full or complete range of employment and benefit services, which included career counseling, training and education offerings, job search, job matching, and financial aid applications.
One-Stop Career Center Partner. An entity that is participating, with the approval of the workforce local board and chief elected official, in the operation of a one-stop career center program delivery system (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998).
Reasonable Accommodation. Modification of an environment and conditions to enable individuals with disabilities to participate on an equal basis (Social Security Administration, 2000).
Universal Accessibility. Services, products, and environments that are designed to enable use to the greatest extent possible by any individual, without the need for adaptation, special design, or assistive technology (Adaptive Environments, 2006).
Vocational Rehabilitation Agency. An agency that provides employment-related services to people with disabilities to achieve their vocational and economic goals (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998).
Workforce Investment Act. The federally-funded legislation authorizing the state and local communities to develop a new workforce delivery structure through one-stop career centers (Deese, 2002). One-stop career centers are located in a community business that has met federal criteria and receives funding under the Workforce Investment Act for the purpose of providing employment-related services under one roof. The community businesses may be a state or local government agency, a nonprofit organization, community colleges, or a for-profit firm (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).
The following assumptions were made for the purpose of
this study.
- Voluntary respondents were solicited by the contact person in participating research sites following instructions provided in the researcher’s instructions.
- Participants answered questions on the surveys honestly.
- Participating one-stop career centers and their disability program navigators were able to facilitate reasonable accommodation to allow an individual with a disability to complete the surveys if it was requested.
The
following were the limitations of this study.
- Limitations of the use of a self-administered questionnaire included lack of control over how the questions were interpreted or answered, and the researcher’s inability to administer it to all types of disabilities, such as those who are illiterate because of a disability (Bernard, 2000).
- Due to the number of one-stop career centers nationwide with a disability program navigator, it was not possible to survey each one. Participating one-stop career centers were chosen from a sample of nationwide one-stop career centers that serve people with disabilities that were identified by a panel of experts (Bader, 2003). This limited the generalizability of the study’s findings.
- Respondents were limited to those who actually met with the disability program navigator at participating one-stop career centers. This allowed for a sample that possessed characteristics important for this study (Sproull, 2002).
- Respondents were further limited to those whom the contact person at the one-stop career centers solicited for participation, were able and willing to participate, and voluntarily completed and returned the surveys. Additionally, survey respondents were limited to one-stop career center customers who met with the disability program navigator and were capable of understanding and completing the surveys.
- Another limitation was the time period during which data was collected, which was not a randomly determined time period, but based on time, convenience, and availability of both the disability program navigators and their customers. Therefore, the months during which the surveys were collected may have had an effect on the study.
- Under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act, a service delivery framework is created for the fundamentals and principles of the one-stop career center system (Deese, 2002; Morris, 2002). Each state, however, has the flexibility to develop and implement specific strategies, activities, and interventions that meet the community’s needs (Deese, 2002; Morris, 2002). Therefore, variations in implementation of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative among one-stop career centers limited the ability to generalize this study’s findings to other one-stop career centers and their customers (Bader, 2003).
This
study was a descriptive study of customer satisfaction based on previous survey
instruments and the goals of the one-stop career center system. The primary
focus was to survey the levels of satisfaction from customers who utilized the
services of a disability program navigator. The quantitative data collection
included selected demographics, such as, gender, age, and education level, and was
used to segment groups (Sproull, 2002). The survey design enabled assessment of
the relationship among the levels of satisfaction and demographic data, and
provided information for improvement of services (Sproull, 2002). The one-stop
career centers’ assistance with administration of the survey sent an important
message to their customers (Deese, 2002), which was that customer satisfaction
is not only desirable and valuable to the system, but that customers’
perspectives and input are paramount (Deese, 2002).
This
study was based on the theoretical framework of work and employment,
specifically the theory of work adjustment. The focus of the one-stop career
center system is to assist its customers to find and obtain employment, a
significant vocational goal of adult career development (Jepsen & Sheu,
2003). Considering the amount of time most individuals spend working, the
overall attitude of liking or disliking of a
job, that is, job satisfaction, is a significant marker of adult vocational
adjustment, as well as a major indicator of quality of life (Jepsen & Sheu,
2003; Witte, Philips & Kakela, 1998). Work and career theories are used to
explain, understand, and predict an individual’s vocational behavior and job
satisfaction (Swanson & Fouad, 1999). Vocational behaviors include career
choice, work adjustment, and life span career progress, as well as the
trait-and-factor theory (Swanson & Fouad, 1999). Also referred to as
person-environment fit or congruence, trait-and-factor theories focus on the
match between individual traits and work environmental factors (Swanson &
Fouad, 1999).
The
person-environment fit theoretical foundation assumes that when individuals are
more satisfied, their work performance is better, the employing organizations
are more effective, workers’ organizational commitment is higher, and employee
turnover is less, thus resulting in enhancement of vocational adjustment,
individual positive experience, and environmental compatibility (Kristof-Brown,
Jansen, & Colbert, 2002; Ostroff & Rothausen, 1997). Judge and Bretz
(1992) have also reported literature and findings on person-organization fit
indicating that employees who match job or organizational values are more
satisfied and less likely to leave the company. One of the significant
person-environment fit theories addressing the degree of match between an
individual and environment is the Theory of Work Adjustment (Lawson, 2002;
Lyons, 2004; Swanson & Fouad, 1999a).
Developed
by Dawis, England, and Lofquist, the Theory
of Work Adjustment has also been used as a model for people with disabilities
in the workforce (Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964; Dawis, 2005; Lyons, 2004;
Strauser & Lustig, 2003). The concepts of the Theory of Work Adjustment
concern the individual, the work environment, and the unique interaction
between the two, and predict job satisfaction, success, and tenure (Swanson
& Fouad, 1999). Using a dual focus, the Theory of Work Adjustment describes
the relationship between an individual and his or her work environment, and how
there is continual interaction, or “correspondence,” between them in
harmoniously meeting each other’s needs and requirements (Lyons, 2004; Swanson
& Fouad, 1999). The dynamic process of meeting these dual demands is called
“work adjustment,” and consists of both satisfactory coworker relationships and
satisfactory job performance (Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1964). Stronger
correspondence and congruence lead to increased job retention and tenure, that
is, the length of time that an employee remains in an organization (Lyons,
2004).
According to Lofquist & Dawis’
Theory of Work Adjustment (1964), a match between a worker and rewards of a job
will result in job satisfaction and subsequent employment stability (Vandenberg
& Scarpello, 1990). Job satisfaction also predicts attendance,
participation, morale, and overall life satisfaction (Bolton & Brookings,
1991). The Theory of Work Adjustment was the theoretical foundation for this
study in that achievement of employment and subsequent work adjustment and job
satisfaction are goals of both the one-stop career center system and the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative.
Chapter
2 reviews the literature on people with disabilities, customer satisfaction,
one-stop career centers, customer satisfaction in the one-stop career center
system, and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative. Chapter 3 describes
the methodology design, the sample population, the survey instruments, data
collected, anticipated findings, and ethical issues. Chapter 4 identifies the
data analysis strategy and findings of the research. Chapter 5 contains a
discussion on the findings, implications, and recommendations for further
study.
Significant research exists on customer satisfaction and customer
satisfaction of people with disabilities. There is a substantial gap, however,
on the research of customers who used the services of a disability program navigator
in one-stop career centers, whether or not the customer had a disability. This
chapter reviews applicable literature on people with disabilities and relevant
federal policy, one-stop career centers, and customer satisfaction. Also
included in this chapter are discussions of literature on customer satisfaction
and assessment in the one-stop career centers, and the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative.
Several definitions of a person with a disability
currently exist in data collection, measurement, and eligibility criteria of
public, private, and governmental programs. Capturing the concept of disability
for the purpose of measurement is, and has been, an ongoing challenge, and
influences the goals of programs assisting people with disabilities (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2004). Challenges have included collecting statistics to match a
survey’s purpose, development and suitability of the measurement approach, and
reporting of the statistics, which reflect inadequate flexibility in the data
to distinguish among mild, moderate, and severe disability (Eustis, Clark,
& Adler, 1995; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). These challenges are discussed in
the following section.
According to Moore
and Feist-Price (as cited in Bruyere, 1999), three perspectives have been
identified in defining disability; they are the medical model, the economic
model, and the sociopolitical model. The medical model considers disability as
a deficiency within an individual, emphasizes the functional limitations of
disability, and influenced the structure of the Social Security
Administration’s benefits programs (Burkhauser & Stapleton, 2004; Bruyere,
1999; Social Security Advisory Board, 2003). Two disability programs of the
Social Security Administration providing cash benefits to individuals are
Social Security Disability Insurance and
Supplemental Security Income (Silverstein,
2002). The same definition of disability is used for both programs, that is,
the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a
medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is expected to last
for a continuous period of not less than 12 months or to result in death
(Silverstein, 2002).
The
economic perspective of disability focuses on the limiting effects of a
disability in the amount of work an individual can do (Bruyere, 1999). The
sociopolitical model focuses on the fact that it is an individual’s societal
environment that labels them as different, and not the actual disability itself
(Bruyere, 1999). A more recent model of disability views the environmental
barriers and attitudes of other people as the “handicap” of the disability
(Bruyere, 1999).
The Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 both
used the definition of handicap
to define disability (National Council on Disability,
2004; Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.; U.S. Dept of Labor). The
two federal acts broadly define a person with a disability as an
individual who has a physical or mental disability that substantially limit a
major life activity, or who has a record of such a disability, or is regarded
as having such a disability (U.S.
Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). The definition,
based on the Nagi framework, recognizes the interaction of the environment and
impairments in the cause of disabilities, and views disability as a difficulty
in performing socially expected activities (Livermore & Goodman, 2009).
Two
questions about disability in the Census 2000 were based on daily functional
limitations, and subsequently used to define six specific subpopulations of
disability (Livermore & Goodman,
2009). An individual
was considered to have a disability if he or she answered yes to either question.
According to the Census 2000, which used a functional limitation of disability
to identify the total population with disabilities, there are 49.7 million
people aged 5 and over with a disability in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau,
2002).
“Disability”
is defined by the Current Population Survey as a person with a disability who has a health
problem or disability which prevents him/her from working or which limits the
kind or amount of work he/she can do (U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). The
Current Population Survey, sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, is one of the oldest, largest, and most
well-recognized surveys in the United
States. It provides information on labor
force statistics and extensive social, economic, and demographic data (U.S.
Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). The Current Population
Survey is a multistage stratified sample consisting of individuals 15 years of
age or over, who are not in the Armed Forces, or in any institution, such as
prisons, long-term care hospitals, or nursing homes (U.S. Census Bureau &
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002).
Work
limitation questions appear in the American Community Survey, National Health
Interview Survey, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Panel of Income Dynamics,
Survey of Income and Program Participation, and the Health and Retirement
Survey (Livermore & Goodman,
2009). Bagenstos
(2004) indicated that none of these organizations measure disability according
to the definition used by the Americans With Disability Act, and this has
resulted in identification of none or only some of the same population.
Houtenville and Burkhauser (2004) also agreed that a representative sample of
the population with disabilities is nonexistent due to the lack of a data
source that captures all aspects of a disability. Moreover, an individual must
report that he or she has a disability in order to be counted in data collection
of people with a disability. Parker and Hoff (2004) reported that unfamiliarity
with the definitions of disability, or the fear of stigma or discrimination,
might cause individuals not to disclose that they have a disability, further
resulting in an under-counting of this population.
In
an effort to provide a unified standard language and framework to describe
disability, functioning, and health, an international classification was
developed by the World Health Organization (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The
classification reflects the more current perspective of disability as a complex
interaction between a person and his or her environment, and considers not only
the individual’s impairment, but also barriers in the environment that prevent
full social participation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Schur, Kruse, and Blanck
(2005) wrote that “No matter what the definition, employment levels of people
with disabilities remain well below those of non-disabled people, and the
majority of non-employed people with disabilities would prefer to be working”
(p 5).
The federal government has enacted many laws,
programs, and incentives targeting people with disabilities to assist them in
obtaining and maintaining employment. An overview of applicable federal
legislature relevant to this study is discussed in the following sections.
Rehabilitation Act
of 1973
The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the
first federal requirement for removal
of discriminatory barriers in employment for people with disabilities, and also
provided vocational rehabilitation benefits to people with disabilities
(Stefan, 2002). Section 501 of the Act required affirmative action by federal
agencies in hiring and advancement of qualified people with disabilities (U.S.
Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). Section 503
required employers with federal contracts exceeding $10,000 to take affirmation
action in employing individuals with disabilities, and Section 504 prohibited
discrimination by employers and organizations receiving federal financial aid
(U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).
Modeled after the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, the Americans With
Disabilities Act became law on July
26, 1990 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).
The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibited discrimination based on
disability in the private sector and state and local governments in employment,
public accommodations, services, and transportation provided by public and
private entities (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.). Five titles comprise the Americans With Disabilities Act. Title I
specifically prohibited discrimination
in all employment practices of employers with 15 or more employees if an
individual is qualified to perform the essential job functions (U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). Title I also mandated
that an employer must provide reasonable accommodations or modifications for a
qualified individual with a disability, provided such accommodation does not
present an undue hardship on the business’ operation (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).
A qualified
individual is defined as a person with the education and/or experience to
perform the essential functions of a job with or without reasonable
accommodation (National Center on Workforce and Disability, 1998). Essential
job functions are fundamental job duties that an employer considers during the
selection process, and do not include marginal functions that the employer
would prefer and/or like an employee to perform (Campbell, 2002). Undue hardship is an action
that is excessive, substantial, disruptive or extensive so that it fundamentally
alters the natural operation of a business (Bruyere, 2002). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
enforces the Americans With Disabilities Act, and in 1999,
comprehensive policy guidance and documents were released on reasonable
accommodations and undue hardship (Bruyere, 2002; Social Security
Administration, 2000). The year 2010 marked the 20th
anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and has resulted in
renewed efforts towards greater workforce participation by people with
disabilities.
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act of 1999
The purpose
of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 was to
provide more resources and control by beneficiaries over the resources, and to
increase the number of employment service providers, including the one-stop
career center (Burkhauser & Stapleton, 2004; Silverstein, 2002). The Act
provided other services that encouraged federal disability benefit recipients
to seek employment, which included counseling to assist in understanding the
impact of earning on benefits, applying for and receiving available work
incentives, as well as the extension of medical benefits while an individual is
working (Silverstein, 2002; U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment
Policy, n.d.). Implemented in 2001, a Ticket to Work is issued by the Social
Security Administration to people with disabilities 18 through 64 years old who
receive federal disability benefits and meet criteria for voluntary
participation (Silverstein, 2002). The holder of a Ticket can then assign it to
any eligible service provider, called an employment network, which includes the
state vocational rehabilitation system and one-stop career centers. Social
Security Administration compensates the employment network for employment
service costs of a specified amount when the individual is no longer entitled
to federal disability cash benefits (Silverstein, 2002). A Ticket holder can
re-assign the Ticket to another employment network of his or her choice if they
wish, as long as the employment network is willing to accept the assignment
(Silverstein, 2002). An employment network must apply to participate in the
Ticket to Work program and provide documentation of monthly earnings of program
individuals in a timely and efficient manner (Silverstein, 2002). As of May 31, 2005, there were
1,320 employment networks, and out of 10,669,219 tickets issued nationwide,
7,493 tickets have been assigned to employment networks (Social Security
Online, 2005).
An
evaluation of the first five months of implementation and statistics of the
Ticket to Work program was conducted in 2004 (Mathematica Policy Research,
2004). The survey reported low Ticket rates and beneficiary participation, concentrated
assignments among a few employment networks and state vocational rehabilitation
agencies, and general dissatisfaction and variety in other employment networks
(Mathematica Policy Research, 2004). Factors contributing to low participation
by one-stop career centers included high risk, low payments, and long delays in
payments (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).
Additional
federal policy regarding individuals with disability include the Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards and ADA Accessibility Guidelines, developed
pursuant to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.). The Standards and Guidelines required buildings built with federal funds
or leased by federal agencies to be accessible for people with disabilities.
Likewise, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ensured that telecommunications
equipment is designed to be accessible and usable by people with disabilities
(U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). The Family
and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year for
a worker to care for family members with serious health conditions, to recover
from serious health conditions, or care for newborn children (U.S. Dept of
Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). The Assistive Technology
Act of 1998 addressed additional assistive technology needs of people with
disabilities (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.).
The Presidential Task Force on
Employment of Adults With Disabilities was created to coordinate national
policy to increase the employment of people with disabilities, and consisted of
17 federal agencies (Bruyere, Erickson & Horne, 2002). The Task Force
provided support to Cornell
University to conduct research
on how federal agencies responded to the employment disability
nondiscrimination requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With
Disabilities Act. In collaboration
with the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), Cornwell University
conducted a telephone random survey of 813 human resource professionals who
also were SHRM members (Bruyere, 2002). A 10-page questionnaire on employer
practices in response to the Americans With Disabilities Act’s employment
provisions covered questions on recruitment, interviewing, job screening,
testing, hiring, promotion, staff development, accommodation practices,
grievance, termination, and disability management processes (Bruyere, 2002).
Findings showed a significant amount of uncertainty concerning interplay of the
Americans With Disabilities Act and
other employment legislation, and recommendations included a follow-up study of
federal agency supervisors and managers (Bruyere, 2002; Bruyere et al., 2002).
A follow-up survey of 1001 federal
agency supervisors and managers conducted in 2001-2002 by Cornell University
paralleled the previous Task Force 1999 survey. The telephone survey described
respondents’ experience and perceptions of the effectiveness of resources, as
well as their awareness of executive orders issued in 2000 concerning
employment and accommodation of individuals with disabilities in the federal
workforce (Bruyere et al., 2002). The executive orders referred to three
specific orders that related to the hiring of 100,000 qualified individuals
over a five-year period, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission’s written procedures on reasonable
accommodation, and the July 2000 Federal Initiative on telecommuting and telework
for people with significant disabilities (Bruyere et al., 2002). Even
though respondents reported significant involvement in the recruitment process,
over a third of them were not aware of any of the three executive orders, while
only one in five was aware of all three orders (Bruyere et al., 2002).
Federal tax
incentives are available to encourage the recruitment and hiring of individuals
with disabilities. These include the Disabled Access Credit available to small
businesses regarding “eligible access expenditures” and the Work Opportunity
Tax Credit in hiring and employing people with disabilities (U.S. Dept of
Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.; U.S. General Accounting
Office, 2002). If a business makes its facility or public transportation
vehicle more accessible and usable by people with disabilities, it is entitled
to the Architectural and Transportation Barrier Removal Deduction, under
Section 190 of the Tax Reform Act (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability
Employment Policy, n.d.). If specific criteria are met, the deductions can
result in a reduction of overall employment costs, improved employee morale,
and enhancement of customer base.
In a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (2002), it
was found that tax incentive credits encouraging the hiring, retention, and
accommodation of workers with disabilities was reported by only a very small
proportion of 1999 corporate and business taxpayers. The report concluded that
actual information at the time was limited and inconclusive regarding the tax
incentives’ effectiveness, perhaps due to a lack of awareness.
Further
efforts of the federal government to improve employment services for people
with disabilities included the New Freedom Initiative. The New Freedom
Initiative was described as a comprehensive set of guidelines and strategy that
allowed full integration of people with disabilities into all aspects of
American life (U.S. Dept. of Health &
Human Services, 2003).
Announced by President Bush in 2001, the New Freedom Initiative was an effort
to eliminate barriers to equality faced by Americans with disabilities, and
included the Integrating Americans with
Disabilities into the Workforce Initiative (U.S.
Dept. of Health & Human Services, 2003).
The
Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration jointly established
the Disability Program Navigator Initiative in 2002 (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
2005). The initiative provided an expert on workforce development issues for
people with disabilities in the one-stop center career centers, who also
facilitated access to disability services to secure the most favorable
employment outcome (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).
On May 8,
2005, the House passed H.R.1261 (New York State Workforce Investment Board,
n.d.) The legislation clarified the methodology for determining funds that
one-stop career center partners contributed to infrastructure costs (New York
State Workforce Investment Board, n.d.). A major job training reform
plan as part of the fiscal year 2006 was proposed by President Bush. The budget request gave governors the
flexibility to combine resources into their state grants for vocational
rehabilitation that provided services to people with disabilities in the
workforce (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002). Several additional federal
programs were directed at employers in hiring, retaining, and accommodating
workers with disabilities. These programs included the Business Leadership
Network, Disability and Business
Technical Assistance
Centers, Employer
Assistance Referral Network, Job Accommodation Network, Project EMPLOY,
Projects With Industry, Ticket to Hire, and Workforce Recruitment Program (U.S.
General Accounting Office, 2002).
Goals of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Strategic Plan for
Fiscal Years 2006-2011 included prior year’s results and long-term targets,
which were; A prepared workforce; a competitive workforce; safe and secure
workplaces; and strengthened economic protections (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006a).
One of the performance goals under “a competitive workforce” recognized that
the employment rate for people with disabilities has not increased
significantly in the past twenty years (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006a). The plan
implemented an approach to increase the capacity of the workforce investment
system by comprehensively addressing this issue in developing policies and
strategies affecting people with disabilities and employers (U.S. Dept. of
Labor, 2006a).
On
Feb. 13, 2009, Congress passed the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
This Act contained areas affecting people with disabilities, including recovery
funding for the Social Security Administration application processing system, recovery
funding to the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), recovery funding for
vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and
placement, and monies to states to fortify their Medicaid programs (Recovery Accountability and
Transparency Board, 2009).
H.R.146, the Omnibus
Public Land Management Act of 2009, was signed on March 30, 2009 by President
Barack Obama, which included the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act
focusing on improving the quality of life of Americans living with paralysis
(The White House, 2009). On July 26, 2010, President Barack Obama issued
a Proclamation reaffirming the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Presidential Proclamation identified
the steps that were being implemented towards achieving the goals of the Act,
and included consistent
and effective enforcement of the Act by eliminating discrimination in
employment, housing, public services, and community accommodations; expanded
funding for the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA); health
care reforms enacted in the Affordable Care Act; and joining the international community to sign the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities in 2009 (The White House,
2010). President Obama’s Executive Order--Increasing
Federal Employment of Individuals With Disabilities, was also issued on July 26, 2010. In
this Order, the President established the “Federal Government as a model
employer of individuals with disabilities” (The White House, 2010a). In
light of the fact that there are more than 20 federal agencies and
approximately 200 programs that provide a variety of services and assistance to
people with disabilities, for a more comprehensive list of 192 of the programs,
reference is made to the Appendix II. Federal Programs Serving People With
Disabilities, in a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2005a).
Published
studies by IBM, Sears, and Dupont, which are major companies employing people
with disabilities, have reported a lower turnover employee rate and equal to,
or better, attendance rate than that of employees without disabilities (Dew,
McGuire-Kuletz & Alan, 2001). The
Economic Impact Study in 2002 by Chicago’s
Mayoral Task Force on the Employment
of Individuals With Disabilities examined the costs and benefits associated
with workers who had disabilities. The three-year study found that costs
associated with workers with disabilities were minimal, employees with disabilities
were dedicated and reliable; they had fewer scheduled absences, had nearly
identical job performance ratings, the difference in amount of supervision
required ratings were relatively minor among employees with and without
disabilities, and the workforce was more diverse (DePaul University, 2007).
Nonetheless, there was a persistence of manager bias towards employees with
disabilities, a lack of promotion opportunities, and that disability employment
agencies and/or disability advocates had to be used in recruiting and hiring
workers with disabilities (DePaul
University, 2007).
Although
the employment rate of working-age people with a disability increased from 37.9%
in 2003 to 37.5% in 2004, the gap between the employment rates of working-age
people with and without disabilities increased from 39.7 percentage points in
2003 to 40.3 percentage points in 2004 (Rehabilitation Research and Training
Center, 2004). Despite federal interventions, unemployment rates continue to be
higher for individuals with disabilities and their average earnings are lower
(Timmons, Schuster, Hamner,
& Bose, 2002). People
with disabilities represents the largest unemployed minority in the United
States, which continues to remain relatively unchanged since the Americans With Disabilities Act of
1990 (The Center for an Accessible Society, 2005).
The one-stop career center system was specifically
established in 1998 by Title I of the Workforce Investment Act as an access
point for employment-related and training services (Dept. of Labor, Employment
& Training Administration, 1998). The one-stop career center system has been described as a “no-wrong
door” because it allows individuals with disabilities to choose, receive, and
blend a variety of employment and training services through a single door (Dew,
McGuire-Kuletz, & Alan, 2001). Productive and effective partnerships in
one-stop career centers also provide individuals with meaningful and seamless
access to information, services, and opportunities in the world of work.
To
achieve the goal of a comprehensive statewide workforce investment system, at
least one local career center providing core and more intensive services,
together with access to mandated partnership agencies’ services, was required
in areas where the population exceeded 200,000 (Barlas, 1998; Dew et al.,
2001). In 2004, the total number of functioning one-stop career centers in the United States
was over 3,000 (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).
One-stop
career centers are obligated to ensure that their facility and services are
universally accessible to any individual seeking employment (Rutgers,
2002). In addition, the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Regulations for
the Workforce Investment Act stated that people with disabilities have a right
to use the one-stop system, and are entitled to reasonable accommodations and
modifications when using its services (Hoff, 2002). Section 188 of the Workforce
Investment Act contained the
requirements for equal opportunity and anti-discrimination for the one-stop
career centers, which included a description of discrimination on the basis of
disability (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2004). A Section 188 checklist
was available that assessed a center’s nondiscrimination obligations and
performance, increased accessibility, and identified resources to ensure
compliance with these requirements (National Council on Disability, 2005).
Unfortunately, many one-stop career centers were not equipped to serve people
with disabilities, and automatically referred these individuals to the public
vocational rehabilitation system (Hoff, 2002).
The
Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, (2001) indicated
that in its application to people with disabilities, key goals of the one-stop
career center approach were to streamline services, empower individuals, and
provide universal accessibility. Streamlined services were to be provided by
all partners to programs, while activities and information were to be
co-located, coordinated, and integrated as a whole (Dept. of Labor, Office of
Disability Employment Policy, 2001). Financial choices to empower individuals
through Individual Training Accounts allowed eligible adults to purchase
training services, in conjunction with advice, guidance, and support through
the one-stop career center system, (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability
Employment Policy, 2001). Universal accessibility to core employment-related
services ensured that any individual was able to access a variety of employment
services (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001;
Timmons, Fesko & Cohen, 2004). Universal accessibility to all aspects of the
one-stop career center allowed for use by diverse populations, including people
with physical, sensory, and learning disabilities, mental retardation, mental
health issues, and head injuries (Hoff, 2002). Accessibility included physical
access to a center, as well as access to its virtual and computer-based
resources, programs, and services (Funaro & Dixon, 2002; Hoff, 2002).
Other
goals of the one-stop career center system were to develop an accurate
performance assessment of its responsiveness to people with disabilities (Hall
& Parker, 2005), and to create seamless service delivery between the
workforce and disability systems (Cohen, Timmons & Fesko, 2005). Seamless
service delivery consists of a smooth, coordinated, and streamlined delivery of
services by different agencies, is efficient, links multiple programs into one
system, and reduces paperwork and duplication (Cohen et al., 2005). Therefore,
a customer with a disability would not be required to physically seek and
navigate multiple services to access a variety of needed services (Cohen et al.,
2005). Seamless services delivery simplifies the process for the customer,
since partnering agencies in the one-stop career center negotiate each other’s
agencies to collaborate and coordinate services, resulting in improved consumer
outcomes (Cohen et al., 2005).
The roots of customer
satisfaction research were established in the healthcare and business fields
over 30 years ago (Capella & Turner, 2004). Aspects of customer
satisfaction studied have included perceived performance, customer
expectations, service quality, delivery, and the gaps and relationships between
these concepts (Davis,
2003). Customer satisfaction questionnaires are the most common way of
collecting satisfaction data, and are used as an outcome measure, a basis for
reforming or improving services, and a determination of best practice and best
value (Atwal & Caldwell, 2005). Additionally, Saroki (2002) pointed out
that customers “bring unique perceptions and expectations that can be used to
evaluate service quality and satisfaction” (p 10).
Similar
to the variety of definitions of disability, differences exist not only in
definitions of customer satisfaction and measurement of its concepts and
variables, but also in application to diverse and dissimilar settings (Giese
& Cote, 2000). The resulting numerous measures and variables for customer
satisfaction have resulted in no single definition that accommodates all
consumer views and circumstances (Giese & Cote, 2000).
Further
evidence of the inconsistency in definitions of consumer satisfaction can be
located in research that addresses the characteristics constituting a quality
service. Patterson (1992) wrote that four characteristics comprise a quality
service that meets or exceeds customer expectations. Parasuraman (1988),
however, stated that service quality is formed by five characteristics that
address both the consumer’s expectations and evaluation, and that there is a
relationship between service quality opinions and satisfaction. Anton believed
that customer satisfaction refers to several aspects of a relationship with a
customer, while Karten argued that both the product and service process are
equally important (Rutgers, 2002).
Deese
(2002) discussed the difference between customer service and customer
satisfaction, and indicated that customer service involves measurement of the standards
established by authorities, boards, or experts. Customer satisfaction, on the
other hand, is measured by the customers’ standards in meeting their
expectations (Deese, 2002). Expectations contributing to the customer’s
experience include availability, responsiveness, timeliness, comprehensiveness,
pleasantness, and reliability of the services provided, as well as overall
satisfaction with the services (Deese, 2002).
It
has been recommended that customer satisfaction data collection not only assess
past performance, but consider the ultimate purpose of the information and how
it can be used in shaping the future (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000;
Rutgers, 2002). This involves a positivistic and objective approach, as well as
classical science measurement of the isolated parts of a phenomenon
(McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000). The use of Likert scales is also
suggested when surveying customer satisfaction with service delivery (Rutgers, 2002). Likert scales supply a numerical scale to
the question of an individual’s agreement, approval, and/or opposition
(Rutgers, 2002) and enable respondents to rate variables that measure
attitudes, emotions, perceptions, and expectations for various issues (Bernard,
2000).
Due
to a developing interest in quality assurance and continuous quality
improvement, client satisfaction in social service programs has increased, as
it not only provides insight, but information useful for improvement of
services (Harris & Poertner, 1997). In a review of client satisfaction
literature by Harris and Poertner (1997), two overall approaches were
identified. One approach considered the client’s response to satisfaction with
the service, and the other approach considered the specific features of a
service. Consumer satisfaction research in the human services also indicated a
need for increased consumer involvement, and to achieve this, determination of
how the client defines satisfaction is necessary (Harris & Poertner, 1997;
Richard, 2000).
Harris
and Poertner (1997) defined client satisfaction as the client’s perspectives on
aspects of the service transaction important to them; thus, the clients are the
most important sources of identification of the service’s features. In a study
of perceptions of consumers with disabilities and staff in a community-based
rehabilitation program, Hagen-Foley, Rosenthal, and Thomas (2005) found greater
satisfaction and outcomes were related to consumers’ perceptions of informed
choice. Richard (2000) suggested that to ascertain whether consumers’ needs
have been met or not is to just ask them. He recommended that customer
satisfaction surveys use a multidimensional questionnaire that measures the
items the customers themselves use to arrive at their opinions of satisfaction.
Such a strategy would result in measures that more accurately reflect
customers’ concerns (Harris & Poertner, 1997).
Performance
accountability for customer-focused results required by the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 have included
data collection, tracking of performance, analysis of information, and
modification of strategies for improvement (D’Amico et al., 2001). A
Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL 7-99) issued by the U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration in 2000, addressed
core and customer satisfaction measures for one-stop career centers required
under the Workforce Investment Act. The TEGL 7-99 provided technical guidance
and a detailed description of methodology in the implementation of required
measures and calculation of performance levels regarding customer satisfaction
for both participants and employers (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training, 2000). A survey approach was mandated, using a small set of questions
to form a customer satisfaction index, and is based on the American Customer
Satisfaction Index (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training, 2000).
The widely used American Customer Satisfaction Index
is a statistical computerized model that measures and predicts customer
satisfaction with goods or services provided by industries and governmental
agencies (Claes Fornell International Group, 2003). The Index produces scores
for causes, consequences, relationships, and levels of customer satisfaction
(American Consumer Satisfaction Index, n.d.). Scores ranging from 1 to 100
predict customer experiences with products, services, and key behavioral
consequences of satisfaction (American Consumer Satisfaction Index, n.d.). In
turn, organizations can use the American Customer Satisfaction Index to assess
customer loyalty, pinpoint potential barriers, predict returns, and identify
areas in which customer expectations are not met.
The Index enables tracking of progress and continual
improvement within the workforce system and organizations, as well as
industries outside of the system (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training, 2000). The
model that was provided concerned respondents’ experience with the one-stop
career centers’ programs and services and contained three questions that were
required in the surveys. A Likert scale of 1 to 10 was used for each response.
The first question concerned overall satisfaction with services, or the
respondent could indicate don’t know
or refused to answer (U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2000). The second question
concerned the extent to which services met the respondent’s expectations, and
the third question asked how well the respondent thought the services compared
with the ideal set of services for an individual in the same circumstance (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2000). The American
Customer Satisfaction Index was chosen because it enabled performance
assessment both within the workforce system and organizations, as well as
industries outside of the system (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training, 2000). It also has a history of usefulness in tracking change over
time, which allows for tracking of continual improvement and progress (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training, 2000).
Scores from the three questions were combined with
The American Customer Satisfaction Index to address different dimensions of
customers’ experiences. One score was obtained for each participant and
employers’ customer groups (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training,
2000). Details on customer satisfaction measures were given in the TEGL 7-99
for both participants and employers on who was to be surveyed, the size of the
sample, the methodology, timing of surveys, and questions were to be asked.
Telephone surveys randomly included adults, dislocated workers, youths aged
14-21, and employers who received services from one-stop career center (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training, 2000). The model required in the
telephone surveys consisted of three questions about a respondent’s experience
with the one-stop career centers’ programs and services. A Likert scale of 1 to
10 was used for the three questions concerning overall satisfaction with
services, the extent to which services met the respondent’s expectations, and
how well the respondent thought the services compared with the ideal set of
services for an individual in the same circumstance (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment
& Training, 2000). Respondents also had the option of answering don’t know or refusing to answer (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training,
2000).
The American Customer Satisfaction Index is the
proprietary property of the University
of Michigan and Claes
Fornell International owns the software (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training, 2000). Therefore, the U.S. Department of Labor created a license
agreement with the University
of Michigan that allowed
the states to use the American Customer Satisfaction Index for a statewide
sample. If a state chose to utilize it, an independent contract was
consequently required with the University (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment
& Training, 2000). States were invited to make arrangements with Claes
Fornell International for additional assistance in measuring, analyzing, and
understanding of the American Customer Satisfaction Index data.
Surveys have been conducted to
comply with governmental requirements since the implementation of the one-stop
career center system. The federal Employment and Training Administration
did not establish specific criteria for evaluating customer satisfaction, and
allowed the states to define customer satisfaction broadly, that is, the result of how well
performance meets customer expectations (Rutgers,
2002). Therefore, initial
surveys conducted by the states and local areas often assessed other elements
of the one-stop career center system as well. Requirements and attempts to
measure the responsiveness of the one-stop career center program toward job
seekers with disabilities, and programmatic and physical accessibility, are
limited in their scope (Hall & Parker, 2005).
An
overview of research to assess customer satisfaction in one-stop career centers
is provided in the following section.
Social Policy Research Associates. The U.S. Department of Labor
awarded a contract to Social Policy Research Associates to evaluate the
progress of implementation of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which
included the one-stop career center service delivery system (D’Amico et al.,
2001). Data from approximately 16 states was collected over a three-year period
and reported in a final interim report in 2001. Survey respondents described
the system that was used to measure customer satisfaction for job seekers and
employers, how the data was evaluated and disseminated locally, and how they
were used to improve services and customer satisfaction (D’Amico et al., 2001).
If a state did not have a customer satisfaction assessment system in place, a
description of its plan and timeframe regarding incorporation were requested
(D’Amico et al., 2001). Findings showed that all states except one had
established a system to measure customer satisfaction (D’Amico et al., 2001). A
procedure for the assessment of satisfaction of customers had not been entirely
developed in several sites, although all of the states acknowledged this
information was useful in program evaluation (D’Amico et al., 2001). Surveys
used in customer satisfaction assessment varied, and included annual
point-of-service surveys, mail surveys, contracted surveys, and three- or
four-point question surveys based on the Department of Labor’s requirements
(D’Amico et al., 2001). There was no mention of whether the surveys included
information on any one-stop career center customers who had a disability.
Rutgers,
State University
of New Jersey.
It was not until a year later that a major
nationwide survey conducted by Rutgers at the
State University of New Jersey assessed one-stop career centers and included
people with disabilities. The survey found that 99% of one-stop career centers
provided career counseling, 96% provided job placement, 91% provided job
coaching, 90% provided occupational training, and 95% provided post-employment
services (Rutgers, 2002). Results indicated
that one-stop career center partners provided additional services in both core
and intensive services.
The majority of
respondents felt accessibility issues and outreach to both employers and people
with disabilities required improvement. More specific inclusive planning
and implementation regarding
streamlined performance management, accessibility, and outreach were
recommended in Rutgers’ (2002) report. The Workforce Investment Act required specific performance measures
from one-stop career centers to track usage by people with disabilities, and Rutgers (2002) found that 60% of survey respondents did
collect these data. Only 50% of respondents actually tracked customer
satisfaction, however, and the data did not include assessment of satisfaction
of customers with disabilities, but rather only disability-related access or
accommodation issues (Rutgers, 2002).
Gloucester County One-Stop
Project. The Gloucester County One-Stop
Project in New Jersey
assessed customer satisfaction and participation rate of people with severe
disabilities in a 12-week study in 2003. Matched-pairs of subjects, that is,
persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities, completed three
customer satisfaction questionnaires, which were referred to as the One-Stop
Customer Report Card (Gervey, Gao, & Rizzo, 2004). Developed by The Law,
Health Policy and Disability Center of the College
of Law at the University of Iowa,
the One-Stop Customer Report Card has been used in one-stop accessibility
studies (Gervey et al., 2004). The customer satisfaction questionnaires in the
Report Card included an initial customer report card, weekly follow-up report
cards, and an exit interview customer report card (Gervey et al., 2004). Items
on the questionnaires pertained to customer satisfaction on disability-related
issues, treatment by staff, condition of the facility, access to services,
obtaining services, work area, equipment, materials, communication with staff,
and overall impression (Gervey et al., 2004).
Results
of the Gloucester County One-Stop Project revealed that out of 2994 customer
visits, approximately 21%, or 446 customer visits, involved delivery of one-stop
services to people with a disability (Gervey et al., 2004). Respondents with a
disability reported less customer satisfaction than individuals without
disabilities who also had used the one-stop career centers’ services,
self-service work area, equipment, and/or written materials (Gervey et al.,
2004). Initial impressions by respondents with disabilities remained consistent
throughout the study, and customers with disabilities believed they were
treated no differently than customers without disabilities (Gervey et al.,
2004). The study also reported that people with disabilities expressed a lack
of awareness regarding services offered at the one-stop career center and the
availability of free equipment and computer job searches (Gervey et al., 2004).
Furthermore, staff at the one-stop career center believed that very few
individuals with severe disabilities were actually served by the center (Gervey
et al., 2004).
It
was concluded that responsibility and accountability for customer satisfaction
were shared by the one-stop career center and its partner agencies, which
operated independently of each other (Gervey et al., 2004). The differences in
shared accountabilities and responsibilities by one-stop career centers and its
partners made it challenging to obtain accurate assessment of customer
satisfaction and mutual achievement of seamless service goals in the one-stop
career center system.
With the
implementation of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative, it was realized
that the Iowa University Law, Health and Policy and Disability Center One-Stop
Customer Satisfaction Survey was not an adequate psychometrically sound,
universal-friendly customer satisfaction instrument suitable for larger studies
(Gervey & Gao, 2009). Significant revisions to the customer satisfaction
survey were made, reducing it from 87 to 37 items, and the item scaling was also
made uniform using a 5-point Likert type scale. The revised survey, the Universal
One-Stop Career Center Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire, had four factors
that measured physical accessibility, equipment and resource room, staff services,
and overall impression of services, and was easier to use and score (Gervey
& Gao, 2009). When administered to a sample of 100 persons with psychiatric
disabilities, it appeared that customer satisfaction scores were not affected
by demographic variables and that customer satisfaction did not differ between
individuals with and without disabilities (Gervey & Gao, 2009). More
satisfaction was reported by customers who had the greatest number of visits to
the one-stop career center than by customers who attended it less (Gervey &
Gao, 2009). Data was not provided as to length of time it took for an
individual to complete the customer satisfaction questionnaire, or whether a
customer met with the disability program navigator. The report indicated that having
a customer satisfaction questionnaire that was easy to use and score would
assist one-stop career centers to evaluate the impact of the disability program
navigator program, but it did not include recommendations on how this could be
achieved.
Social Policy Research Associates and TATC
Consulting. Social Policy Research Associates
and TATC Consulting (2004) conducted a national evaluation of the
implementation of the Workforce Investment Act, which included the one-stop
career center service delivery system. Progress by eight states was discussed on
two measures of customer satisfaction for performance accountability required
by the Department of Labor. The two measures of customer satisfaction were
participant customer satisfaction and employer customer satisfaction (Social
Policy Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004). States reported a variety of sampling
and data collection methodologies, and difficulty in the collection of
information about customer satisfaction measurements for local areas and the
state as a whole (Social Policy Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004). Five states
contracted customer service data collection to an institute or university,
while several local areas gathered their own customer satisfaction data (Social
Policy Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004). All states included the required American
Customer Satisfaction Index questions; one added questions to the American
Customer Satisfaction Index; other states were in the process of developing
their own survey instruments; and some sought assistance with its creation from
a contractor (Social Policy Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004).
A
reported issue of concern by the researchers was the use of appropriate
sampling and data collections for reliable customer satisfaction measurement at
the state and local levels. Despite a lack of consistency in data collection
and strategies by the states and local areas, the report recognized that serious
and determined efforts had been made to follow the requirements of the Workforce
Investment Act (Social Policy Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004). As with
several previously discussed studies, however, there was no specific mention of
assessment of satisfaction from one-stop career center customers with
disabilities.
The Institute for Community Inclusion. Case
studies were conducted by The Institute for Community Inclusion to examine the
nature of service delivery to one-stop career center customers with a
disability, and to assess strategies utilized by three states (Timmons, Fesko,
& Cohen, 2004). Findings on innovative strategies and practical solutions
to support customers with disabilities in one-stop career centers were
presented in a series of briefs (Timmons, Fesko, & Cohen, 2003; Hamner
& Timmons, 2005). The study concluded that, although useful strategies were
developed to enhance services to people with disabilities in the one-stop
career centers, the actual impact the strategies had on customers with
disabilities was not clearly understood (Timmons et al., 2004).
Another
case study report of the same three states discussed policy conflict and policy
ambiguity influences on seamless service delivery in the one-stop career
centers (Cohen, Timmons & Fesko, 2005). It reported that the lack of common
collaborative goals between the one-stop career center partners contributed
toward an exclusion of all possible opportunities available to customers with
disabilities (Cohen et al., 2005).
In another case study exploring the
characteristics of services based on the individuals’ experiences in state
employment agencies, the one-stop career center was mentioned by several
participants (Timmons et al., 2002). Five items in the state employment agency
services were found to be central to success and high customer satisfaction.
These elements were a comfortable agency culture, consumer-directed service
delivery model, accessible resources, reliable and supportive personnel, and
effective service coordination (Timmons et al., 2002). A combination of the
elements contributed to the likelihood of satisfaction and a successful outcome
of a customer’s experience with the state employment agency, that is,
employment that the individual found satisfactory (Timmons et al., 2002). A
deficiency in any of these services resulted in customer dissatisfaction,
disappointment, and unsatisfactory experiences (Timmons et al., 2002). Personal
interviews were done only with adults with disabilities who had a successful
outcome, and the study did not state the duration or timing of the interviews.
Berkeley Policy Associates. Berkeley Policy
Associates’ (2001) evaluation of the one-stop career centers recommended
promotion of effective use of customer satisfaction data to ensure program
responsiveness to the needs of people with disabilities. A mystery shopper
program that collects qualitative “real-life” data from a customer’s perspective
was proposed to evaluate the responsiveness by one-stop career centers toward
people with disabilities (Boeltig, Brugnaro, Gandolfo, & Gelb, 2004). This
technique provided a more dynamic picture of the typical customer service, identified key areas
for improvement, and evaluated how a business responds to its customers.
A sample one-stop career center customer report card for such a program was
developed that specifically focused on responses from individuals with a
disability in assessing satisfaction with services, as well as building
accessibility, overall environment, computers, orientation, and workshops (Boeltig,
Brugnaro, Gandolfo, & Gelb, 2004).
Subsequently,
the mystery customer investigation technique, together with focus groups, were
used by Hall and Parker (2005) to obtain customer feedback concerning
accessibility, services, and disability awareness of staff at one-stop career
centers. Results indicated that the needs of the customers with disabilities in
the community were not being entirely met (Hall & Parker, 2005). Hall and
Parker (2005) indicated that the issues and concerns identified in their study
were widespread, and six initial specific recommendations were provided to
improve accessibility and customer orientation. The recommendations included
staff interaction with customers with disabilities, staff knowledge about
disabilities and disability etiquette, physical and programmatic accessibility,
and marketing to both employers and consumers (Hall & Parker, 2005). The
report by Boeltig, Brugnaro, Gandolfo, & Gelb (2004) on the mystery
shopping program recommended that customer
feedback should also be gathered through other methods, such as customer
satisfaction surveys.
In
an effort to streamline services and create seamless service delivery, an
addition to the one-stop career center system was jointly developed by the U.S.
Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration. Initially
established in 2002, the Disability Program Navigator Initiative provided a professional
with expertise on workforce development issues for people with disabilities in
the one-stop center career centers (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training Administration, 2005a). When this study was begun, there were
approximately 260 disability program navigators nationwide who facilitated
access to disability services to secure the most favorable employment outcome
for one-stop career center customers with disabilities (Holcomb & Barnow,
2004; U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &Training Administration, 2005a).
Approximately 30 states formed cooperative agreements to sponsor the Disability
Program Navigator Initiative, and in 2009, it was reported that there were over
450 Navigators in 45 states, DC, and Puerto Rico
(Federal News Service, 2009).
Goals
of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative were similar to those of the
one-stop career center system, that is, to provide seamless and comprehensive
services to people with disabilities, increased employment and self-sufficiency
for Social Security beneficiaries and others with disabilities, facilitation of access to
programs and services, and linkages to the employer community (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment
& Training Administration, 2005a). Specific and multiple outcomes for the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative were to improve access to the Workforce
Investment Act’s services for people with disabilities in the one-stop career
centers, to increase this population’s employment and customer satisfaction, to
expand relationships with one-stop career program partners and employers, and to
increase the use of the Ticket to Work (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training Administration, 2005a). Other expectations for the disability program
navigator’s role were to increase the one-stop career centers linkages with
employment networks; to use federal tax incentives regarding hiring people with
disabilities; to use benefits counselors; to use Medicaid by people with
disabilities; and to develop assets for customers with disabilities (U.S. Dept.
of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a). Additional outcomes
included facilitating access for people with disabilities to technology and
self-employment resources, blending funding support, and improving service and
funding collaboration efforts (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training
Administration, 2005a). The Disability Program Navigator Initiative has
also facilitated a partnership between IRS and VETS, as well as developed and
implemented effective solutions for transportation connections to the workplace
for its customers (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2010).
The
disability program navigator was established by Project WIN in all of the
workforce regions in Colorado’s
one-stop career centers since 2000 (Emery et al., n.d.). Project WIN was a
five-year systems’ change project funded through the U.S. Department of
Education, Rehabilitation Services in 1998 (University of Colorado Health
Sciences Center, n.d.). An evaluation report on its disability program
navigator project included questions on accessibility by people with
disabilities, the effect of the disability program navigator on accessibility,
and whether consumers were satisfied with the one-stop career center services
(Emery et al., n.d.). Specifically, whether the consumers believed services to
be useful and how satisfaction compared between those who did and did not use
the disability program navigators was mentioned (Emery et al., n.d.). The job
characteristics of job seekers who reported disabilities revealed differences
in demographic information, higher use by veterans, that some disability
program navigator customers did not report a disability, and customers with
disabilities received more services than those without disabilities (Emery et
al., n.d.). The report, however, did not provide further information on whether
customers were satisfied or how useful they felt the services were. It also referred
to a plan for conducting longer-term evaluation of the workforce system and
developing a mechanism to systematically collect and analyze data on customers
with disabilities (Emery et al., n.d.).
Bader
(2003) reported that disability program navigators (also called disability
resource specialists or consumer navigators) were frequently used by staff,
management, and partner agencies in the one-stop career centers to assist
people with disabilities. A primary recommendation in Bader’s (2003) study was
to continue the disability program navigator program in the one-stop career
centers, as it was found to be an integral part of service delivery. The
majority of Colorado’s Workforce Center
directors also felt that the disability program navigators contributed
positively to their centers, improved relationships and coordination with other
agencies, raised awareness of services, served as an expert and resource to
staff, and prevented clients from falling through the cracks (Emery et al.,
n.d.). Considering the core competencies, extensive training, and comprehensive
knowledge on disability issues required in the disability program navigator
position, it was reasonable and logical that a disability expert would enhance
and coordinate services, and significantly contribute to seamless delivery for
customers with disability in the one-stop career centers (Bader, 2003).
Assessments
of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative were conducted using a quarterly
evaluation report instrument, a telephone survey, an in-depth study, and a
comparison of individual outcome data (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration,
2005a). Participants in the assessment included the workforce directors, senior
management staff, supervisor of the disability program navigator, one-stop
career center director, employer liaison case manager or career director,
vocational rehabilitation representative, area work incentives coordinator,
Social Security Administration field office representative, BPAO (benefits,
planning, assistance, and outreach) specialist, and the disability program
navigator (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a).
Although overall satisfaction with the Disability Program Navigator Initiative
was very high from assessment participants and exceeded expectations, other
than the one-stop career centers’ customer satisfaction surveys, people with
disabilities were not included in any program assessments (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 2005a).
What
data that has been collected pertinent to the disability program navigators
concerned time allocation for specific activities by the disability program
navigators; changes in their time allocations; levels of activity and outcomes
for program relationships; outreach and training activities; and referrals to
and from the disability program navigator (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment
& Training Administration, 2005a). Specific examples were requested in each
area for successful outcomes, as well as skills or knowledge areas that
the disability program navigators felt would improve their own performance (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 2005a). Statistics were also obtained for performance measures and
program participants, similar to those of the one-stop career center system,
including the percent of program exiters with disabilities served, an
entered employment rate measure, wage gain, and an efficiency measure of
earning change (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a). As with the one-stop career
center system, this information was necessary for establishing and
achieving goals for continued support for federal program funding (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 2005a).
Four-State
Study. National Overview Report
Between February and July 2005, the Iowa City Law, Health Policy
& Disability Center
and University of Iowa College of Law conducted face-to-face interviews
with 117 individuals to obtain information on their experiences with the
disability program navigator’s services in four states. The four states had 27%
of nationwide disability program navigators and exemplified diverse approaches
to implementation of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative (Emery &
Bryan, 2005). One of the evaluation questions was, How satisfied are persons with disabilities with a navigator
intervention strategy? The total number of actual customers with a
disability in all four states that were interviewed was 16, which was only 14%
of total interviewees. Specific information asked from these customers
concerned employment information; the point at which they encountered the
navigator; introduction and navigator experience; services received; what difference the navigator
made; public assistance benefits and status; discrimination experiences; and
suggestions for improvement (Emery & Bryan, 2005). Customers’ assessments
on the quality on services received from the disability program navigator were
not addressed. The report indicated that the majority of non-customer
respondents felt that Disability Program Navigator Initiative was a “successful
example of the Federal government providing funds, structure, the tools and
training needed to make an important initiative work…the DPN Initiative has
proven its point” (Emery & Bryan, 2005, p 19).
Navigator Initiatives
The
U.S. Department of Labor and Training released a Training and Employment Notice
1-10 on the Employment and Training Administration’s quantitative evaluation of
the Disability Program Navigator Initiative in four states during program years
2002-2007 (Livermore & Colman, 2010). Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research
and through the use of the One-Stop
Career Center
system by Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance
beneficiaries, the report focused on employment outcomes of adults age 21 and
over who used the one-stop career centers during the four-year period. One of
the research issues concerned determining if utilization and outcomes differences
over this time period could be attributed to the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative. The report suggested that having a disability program navigator in
the one-stop career centers could have contributed to the findings of a significant
and marked increase over time in the percentage of one-stop career center users
receiving federal benefits who disclosed their disabilities, even though this disclosure
wasoptional
(Livermore & Colman, 2010). Reasons given for these findings were that
disability program navigators facilitated the disclosure of disability
information, perhaps by raising staff’s awareness of disability issues,
improving administrative processes, conducting outreach, developing linkages
with organizations, and creating an environment in which users were more likely
to disclose their disabilities (Livermore & Colman, 2010). Data found that
individuals who more likely disclosed their disabilities had sensory disabilities, that is, hearing, visual, or
speech impairments (Livermore & Colman, 2010).
Data collected also showed that
the one-stop career centers were probably serving many more people with
disabilities than was implied by the self-reported disability information.
Thus, the findings indicated that there was an important role for the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative to continue addressing the needs of
one-stop career center customers who receive federal benefits, as well as other
users with disabilities (Livermore & Colman, 2010). However, due to data
limitations and the variety of implementation by the states of the Disability
Program Navigator Initiative, a more rigorous assessment of the specific impact
of the services provided by the disability program navigator was not feasible. Nevertheless,
the report stated that if the disability program navigators were assisting the
one-stop career centers to make their serrvices more accessible to people with
disabilities and impacting systems
change in ways that generally improved employment services to this population,
the end result could lead to improved employment outcomes for people with
disabilities (Livermore & Colman, 2010).
Although the one-stop career center
system has been in existence since 1998, there continues to be a significant
gap regarding customers’ actual experiences in the use of the one-stop career
centers and services provided by a disability program navigator. Therefore, an
increase in research to obtain the perceptions and satisfaction of one-stop
career centers customers, including those with disabilities, would allow for
monitoring changes and provide insight and understanding for improvement, modifications,
and future funding. This would further enable development of customized survey
questionnaires on customer preferences, result in greater feedback to inspire
improved performances of the one-stop career centers, and an increase in additional
one-stop career center customers with disabilities (McColl-Kennedy &
Schneider, 2000). Taking into account potential future public spending cuts,
research results can be used to document customer satisfaction for continued
state and federal support as well (Bryant et al., 1998). It is hoped that
higher participation and involvement of people with disabilities in one-stop
career centers would enhance and increase their employment in the workforce,
and ultimately, contribute to an improved quality of life (Kosciulek, 2004; McColl-Kennedy
& Schneider, 2000).
The
purpose of this section is to explain how the responses and data from the
participants was collected, studied, and analyzed. The data for this study
originated from a self-administered survey of the satisfaction levels of
customers who received services from a disability program navigator in a
one-stop career center. The survey was given to a purposive sample from two
one-stop career centers. A purposive sample is a sample that possesses specific
characteristics important for a study (Sproull, 2002). The following research
questions were addressed.
- To what extent are customers satisfied with the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop career centers?
- What are the areas that customers identify as needing improvement?
- How do the customers’ levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting?
Although
quantitative research methods limit the ability to measure social context of
phenomena, they are valuable in contributing to the foundation of knowledge and
understanding of the reality of phenomena (Bernard, 2000; McColl-Kennedy &
Schneider, 2000). A classical science design, the positivistic approach assumes
that the whole of a phenomenon can best be understood by dividing it into
isolated parts (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000). The phenomenon in this
study was customer satisfaction in one-stop career centers, and the isolated
part of the phenomenon studied was the customers with disabilities who received
services from the on-site disability program navigator. A quantitative and
descriptive approach to measure levels of customer satisfaction and a
description of the sample was taken, using a customer satisfaction rating
survey and a background information sheet.
A copy of the Background Information Sheet developed for this study is
shown in Appendix B.
The
Theory of Work Adjustment, developed by Dawis,
England, and
Lofquist (1964), was the basis for this study. The theory’s framework describes
how individual and work environmental factors interact to predict perceived job
satisfaction and conceptualizes the interaction in terms of person-environment
fit and match. The person-environment theoretical foundation assumes that when
individuals are more satisfied, their performance is better, the organizations
are more effective, organizational commitment is higher, turnover is less, and
there will be greater vocational adjustment and individual positive
experiences, as well as compatibility with multiple systems (Kristof-Brown,
Jansen, & Colbert, 2002; Ostroff & Rothausen, 1997). The Theory of Work
Adjustment has also been used as a model for people with disabilities in the
workforce (Lyons, 2004; Strauser & Lustig, 2003). The Federal’s
government’s desire to increase the employment of people with disabilities was
addressed in the goals of the one-stop career center system, that is, to provide
additional services that focused on the unique needs of these individuals, and to
match them with satisfying jobs. According to Lofquist & Dawis’ Theory of
Work Adjustment (1964), a match between a worker and rewards of a job will
result in job satisfaction and subsequent employment stability (Vandenberg
& Scarpello, 1990). Job satisfaction also predicts attendance,
participation, morale, and overall life satisfaction (Bolton & Brookings,
1991).
Hershenson (2001) indicated that
unless a Workforce Investment Act
consumer attains a satisfactory level of work adjustment, the mandated function
of the Act regarding job training
and placement could not be fulfilled. A Systems Model of Work Adjustment
Development proposed by Hershenson (2001) presented major sources of work
adjustment problems and interventions to address them that can be applied in
the Workforce Investment Act
setting. In this model, the foundation for work adjustment for an individual
first requires the development of work personality, work competencies, and work
goals (Hershenson, 2001). According to Hershenson’s model (2001), work
adjustment, that is, a person’s work role behavior, task performance, and
worker satisfaction, is also affected by the behavioral expectations of an
individual’s work setting, skill requirements of the job, and rewards and
opportunities offered by the work setting. The Workforce Investment Act’s service delivery system can both
facilitate and impede a consumer’s work adjustment through a cultural,
economic, and political context, which can result in work impairments, or
barriers (Hershenson, 2001). These work barriers subsequently interact with an
individual’s living environments, such as family, peer relationships, and
support, thereby further affecting work adjustment. Hershenson (2001) advocated
that his model provided an integrated framework in the Workforce Investment Act setting to assess, evaluate, and
develop interventions to mitigate or eliminate work barriers, thereby
facilitating a positive and satisfactory work adjustment for an individual.
The Theory of Work Adjustment was an appropriate theoretical framework for this study, in that achievement of employment and job satisfaction are goals of both the one-stop career center system and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative. As part of the Initiative, the disability program navigator served as an expert and resource in disability issues. People interested in job seeking, hiring, or job maintenance use one-stop career centers as a workforce resource. As with the predictive model of the Theory of Work Adjustment, the one-stop career centers are “used to help people identify and choose among work possibilities that will likely bring them satisfaction” (Brown & Lent, 2005, p 20). Furthermore, the Theory of Work Adjustment “can be generalized to apply to any work environment” (Brown & Lent, 2005, p 20). The disability program navigator addresses issues affecting the job satisfaction and work adjustment by a job seeker, employee, or employer on disability-related issues. Providing appropriate services for satisfactory work adjustment, in turn, can have a significant impact on achieving job satisfaction. The disability program navigator “listens” to a customer’s “voice” by effectively facilitating services, resources, and assistance in achieving a satisfactory work adjustment. Therefore, it can be concluded that a customer’s satisfactory work adjustment leads to subsequent job satisfaction, and would result in a satisfied customer of the one-stop career center who used the services provided by a disability program navigator.
Fitzgerald, Rumrill, and Schenker,
(2004) noted that investigation of the relationships of variables in the lives
of people with disabilities is an important basic foundation of all social
science disciplines and provides a deeper understanding of connections among
human phenomena. A quantitative descriptive research design was used in this
study to investigate the phenomena of customer satisfaction through assessment
of satisfaction and examination of the factors influencing it (Gall, Gall,
& Borg, 2003). There was no manipulation of variables or attempts to
establish causality. Variables that could not be manipulated in this study
included the gender, years of education, and age.
The customer satisfaction survey in
this study was used to elicit respondents’ rated opinions of relevant satisfaction
concepts, which were ordinal measures of internal states in terms of less and
more to classify and rank them (Bernard, 2000). Statistical data was obtained
to indicate differences in satisfaction levels (Sproull, 2002). Data collection
on customer demographics and levels of satisfaction allowed for a systemic
analysis and description of the characteristics of the one-stop career center’s
customers (Gall et al., 2003). Calculation of the correlation coefficient
provided both a precise way of measuring the magnitude and direction of the
relationship between two or more variables, as well as an explained variance for
prediction (Gall et al., 2003).
Due
to the number of one-stop career centers nationwide that have an on-site
disability program navigator, it was not possible to survey every one.
Therefore, a non-probability sampling design, was used, specifically, a
purposive sample of one-stop career centers in the United States that had an on-site
disability program navigator. A purposive sample is a sample that is selected
because they possess characteristics that are desired by the researcher; however,
it limited the external validity in generalizing the results to other one-stop
career centers (Sproull, 2002). The purposive sample consisted of two one-stop
career centers serving people with disabilities that were identified by a panel
of experts in a previous study (Bader, 2003), and that agreed to participate in
the study.
The
participants were selected by the contact person at the participating one-stop
career centers using the solicitation method. Fifty surveys were sent to each
one-stop career center, for a total of 100 surveys. Originally, a random
sampling method had been planned using the total number of returned customer
surveys to reduce bias. Due to the length of time in obtaining surveys and
resultant usable surveys, it was not possible to further narrow down the
limited number of surveys for a random sampling.
Because the one-stop career center
system has only been in existence since its creation by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998,
there is limited recent research on it, as well as appropriate customer
satisfaction surveys involving people with disabilities (Barlas, 1998).
Questionnaires assessing client satisfaction with services in human services
agencies are plentiful, ranging from generic satisfaction surveys and specially
developed surveys, to standardized instruments with published data on
reliability and validity. An instrument in the published literature that
measures global satisfaction and direct measures of an individual’s personal
experiences with a specific service received by individuals is the Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8; Attkisson & Zwick, 1982; Attkisson
& Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999). The questionnaire has been
used in quality assurance, evaluation research, program planning, scientific
work, and service research studies in a variety of settings in health and human
services with a wide range of client groups and service types (Sederer &
Dickey, 1996). The Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) developed by Attkisson and Greenfield (1994) was used
in this study.
A background information sheet was
developed to obtain demographic information from each respondent on age,
gender, and educational level, and included questions on whether the customer self-disclosed
a disability, where the customer was referred from, length of time until the
individual met with the disability program navigator, and length of the
appointment. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level for readability statistics of the
background information sheet that was developed by the researcher for this
study indicated that it was a grade 6.3 level. A copy of the Background
Information Sheet is shown in Appendix B. Survey packets were mailed to
participating one-stop career centers using the United States Postal Service, enabling
objectivity that was distant and interest-free on the part of the researcher, a
criterion for classical research (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000).
The
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) is a popular, structured,
self-administered questionnaire directly assessing consumer satisfaction with a
health or human service (Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999; Sederer &
Dickey, 1996; World Health Organization, 2000). It has been used in studies of
comparison measures for alternative approaches to assess satisfaction,
evaluation studies, and clinical research in various populations in both the United States
and abroad since 1973 (Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson &
Greenfield, 1999). Developed by Attkisson and Larsen in 1975, the questionnaire
considers the opinion and perspective of a consumer and assesses aggregate
satisfaction levels of a group of respondents (Sederer & Dickey, 1996).
The Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) was designed to be used with a wide and diverse range of
client groups and types of services, and found to have clear and consistent
meanings across contexts and settings on global satisfaction, making it a
suitable instrument to assess customer satisfaction in the one-stop career
centers (Sederer & Dickey, 1996). Furthermore, the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) is the shorter form of a 31-item instrument, which made
it even more appropriate for ease of use and administration with the study’s
participants (Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson & Greenfield,
1999; Sederer & Dickey, 1996). The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) has been standardized, thoroughly investigated, validated in mental
health settings and addict populations, and combines internal consistency with
other solid psychometric properties (DeWilde & Hendriks, 2005).
Nine conceptual domains of client
satisfaction are addressed in the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8),
which are physical surroundings; procedures; support staff; type or kind of
service; treatment staff; quality of service; amount, length, or quantity of
service; outcome of service; and general satisfaction (Sederer & Dickey,
1996). An 8-item 4-point Likert scale, the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) is easily scored, and optional identification by a respondent has not
been found to result in lower response rate or higher reported satisfaction
(Sederer & Dickey, 1996). Scoring involves an unweighted sum of all
responses to compute a total scale score (Attkisson & Zwick, 1982; Attkisson
& Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999). Higher total
customer satisfaction scores indicate higher levels of customer satisfaction.
The recommended approach by
Attkisson and Greenfield
(1994) for the questionnaire’s administration was a point-of-service survey.
This was the approach taken in this study, that is, surveys were given at the each
of the research sites where services were received. According to Capella
(2002), a desired reading level in consumer satisfaction instruments should be
5th to 6th grade. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level for
readability statistics of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire indicated it was
a grade 4.7 level (Attkisson & Zwick, 1982; Attkisson & Greenfield,
1994; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999). This was an appropriate level of
reading ease for any participant in this study that may have a disability.
Formal permission was obtained from its researcher for use in this study;
applicable fees were paid; and no modifications or changes were made to the
questionnaire, which was a requirement by the researcher.
The internal consistency of the
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire is very high, measuring 0.83-0.93 (Cronbach’s
coefficients). Moderately high item-correlations for the questionnaire are
reported, which supported its use as a one-dimensional and general satisfaction
measure (Sederer & Dickey, 1996). Inter-item correlations among scale items
are also moderately high (Sederer & Dickey, 1996). Construct validity of
the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire is enhanced by high correlations (.6 to
.8) between it and other client satisfaction instruments (Attkisson &
Zwick, 1982; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson & Greenfield,
1999). A low relationship has been typically observed between satisfaction and
other variables of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, contributing to its
favorable discriminant validity (Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994). Due to its
highly desirable psychometric properties, the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) allowed for comparability and external reporting use, reduced costs,
and more easily guaranteed reliability and validity (McColl-Kennedy &
Schneider, 2000; Sederer & Dickey, 1996).
A survey data collection process was
chosen for this study because it allowed for a representative sample from the
population, as well as the the likelihood that customers would be willing to
participate, the likelihood of avoiding social desirability bias, a medium response
rate, and cost effectiveness (Dillman, 1978). Data collection was done through
the use of two questionnaires, the anonymous Customer Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) and an original background information sheet, using the
following procedure. The researcher initially mailed a letter to four one-stop
career centers that were identified as suitable. The letter requested voluntary
participation, and asked to identify a contact person at each one-stop career
center. The two one-stop centers that agreed to participate were then mailed a
survey package. The package contained a cover letter to the contact person and
50 participant packets in separate envelopes. The cover letter detailed how to
identify, administer, and collect survey packets for each participant. Each
research participant packet contained the following items; a cover letter with
information about the research; a request for voluntary participation;
explanation of risks, benefits, privacy, and confidentiality; researcher
contact information; consent to participate by completion of the questionnaires
and instructions of completion; an anonymous background information sheet; a
Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8); and a self-addressed stamped
envelope. Each survey, background information sheet, and envelope were coded
with a number that only the researcher knew and tracked. The code included a
letter for the site, and a number for each survey. In addition, the researcher
called and emailed the contact person at each participating one-stop career
center to follow-up with reminder notifications and status updates.
The identity of the respondents was
not recorded and the questionnaires were administered by the pen-and-paper
method. A participant was orally requested to agree to participate before given
access to the questionnaires. The participant was then requested to complete
the questionnaires immediately after the meeting with the disability program
navigator. After completion of the questionnaires, the participant was asked to
place them in the self-addressed stamped envelope and return it to the one-stop
career center’s front desk, where it was be put in the mail by the contact
person to the researcher.
When the surveys
were returned to the researcher, the data was entered into the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences for evaluation and data management. The data
management allowed for access and transformation of data collected,
organization of the data, analysis, and presentation of the results, as well as
a secure data file storage (Gall et al., 2003). Data was then stored on a computer flash drive and on
paper hard copies that were kept in a locked file cabinet. Only the researcher
had access to the locked file cabinet, computer software programs, computer flash
drive, and paper hard copies. All data from the study, whether written
or computerized, will be stored in a locked file cabinet that is only
accessible by the researcher, and will be protected for seven years after the publication of the
dissertation results. At the end of seven years, any personal
identifying data will be destroyed in a shredding machine by the researcher.
The purpose of statistical analyses
is to summarize the data of the characteristics of the sample population and
determine the extent and degree of any relationships among chosen variables.
The statistical analyses used for this study’s research design and research
questions are discussed in this section.
Standard screening techniques were performed before the actual data analysis was conducted. These procedures included a visual inspection of the surveys and data file for missing data, data entry errors, gaps in the sampling plan, and whether there was a pattern for omitted data. Surveys were scored and all data gathered from the surveys and background information sheet was coded and entered in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program for statistical analyses. Surveys were given identification numbers and were not used if there were missing values or information.
Standard screening techniques were performed before the actual data analysis was conducted. These procedures included a visual inspection of the surveys and data file for missing data, data entry errors, gaps in the sampling plan, and whether there was a pattern for omitted data. Surveys were scored and all data gathered from the surveys and background information sheet was coded and entered in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program for statistical analyses. Surveys were given identification numbers and were not used if there were missing values or information.
A univariate analysis was done by
examining the information obtained from the Background Information sheet.
Numbers were assigned to categories and frequency distribution tables were developed
for the raw data results for each item (Sproull, 2002). Frequency distribution
tables included percentages and allowed for collapsing the results into categories
or groups, which assisted in examining the data and identifying unanticipated
findings (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2004; Sproull, 2002).
Descriptive
statistics were conducted to summarize the sample characteristics, which
included the number in the sample, the minimum, maximum, mean, mode, and
median. Distributions were displayed with histograms for nominal variables
(gender, disability) and box plots for interval variables (age, education,
amount of time until appointment with the disability program navigator, amount
of time spent with the disability program navigator, and scores from the Client
Satisfaction Questionnaires). This aided in interpreting and understanding
whether data was symmetrical, bimodal, or skewed (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
2004).
Next, measures of variability were
conducted on the raw data to identify how homogeneous or heterogeneous they
were, and the spread of the data (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2004; Sproull, 2002).
The measures included the range in the distribution of scores, standard
deviation, and variance. A greater variability of the set of scores indicated a
greater deviation from the mean (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2004). Therefore, an
additional cross-reference to examine the data dispersion, obtain a visual
impression, and locate any outliers, was performed, which was to calculate
box-and-whiskers plots using SPSS (Brase & Brase, 1999).
The study also examined the
relationship between two or more quantifiable variables. The degree of the
relationship between the demographic variables (age, gender, and education),
the amount of time until the appointment with the disability program navigator,
and amount of time spent in the appointment with the disability program navigator,
and the customers’ levels of satisfaction were expressed as a bivariate
coefficient of correlation, that is, the Pearson correlation coefficient. The
Pearson correlation coefficient measured the association between two variables,
furnished a numerical expression of the strength of relationship, and
established the significance level, which was determined by the final size of
the sample (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Coefficients
of determination were calculated, and assisted in explaining the proportion of
variance in one variable accounted for by another variable, that is, the amount
of variance in customers’ satisfaction levels between each variable.
Several
limitations existed in the study. First, in quantitative methodology, the
existence of a relationship among variables must be determined, and any
established relationship is not proof of a cause-effect relationship (Szymanski, 1993). Second, variables not controlled
may suggest causation where there is none (Sproull, 2002; Weinbach &
Grinnell, 2004). Uncontrolled variables in the study included gender,
educational level, and age, as well as whether individuals in the sample had
sufficient knowledge and understanding to express a meaningful opinion (Gall et
al., 2003) or whether the participants were able to easily respond to them
(Sproull, 2002). Third, implementation and aspects of the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative have varied between the two sample sites, which posed a
threat to statistical and test scores, as well as external validity, that is,
generalizability (Parker, 1993). Fourth, the disability-friendliness of the
community of the sample one-stop career centers may have impacted the
accessibility of individuals with disabilities to the sites. Fifth, the Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) assumed an equal value of each item, since
scoring resulted in a sum for all items (Sproull, 2002). Sixth, although timing
of the study’s satisfaction measures were planned to result in the highest
response rate, results taken at the end of a treatment tend to be skewed toward
higher levels of satisfaction (Maruish, 1999). In this study, data was not
collected as to whether the customers’ meeting with the disability program
navigator was their first, last, or only meeting. Lastly, it is possible that findings
from the study may not generalize to one-stop career centers in different
geographic regions of the country, due to the size of the sample and that it
was not a random study.
It was expected
that findings from the study would provide an indication of whether the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative was meeting the goals of the one-stop
career center system. Unique feedback from customers with a disability and
patterns of customer satisfaction levels for different disability categories
were gained, as well identification and insight of other needs required by
customers with disabilities at the one-stop career centers (Capella, 2002).
Ethical issues in research involving
human subjects are a significant concern, and include obtaining informed
consent, protecting participants from harm, maintaining confidentiality, and
professional honesty in reporting research findings (Gall et al., 2003). All
data from the study, whether written or computerized, was stored in a locked
file cabinet that was only accessible by the researcher and protected for seven
years. After seven years from completion of the study, any personal identifying
data will be destroyed by use of a shredder.
In clear,
nontechnical language at an appropriate reading level, the informed consent
process advised participants of the nature of the study; provided an overview
of the study’s procedures and how participants were selected; explained risks
and benefits; assured participants that participation was voluntary; and
described procedures on confidentiality, privacy, and anonymity. The informed
consent process also included contact information for the researcher and the
Institutional Review Board of Capella University; alternative procedures to complete
the survey; and how to obtain a summary of the study’s findings, if desired or
required (Gall et al., 2003; Sreenivasan, 2003).
The research did
not violate participants' privacy. Protection of anonymity involved the use of
procedures that prevented communication of participants' identity throughout
the research study, on the questionnaires, and in reporting results. These
procedures included refraining from collecting identifying information, and
only distinguished participants by demographic information, that is, gender, age,
and educational level, and results were reported in the aggregate only. All
participants’ confidentiality were maintained by using procedures to protect
the integrity of any information that could be used to identify participants,
as well as restricted access to the information to unauthorized persons (Gall et
al., 2003).
A second issue in
the ethical conduct of research is the protection of participants from physical
harm, psychological abuse, and legal jeopardy (Gall et al., 2003). Because the study
was not an experiment, participants were not subjected to any potential
physical, psychological, mental, social, financial, or legal risks. Individuals
were advised that they were free to refuse to participate. If an individual
chose to participate, he or she was advised that no compensation was provided,
and that the study’s results may be obtained as aggregate results with no
personal identifiers through Capella
University (Sreenivasan,
2003). Safeguards and special precautions were included to protect the rights
and welfare of any possible vulnerable populations and minimize risk. These
included the use of experts to solicit appropriate research sites and
participants; the researcher’s training, education, and certification in
knowledge about the particular vulnerabilities of people with disabilities; the
disability program navigator’s training required in his or her employment, and
ensuring that disability accommodations were available to participants if
requested. The two participating research sites were identified by a panel of
experts as one-stop career centers serving people with disabilities to meet
criteria necessary to properly serve this population, and which included the
availability of disability accommodations (Bader, 2003).
Sreenivasan (2003)
wrote that not only does an individual have the greatest motivation to weigh
correctly in his or her own case, but are also the most familiar with the
details of his or her own situation, and to deny he or she the right to make an
“ignorant decision” to participate or refuse to participate is morally wrong. A
one-stop career centers is operated as a self-service facility and if an
individual with a disability is able to both use the one-stop career center and
consents to meeting with the disability program navigator, it was a reasonable
expectation that any participant’s disability was not an obstacle to minimal
comprehension for consent to participate in the study.
As with participating
customers, a letter was sent to the participating one-stop career centers
giving assurances of anonymity
and confidentiality that the name of the one-stop career center, the
state in which it is located, and the names of any staff and contacts involved
in the study would not be revealed. Each one-stop career center was requested
to provide a letter granting permission to the researcher, and consent to
participate, provide a contact person’s information, and to return the
permission and consent to the researcher. Anonymity of the two research sites
were maintained and identifying information was not included in reporting
results or in any of the appendices of the research.
The study used
personal resources for funding, which eliminated the concern with restrictions
in the honest communication of research results. Credit was given to other
researcher’s work and reported findings were not misrepresented. Approval of
this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at Capella University.
This
chapter describes the data collection and results of the research to assess and
analyze levels of one-stop career center client satisfaction participating in
the Disability Program Navigator Initiative. Following
a discussion of the study’s sample characteristics and descriptive statistics
for both the Background Information Sheet and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8), the results of the correlational analysis are reported for the purpose
of answering the research questions. The research questions in this
quantitative study addressing the factors that influence customer satisfaction
were;
- To what extent are customers satisfied with the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop career centers?
- What areas do customers identify as needing improvement?
- How do the customers’ levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting?
The adults who participated
in this study were recruited from two one-stop career center sites located in
the U.S.A. Fifty survey packets were sent to each research site, for a total of
100 survey packets, with specific instructions for soliciting voluntary
participation. The individual chosen by the contact person at each research
site to handle the survey packets and instructions was the on-site disability
program navigator. This data collection method was chosen to decrease
limitations of a mailed survey and administration bias, and to increase
response rate (LeVois, Nguyen & Attkisson, 1981; Nguyen, Attkisson &
Stegner, 1983). The data collection method also sent a message to the
participants of the importance of their satisfaction and opinions, since the
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) “explicitly reflects the perspective
of the client” (Attkisson & Greenfield, 2004, p 808).
Immediately
after their meeting with the disability program navigator, customers were read
the standardized script and given a survey packet with a letter indicating why
the data was being collected, what the data would be used for, and how the data
would be stored. In the letter, an assurance was given as to confidentiality of
their responses and maintenance of anonymity, and also requested their
voluntary participation in the study. Data collection was conducted and
completed at one research site at a time, in order to obtain surveys at
different times of the year.
Although
it was planned to complete all data collection within three months at each
site, delays were encountered that required additional time for data
collection. Delays included flooding in one of the research sites’ area,
changes in the disability program navigators’ responsibilities, and hiring and
training of a replacement disability program navigator. Since data collection
at only one research site was done and completed at a time before initiating
data collection at the second site, completion of data collection from both
research sites took 14 months (June 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008). Data was
securely stored until collection from both research sites was finalized.
A
total of 63 surveys out of the 100 sent to both sites was returned to the
investigator via the U.S. Postal Service, for a response rate of 63%. Data was
visually inspected for missing data, gaps in the sampling, and patterns for
omitted data. A visual screening of the returned survey documents conducted to
separate those that were usable resulted in 41 usable research packets, that
is, all questions on the Background Information Sheet and Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) were completely filled out and answered. A high number of
unusable surveys from Research Site 2 was noted (16 total), which included those
not completely filled out or all questions were not answered. The Statistical
Packages for Social Sciences was used for coding,
inputting, computing, and analyzing the resultant usable data.
Background Information Sheet Survey Sample Characteristics
and Descriptive Statistics
A univariate analysis was conducted
on the information obtained from the Background Information Sheet. The
Background Information Sheet asked four questions regarding a participant’s
demographic information on gender, age, educational level, and whether a
disability was disclosed. A copy of the Background Information Sheet is shown
in Appendix B. The purpose for asking these questions was to obtain information
on how representative of the population the sample participants were, and to
provide a description of who they were. The total sample of 41 participants was
comprised of 16 men (39%) and 25 women (61%). The total number of participants
who self-identified that they had a disability was 29 (70.7%).
Participants
were given five different referring sites to choose from; the one-stop career
center, a website/online, the Social Security Office, the unemployment office,
or from family and friends. Twenty (48.8%) respondents indicated they found out
about the disability program navigator services from the one-stop career
center, 4 (9.8%) from a website or online, 6 (14.6%) from the Social Security
Office, and 17 (41.5%) from the unemployment office, while 10 (24.4%) found out
from a friend or family member. The majority of participants found out about
the disability program navigator from the one-stop career center (48.8%) and
the unemployment office (41.5%).
The ages of the combined samples from
both research sites ranged from 25 years to 74 years, and is shown in Figure 1.
Figure
1. Ages of participants.
The mean was 45, the mode was 51,
the median was 47, and the standard deviation was 10.80. Although a wide age distribution existed
within the sample, a slight majority of the sample fell between the ages of 25
and 58 years. Of note was the
nonexistence of any respondents between ages 60 and 70, and one outlier at age
74.
The
sample range for the participants’ educational level was 9 to 19 years, shown
in Figure 2.
Figure
2. Years of education of participants.
The
mean was 13.73, mode was 12, median was 13, and standard deviation was 2.32.
Figure 2 displays a histogram of the frequencies of the participants’
educational levels, indicating the majority of participants completed 12 to 14
years of education. Of note was the nonexistence of any respondent with an
educational level of 17 years.
A
brief summary of the results and findings of the research data analysis
organized around the research questions is presented in this section.
Research Question 1. To what extent are customers satisfied the services of the disability program
navigators in one-stop career centers?
Total client satisfaction scores ranged from 16 to 32. The majority of Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire scores from both sites fell between 24 and 32, with a mean of
27.49.
Research
Question 2. What areas do customers
identify as needing improvement? More
than 50% of respondents scored the disability program navigator service with
favorable response ratings on all eight items on the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Lowest scores were on Item 3; To what extent has the program met your needs? Highest scores were on Item 4; If a
friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend our program to him or
her? and Item 8; If you were to seek help again, would you
come back to our program?
Research
Question 3. How do the customers’ levels
of satisfaction with services received from the disability program navigator
relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the disability
program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability
program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting? Results of the Pearsons correlation
coefficient calculations indicated that older respondents tended to have lower
total client satisfaction scores, participants with more years of education
tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores, participants who met
with the disability program navigator sooner tended to have higher total client
satisfaction scores, and participants that spent more time in their meeting
with the disability program navigator tended to have higher total client
satisfaction scores. Independent-samples t
tests to evaluate the degree of the relationship between a participant’s
total client satisfaction score and gender, whether a disability was disclosed,
and where the individual found out about the disability program navigator,
showed no significant differences. Coefficients of determination results in the
amount of variance between age, years of education, number of days until a
participant’s meeting with the disability program navigator, and minutes in the
meeting, and total client satisfaction scores were low, with little overlap.
In
this section, a detailed presentation of the data analysis and results will be
provided.
The
study initially planned to randomize the convenience sample; however, due to
the small sample of 41 returned usable surveys, this was not feasible.
Therefore, after visually examining the histograms, further exploration was
done to determine if the sample used in this study had a fairly normal
distribution, to allow for reliability of inferences, and check for any
violations of the assumptions required in statistical techniques (Brase &
Brase, 1999; Pallant, 2007). In addition to the mean, the mode, and the median,
another statistical cross-reference of the data spread was done to locate
extreme values (Brase & Brase, 1999). Using the frequency distributions
previously prepared, the variations chosen to examine the data dispersion
further were the range, the variance, the standard deviation, and the
interquartile range, which is the spread of the middle half of the data. To
obtain a visual impression of the data range and location of the middle half of
the data for age, years of education, number of days until meeting, total
minutes in meeting, and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores, SPSS
was used to develop box-and-whisker plots (Brase & Brase, 1999). Box-and-whisker
plots show high and low outliers that fall beyond the limits of the interquartile
range, and provide the five-number summary, that is, the lowest value, Quartile
1, median, Quartile 3, and highest value, which is used in creating a graphic
sketch of data (Brase & Brase, 1999). From this five-number summary,
calculations were done to find the Interquartile Range (IQR) and limits to
locate outliers that would need to be discarded to avoid distorting the
statistics (Brase & Brase, 1999).
Box-and-whisker
plots were developed for the sample’s age, years of education, number of days
until a participant met with the disability program navigator, total minutes in
the meeting with the disability program navigator, and participants’ total
scores on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Five-number summaries
of the minimum value, maximum value, median, Quartile 1, Quartile 3, and
Interquartile Range (IQR) are reported for each in the following figures.
Additionally, lengths of the whiskers for each boxplot were calculated using
the five-number summary to identify extreme outliers that should be removed, to
avoid values that would distort the statistics (Pallant, 2007). Calculating the
boxplot’s whisker lengths was done by multiplying the Interquartile Range (IQR)
by 1.5, and then subtracting this number from Quartile 1, as well as adding it
to Quartile 3. These values were the endpoints of the boxplot’s whisker
lengths, and values beyond these endpoints were the sample’s outliers to be
considered.
Figure
3 is a box-and-whiskers plot for participants’ ages that shows the five-point
summary and whisker lengths.
Figure
3. Box-and-whiskers plot of ages of participants.
The
minimum value was 25, the maximum value was 74, and the median was 46. The
Quartile 1 was 38, the Quartile 3 was 54, and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 16. Endpoints of the whisker lengths
were 14 and 78. There were no outliers higher than 78 or lower than 14;
therefore, no data was removed.
Figure
4 is a box-and-whiskers plot for the years of education reported by the
participants that shows the five-point summary and whisker lengths.
Figure
4. Box-and-whiskers plot of years of education of participants.
The
minimum value was 12, the maximum value was 19, and the median was 13. The
Quartile 1 was 9, the Quartile 3 was 15, and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was
6. Endpoints of the whisker lengths were 0 and 21. There were no outliers
higher than 21 or lower than 0; therefore, no data was removed.
Figure
5 is a box-and-whiskers plot for the data for the number of days until a
participant met with the disability program navigator that shows the five-point
summary and whisker lengths.
Figure 5.
Box-and-whiskers plot for number of days until participants’ meeting with
disability program navigator. Outlier at 14-day mark.
The
minimum value was 0 (on the same day), the maximum value was 14, and the median
was 1 day. The Quartile 1 was 0 days, the Quartile 3 was 3 days, and the
Interquartile Range (IQR) was 3.
Endpoints of the whisker lengths were 4.5 and 7.5. There was one outlier of 14
days, which was removed to avoid distorting the statistics.
Figure
6 is a box-and-whiskers plot for the number of minutes participants were in
their meeting with the disability program navigator, and shows the five-point
summary and whisker lengths.
Figure 6. Box-and-whiskers
plot for minutes in participants’ meeting with disability program navigator.
Outliers at 2-minute mark and 45-minutes mark.
The minimum number of minutes was 2, the
maximum was 90 minutes, and the median was 44 minutes. The Quartile 1 was 13,
the Quartile 3 was 60, and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 47. Endpoints of
the whisker lengths were 0 and 130.5. There were no outliers higher than 130.5
minutes or lower than 0 minutes; therefore, no data was removed.
Figure
7 is a box-and-whiskers plot showing the five-point summary and whisker lengths
for participants’ total scores on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8).
Figure 7.
Box-and-whiskers plot for participants’ total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) scores.
The
minimum score was 16, the maximum was 32, and the median was 28. The Quartile 1
was 16, the Quartile 3 was 31, and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 15.
Endpoints of the whisker lengths were 0 and 53.5. There were no outliers higher
than 53.5 minutes or lower than 0 minutes; therefore, no data was removed.
Based
on the box-and-whiskers plot, five-point summaries, and calculations
identifying outliers, the SPSS data was modified to eliminate the case with the
14-day outlier.
In
addition to demographic questions, other questions asked on the Background
Information Sheet related to where participants found out about the one stop
career centers’ disability program navigator from, how many days it was until
they met with the disability program navigator, and how many minutes they spent
in their meeting. The purpose for asking these questions was to obtain
information on factors that might be related to customers’ satisfaction levels
in order to answer research question 1; To what extent are customers
satisfied the services of the disability
program navigators in one-stop career centers, and research question 2; What
areas do customers identify as needing improvement? The majority of participants found out about
the disability program navigator from the one-stop career center (48.8%) and
the unemployment office (41.5%).
A
frequency analysis was conducted on how many days it was after
participants asked to meet with the disability program navigator until they
were actually able to meet with him or her. A frequency histogram of the days
is provided in Figure 8.
Figure
8. Number of days until meeting with disability program navigator.
The
results indicated by participants regarding the number of days until a
participant met with the disability program navigator were; 0 days = 14 (34.1%;
that is, met on the same day), 1 day = 10 (24.4%); that is, within 24 hours), 2
days = 5 (12.2%; that is, within 48 hours), 3 days = 5, (12.2%; that is, within
72 hours), 5 days = 2 (4.9%), 6 days = 1 (2.4%), 7 days = 3 (7.3%), and 14 days
= 1 (2.4%). The majority from both sites fell between 0 days and 3 days. As
indicated in Figure 8, the sample ranged in dates until an actual meeting with
the disability program navigator from 0 to 14 days, the mean was 2.1, the mode
was 1, and the standard deviation was 2.84. Of note was that there were no days
reported for 4 days or 6 days, there was only one reporting of 5 days and 7
days, and there was an absence of any days between 7 and 14 days.
A
frequency analysis for how much time participants
spent in their first meeting with the disability program navigator is shown in Figure 9.
Figure
9. Minutes in meeting with disability program navigator.
The
number of minutes in their meeting indicated by participants were 2 minutes = 1
(2.4%), 15 minutes = 1 (2.4%), 20 minutes = 5 (12.2%), 30 minutes = 12 (29.3%),
45 minutes = 12 (29.3%), 55 minutes = 1
(2.4%), 60 minutes = 7 (17.1%), and 90 minutes = 2 (4.9%). The majority of the sample ranged between 20
minutes and 45 minutes.
The
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) consisted of eight questions about
satisfaction with services received, each of which was rated using a Likert
scale of 1 through 4, and then are added together, for a total satisfaction
score that could range from 8 to 32. The
highest score that could be given on any one item was a 4. A frequency analysis
of the distribution of total satisfaction scores is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10.
Distribution of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores. Histogram
shows bimodal shape.
The
sample ranged in client satisfaction scores from 16 to 32. The mean was 27.49, the median was 28, the
mode was 32, and the standard deviation was 3.97. The majority of Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire scores from both sites fell between 24 and 32. Of note were an
outlier of 16, and the lack of any scores between 17 and 21. The histogram of
the distribution of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores indicates
a bimodal shape. Brase & Brase (1999) stated that bimodal shapes indicate
sampling from two different populations.
Results
for each of the 8 items of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire are shown in
the following tables. Table 1 shows the results of the responses to item 1; How would you rate the quality of service you received? The majority of respondents (58.5%) replied
with an excellent rating, and 95.1%
rated the quality of service as good or
excellent.
Table
1. Responses to Item 1. How would you rate the quality of service you received
Rating
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
|||
Fair
|
2
|
4.9
36.6
58.5
100.0
|
|||
Good
|
15
|
||||
Excellent
|
24
|
||||
Total
|
41
|
||||
Table
2 shows the results of the responses to item 2; Did you get the kind of service you wanted?
Table
2. Responses to Item 2. Did you get the kind of service you wanted
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid
Percent
|
Cumulative
Percent
|
||
no, not really
|
1
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
|
yes, generally
|
22
|
53.7
|
53.7
|
56.1
|
|
yes, definitely
|
18
|
43.9
|
43.9
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
41
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
majority of respondents (53.7%) replied with a yes, generally rating, for a total of 97.5% yes respondents indicating satisfaction with the quality of
service.
Table
3 shows the results of the responses to item 3; To what extent has our program met your needs?
Table 3. Responses to Item 3. To what extent has the
program met your needs
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid
Percent
|
Cumulative
Percent
|
||
none of needs met
|
2
|
4.9
|
4.9
|
4.9
|
|
only a few needs met
|
7
|
17.1
|
17.1
|
22.0
|
|
most of needs met
|
22
|
53.7
|
53.7
|
75.6
|
|
almost all of needs met
|
10
|
24.4
|
24.4
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
41
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
majority of respondents (53.7%) replied that most of needs met. A total of 78.1% of respondents appeared to have
received the kind of service they wanted from the disability program navigator,
and that most or almost all of their needs were met.
Table
4 shows the results of the responses to item 4; If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend our
program to him or her?
Table 4. Responses to Item 4. Would you recommend the
program to a friend
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid
Percent
|
Cumulative
Percent
|
||
no, don't think so
|
1
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
|
yes, I think so
|
14
|
34.1
|
34.1
|
36.6
|
|
yes, definitely
|
26
|
63.4
|
63.4
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
41
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
majority of respondents (63.4%) replied yes,
definitely. A total of 97.5% respondents appeared willing to recommend the
disability program navigator’s services to a friend.
Table
5 shows the results of the responses to item 5; How satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?
Table 5. Responses to Item 5. How satisfied are you with
the amount of help received
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid
Percent
|
Cumulative
Percent
|
||
quite dissatisfied
|
1
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
|
indifferent or mildly dissatisfied
|
2
|
4.9
|
4.9
|
7.3
|
|
mostly satisfied
|
15
|
36.6
|
36.6
|
43.9
|
|
very satisfied
|
23
|
56.1
|
56.1
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
41
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
majority of respondents (56.1%) replied with a very satisfied rating. Of note is the percentage of respondents who
replied that they were mostly satisfied
(36.6%), indicating that 92.7% of respondents were mostly satisfied or very
satisfied with the amount of help they received from the disability program
navigator. There were no respondents who reported they were mildly dissatisfied.
Table
6 shows the results of the responses to item 6; Have the services you received helped you to deal more effectively with
your problems?
Table 6. Responses to Item 6. Have the services
helped with your problems
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid
Percent
|
Cumulative
Percent
|
||
no, really didn't help
|
2
|
4.9
|
4.9
|
4.9
|
|
yes, helped somewhat
|
16
|
39.0
|
39.0
|
43.9
|
|
yes, helped a great deal
|
23
|
56.1
|
56.1
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
41
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The majority of
respondents (56.1%) replied yes, helped a
great deal. A total of 95.5% of respondents indicated that services
provided by the disability program navigator helped with their problems.
Table
7 shows the results of the responses to item 7; In an overall, general sense, how satisfied are you with the service
you received?
Table 7. Responses to Item 7. Overall general
satisfaction with service
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid
Percent
|
Cumulative
Percent
|
||
indifferent or mildly dissatisfied
|
3
|
7.3
|
7.3
|
7.3
|
|
mostly satisfied
|
16
|
39.0
|
39.0
|
46.3
|
|
very satisfied
|
22
|
53.7
|
53.7
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
41
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
majority of respondents (53.7%) answered that they were very satisfied overall with service from the disability program
navigator. The percentage of respondents that were mostly or very satisfied
overall with service from the disability program navigator was 92.7%. Of note,
was that 3 respondents were indifferent or mildly dissatisfied with the
service.
Table
8 shows the results of the responses to item 8; If you were to seek help again, would you come back to our program?
Table 8.
Responses to Item 8. Would you come back to the program
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid
Percent
|
Cumulative
Percent
|
||
no, don't think so
|
1
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
|
yes, think so
|
18
|
43.9
|
43.9
|
46.3
|
|
yes, definitely
|
22
|
53.7
|
53.7
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
41
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
majority of respondents (53.7%) replied yes,
definitely, for a total of 97.6% of respondents indicating they would come
back to the program.
Descriptive
statistics were obtained for each of the eight items on the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8), which are shown in Table 9.
Table 9.
Descriptive Statistics 8 Items on Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
N
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
Mean
|
SD
|
|
|
41
|
2
|
4
|
3.54
|
.596
|
|
41
|
2
|
4
|
3.41
|
.547
|
|
41
|
1
|
4
|
2.98
|
.790
|
|
41
|
2
|
4
|
3.61
|
.542
|
|
41
|
1
|
4
|
3.46
|
.711
|
|
41
|
2
|
4
|
3.51
|
.597
|
|
41
|
2
|
4
|
3.46
|
.636
|
|
41
|
2
|
4
|
3.51
|
.553
|
Mean
ratings on the eight items ranged from 2.98 on Item 3 to 3.61 on Item 4.
Standard deviations ranged from .542 to .790. The lowest rating of 1 was given
on Item 3; To what extent has the program
met your needs? and Item 5; How
satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?”
In
summary, more than 50% of respondents scored the disability program navigator
service with favorable response ratings on all eight items on the Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). The lowest mean score of 2.98 on any item,
the lowest rating score of 1, and the lowest percentage of favorable responses
(78.1%) was on Item 3; To what extent has
the program met your needs? The highest mean score of 3.61 was on Item 4; If a friend were in need of similar help,
would you recommend our program to him or her? The highest total of respondent percentages
(97.6%) was on Item 8; If you were to
seek help again, would you come back to our program?
A visual inspection of the
histograms did not indicate any violations of the assumptions of normality,
linearity, and homoscedasticity (Pallant, 2007). The histograms inspected
included participants’ total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores, their
age, years of education, number of days until they met with the disability
program navigator, and number of minutes they spent in their meeting.
To evaluate the variables with respect
to each other, and determine if one variable influenced or caused the resultant
total satisfaction scores, t tests
were run, and the Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) was determined. These results assisted in answering research
question 3; How do the customers’
levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability program
navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the
disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the
disability program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting? The Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) was used to explore the relationship
between the ratio scale variables, that is, the participants’ total Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores and their age, years of education,
number of days until they met with the disability program navigator, and number
of minutes they spent in their meeting. Results of the SPSS calculation for the
participants’ age and total client satisfaction scores are shown in Table 10.
Table
10. Pearsons Correlation Results for Age and Total Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) Scores
Age
of person
|
Total
CSQ-8 score
|
||
Age of person
|
Pearsons
Correlation
|
1
|
-.096
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
.554
|
||
N
|
40
|
40
|
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Pearsons
Correlation
|
-.096
|
1
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
.554
|
||
N
|
40
|
40
|
The
Pearsons correlation coefficient calculation for the relationship between the
participants’ age and total client satisfaction score revealed a weak negative
relationship that was not significant (r(38) = -.096, p > .05). Older
respondents tended to have lower total client satisfaction scores.
Results
of the SPSS calculation for the participants’ years of education and total
client satisfaction scores are shown in Table 11.
Table
11. Pearsons Correlation Results for Years of Education and Total Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) Scores
Total
CSQ-8 score
|
Years
of education
|
||
Years of education
|
Pearsons
Correlation
|
1
|
.247
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
.119
|
||
N
|
41
|
41
|
|
Total
CSQ-8 score
|
Pearsons
Correlation
|
.247
|
1
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
.119
|
||
N
|
41
|
41
|
The
Pearsons correlation coefficient calculation for the relationship between the
participants’ years of education and total client satisfaction score revealed a
weak positive relationship that was not significant (r(39) = .247, p < .05).
Participants with more years of education tended to have higher total client
satisfaction scores.
Results
of the SPSS calculation for the number of days until a participant met with the
disability program navigator and total client satisfaction scores are shown in
Table 12. The data used in this calculation omitted the 14-day outlier.
Table
12. Pearsons Correlation Results for Days until Meeting With Disability
Program Navigator and Total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) Scores
Days
until meeting
|
Total
CSQ-8 score
|
||
Days until meeting with disability
program navigator
|
Pearsons
Correlation
|
1
|
-.163
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
.321
|
||
N
|
39
|
39
|
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Pearsons
Correlation
|
-.163
|
1
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
.321
|
||
N
|
39
|
39
|
The
Pearsons correlation coefficient calculation for the relationship between the
participants’ years of education and total client satisfaction score revealed a
weak negative relationship that was not significant (r(39) = -.163, p <
.05). Participants who met with the
disability program navigator sooner tended to have higher total client
satisfaction scores.
Results
of the SPSS calculation for minutes that participants spent in their meeting
with the disability program navigator and total client satisfaction scores are
shown in Table 13.
Table
13. Pearsons Correlation Results for Minutes Spent in Meeting With
Disability Program Navigator and Total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
Score
Minutes
of meeting
|
Total
CSQ-8 score
|
||
Minutes of meeting with disability
program navigator
|
Pearsons
Correlation
|
1
|
-.145
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
.373
|
||
N
|
40
|
40
|
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Pearsons
Correlation
|
-.145
|
1
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
.373
|
||
N
|
40
|
40
|
The
Pearsons correlation coefficient calculation for the relationship between the
minutes spent in the participants’ meeting with the disability program
navigator and total client satisfaction score revealed a weak negative
relationship that was not significant (r(38) = -.145, p < .05). Participants that spent more time in their
meeting with the disability program navigator tended to have higher total
client satisfaction scores.
To
evaluate the degree of the relationship between a participant’s total client
satisfaction score and gender, whether a disability was disclosed, and where
the individual found out about the disability program navigator,
independent-samples t tests were
calculated in SPSS. A 95% confidence interval of the difference was used for
all t tests. The results of the
independent-samples t tests to
compare the means of the total client satisfaction scores for women and men are
provided in Table 14.
Table
14. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8)
Scores for Women and Men
Gender
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Std.
Error Mean
|
|
female
|
24
|
28.17
|
3.371
|
.688
|
|
male
|
16
|
26.25
|
4.640
|
1.160
|
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
|
t-test
for Equality of Means
|
|||||||||
F
|
Sig.
|
t
|
df
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
Mean
Differ-ence
|
Std.
Error Differ-ence
|
95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
|||
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
|
Equal variances assumed
|
1.047
|
.313
|
1.514
|
38
|
.138
|
1.917
|
1.266
|
-.645
|
4.479
|
|
There was no significant difference in mean
scores for women (M = 18.17, SD = 3.37) and men (M = 26.25, SD = 4.64).
Since the Levene’s Test Sig. value was larger than .05 (.313), the Equal
Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between women
and men, that is, the t test for
Equality of Means, p = .138, there
was no significant difference between the two groups (t (38) = .313, p >
.05).
The
results of the independent-samples t
test to compare the means of the total client satisfaction scores and whether a
disability was self-identified or not by the participants are provided in Table
15.
Table
15. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8)
Scores and Participants who Self-Identified a Disability
Self-identified disability
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Std.
Error Mean
|
|
no
|
11
|
29.00
|
3.376
|
1.018
|
|
yes
|
29
|
26.79
|
4.083
|
.758
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
|
t
test for Equality of Means
|
||||||||
F
|
Sig.
|
t
|
df
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
Mean
Differ-ence
|
Std.
Error Differ-ence
|
95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
|||
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
||
Equal variances assumed
|
.445
|
.509
|
1.594
|
38
|
.119
|
2.207
|
1.384
|
-.596
|
5.009
|
|
There
was no significant difference in mean scores for individuals who did not
self-identify as having a disability (M
= 29.00, SD = 3.37) and individuals
who did self-identify (M = 26.79, SD = 4.08). Since the Levene’s Test Sig.
value was larger than .05 (.509), the Equal Variances Assumed row was applied.
In assessing the difference between participants who self-identified as having
a disability and those who did not self-identify, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p = .119, there was no significant
difference between the two groups (t(38) = 1.59, p > .05).
The
results of the independent-samples t
test to compare the means of the total client satisfaction scores and whether
or not a participant found out about the disability program navigator from the
one-stop career center are provided in Table 16.
Table
16. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8)
Scores and Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From
One-Stop Career Center
Found out about disability program navigator from One-stop
career center
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Std.
Error Mean
|
|
no
|
21
|
27.10
|
4.134
|
.902
|
|
yes
|
19
|
27.74
|
3.899
|
.895
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
|
t
test for Equality of Means
|
||||||||
F
|
Sig.
|
t
|
df
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
Mean
Differ-ence
|
Std.
Error Differ-ence
|
95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
|||
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
||
Equal variances assumed
|
.086
|
.771
|
-.504
|
38
|
.618
|
-.642
|
1.274
|
-3.221
|
1.938
|
|
There
was no significant difference in mean scores for individuals who did not find
out about the disability program navigator from the one-stop career center (M = 27.10, SD = 4.13) and individuals who did (M = 27.74, SD = 3.89).
Since the Levene’s Test Sig. value was larger than .05 (.77), the Equal
Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between participants
who did not and did find out about the disability program navigator from the
one-stop career center, that is, the t
test for Equality of Means, p = .618,
there was no significant difference between the two groups (t(38) = .504, p
> .05).
The
results of the independent-samples t
test to compare the means of the total client satisfaction scores and whether
or not a participant found out about the disability program navigator from a
website/online are provided in Table 17.
Table
17. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8)
Scores and Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From a
Website/Online
Found out about disability program
navigator from a website/online
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Std.
Error Mean
|
|
no
|
36
|
27.17
|
3.939
|
.656
|
|
yes
|
4
|
29.50
|
4.359
|
2.179
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
|
t
test for Equality of Means
|
||||||||
F
|
Sig.
|
t
|
df
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
Mean
Differ-ence
|
Std.
Error Differ-ence
|
95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
|||
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
||
Equal variances assumed
|
.001
|
.974
|
-1.114
|
38
|
.272
|
-2.333
|
2.094
|
-6.573
|
1.906
|
|
There
was no significant difference in mean scores for individuals who did not find
out about the disability program navigator from a website/online (M = 27.17, SD = 3.93) and individuals who did (M = 29.50, SD = 4.35).
Since the Levene’s Test Sig. value was larger than .05 (.97), the Equal
Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between
participants who did not and did find out about the disability program
navigator from a website or online, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p
= .272, there was no significant difference between the two groups (t (38) =
1.11, p > .05).
The
results of the independent-samples t
test to compare the means of the total client satisfaction scores and whether
or not a participant found out about the disability program navigator from the
Social Security office are provided in Table 18.
Table
18. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8)
Scores and Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From
the Social Security Office
Found out about disability program
navigator from Social Security office
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Std.
Error Mean
|
|
no
|
34
|
27.44
|
4.136
|
.709
|
|
yes
|
6
|
27.17
|
3.312
|
1.352
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
|
t
test for Equality of Means
|
||||||||
F
|
Sig.
|
t
|
df
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
Mean
Differ-ence
|
Std.
Error Differ-ence
|
95% Confidence
Interval of the Difference
|
|||
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
||
Equal variances assumed
|
.557
|
.460
|
.154
|
38
|
.879
|
.275
|
1.787
|
-3.344
|
3.893
|
|
There
was no significant difference in mean scores for individuals who did not find
out about the disability program navigator from the Social Security office (M = 27.44, SD = 4.13) and individuals who did (M = 27.17, SD = 3.31).
Since the Levene’s Test Sig. value was larger than .05 (.46), the Equal
Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between
participants who did not and did find out about the disability program
navigator from the Social Security office, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p
= .879, there was no significant difference between the two groups (t(38) =
.154, p > .05).
The
results of the independent-samples t
test to compare the means of the total client satisfaction scores and whether
or not a participant found out about the disability program navigator from the
unemployment office are provided in Table 19.
Table
19. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8)
Scores and Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From
the Unemployment Office
Found out about disability program
navigator from unemployment office
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Std.
Error Mean
|
|
no
|
24
|
27.04
|
3.316
|
.677
|
|
yes
|
16
|
27.94
|
4.892
|
1.223
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
|
t
test for Equality of Means
|
||||||||
F
|
Sig.
|
t
|
df
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
Mean
Differ-ence
|
Std.
Error Differ-ence
|
95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
|||
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
||
Equal variances assumed
|
3.784
|
.059
|
-.692
|
38
|
.493
|
-.896
|
1.295
|
-3.518
|
1.726
|
|
There
was no significant difference in mean scores for individuals who did not find
out about the disability program navigator from the unemployment office (M = 27.04, SD = 3.31) and individuals who did (M = 27.94, SD = 4.89).
Since the Levene’s Test Sig. value was larger than .05 (.059), the Equal
Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between
participants who did not and did find out about the disability program
navigator from the unemployment office, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p
= .493, there was no significant difference between the two groups (t(38) =
.896, p > .05).
The
results of the independent-samples t
test to compare the means of the total client satisfaction scores and whether
or not a participant found out about the disability program navigator from
family/friends are provided in Table 20.
Table
20. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8)
Scores and Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From
Family or Friends
Found out about disability program navigator
from family/friends
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
Std.
Error Mean
|
|
no
|
30
|
27.63
|
4.123
|
.753
|
|
yes
|
10
|
26.70
|
3.653
|
1.155
|
Total CSQ-8 score
|
Levene's
Test for Equality of Variances
|
t
test for Equality of Means
|
||||||||
F
|
Sig.
|
t
|
df
|
Sig.
(2-tailed)
|
Mean
Differ-ence
|
Std.
Error Differ-ence
|
95%
Confidence Interval of the Difference
|
|||
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Lower
|
||
Equal variances assumed
|
.594
|
.446
|
.636
|
38
|
.528
|
.933
|
1.467
|
-2.036
|
3.902
|
|
There
was no significant difference in mean scores for individuals who did not find
out about the disability program navigator from the family or friends (M = 27.63, SD = 4.12) and individuals who did (M = 26.70, SD = 3.65).
Since the Levene’s Test Sig. value was larger than .05 (.446), the Equal
Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between
participants who did not and did find out about the disability program
navigator from family/friends, that is, the t
test for Equality of Means, p = .528,
there was no significant difference between the two groups (t(38) = .636, p
> .05).
To
assist in explaining the amount of variance between the independent variables
of age, years of education, number of days until a participant’s meeting with
the disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting, and the dependent
variable of the total client satisfaction scores, coefficients of determination
were calculated. This involved squaring the Pearsons r value and converting to percentage of variance by multiplying by
100, which was done using a calculator. The results of the coefficients of
determination between the independent variables of age, years of education,
number of days until a participant’s meeting with the disability program
navigator, and minutes in the meeting, and the dependent variable of the total
client satisfaction scores are provided in Table 21.
Table 21. Coefficients of Determination for Client
Satisfaction Scores
Independent Variable
|
Pearsons r Value
|
Percentage of coefficient
of determination
|
Age
|
.096
|
.92%
|
Years of education
|
.247
|
6.1%
|
Number of days until participant’s meeting with disability program navigator
|
.163
|
2.7%
|
Minutes in meeting
|
.145
|
.02%
|
For
all independent variables, the calculated per cent of shared variance was low,
indicating little overlap between the two variables. The independent variables
of age, years of education, number of days until a participant’s meeting with
the disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting did not appear to
explain much of the variance in the client satisfaction scores.
In
this chapter, data analysis and results were reported. The following research
questions were addressed.
- To what extent are customers satisfied with the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop career centers?
The
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) was used to obtain data relative to
client’s satisfaction with the services of the disability program navigators in
one-stop career centers. A total satisfaction score could range from 8 to 32.
Reported total client satisfaction scores ranged from 16 to 32. The mean was
27.49, the median was 28, the mode was 32, and the standard deviation was 3.97.
The majority of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores was between 24 and 32.
- What areas do customers identify as needing improvement?
The
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) consisted of eight questions about
satisfaction with services received. Answers were rated using a Likert scale of
1 through 4, and the highest score that could be given on any one item was a 4.
Descriptive statistics were done on the eight items on the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Mean ratings on the eight items ranged from 2.98 on Item
3 to 3.61 on Item 4. Standard deviations ranged from .54 to .79. The lowest
rating of 1 was given on Item 3; To what
extent has the program met your needs? and Item 5; How satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?
In
summary, more than 50% of respondents scored the disability program navigator
service with favorable response ratings on all eight items on the Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). The lowest mean score of 2.98 on any item,
the lowest rating score of 1, and the lowest percentage of favorable responses
(78.1%) was on Item 3; To what extent has
the program met your needs? This suggested less satisfaction in this area,
and that improvement may be needed in the effectiveness of services provided.
The highest mean score of 3.61 was on Item 4; If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend our
program to him or her? The highest total of respondent percentages (97.6%)
was on Item 8; If you were to seek help again, would you come back to our program?
- How do the customers’ levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting?
Ages
of participants ranged from 25 years to 74 years. The mean was 45, and a slight
majority of the sample fell between the ages of 25 and 58 years. Participants’
educational level ranged from 9 to 19 years, and the majority of participants
had 12 to 14 years of education. There were no outliers other than a 14-day
outlier until the meeting with the disability program navigator, which was
removed to avoid distorting the statistics. A visual inspection of the
histograms did not indicate any violations of the assumptions of normality,
linearity, and homoscedasticity.
The
Pearsons correlation coefficient (r)
was used to explore the relationship between the participants’ total Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores and their age, years of education,
number of days until a meeting with the disability program navigator, and
number of minutes spent in the meeting. Results indicated that older
respondents tended to have lower total client satisfaction scores, participants
with more years of education tended to have higher total client satisfaction
scores, participants who met with the disability program navigator sooner
tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores, and participants that
spent more time in their meeting with the disability program navigator tended
to have higher total client satisfaction scores.
Independent-samples
t tests were calculated to evaluate
the degree of the relationship between a participant’s total client
satisfaction score and gender, whether a disability was disclosed, and where
the individual found out about the disability program navigator. Results
indicated no significant difference in total client satisfaction scores between
women and men or between participants who self-identified as having a disability
and those who did not self-identify. Also, there was no significant difference
in total client satisfaction scores between participants who did not and did
find out about the disability program navigator from the one-stop career
center, between participants who did not and did find out about the disability
program navigator from a website or online, between participants who did not
and did find out about the disability program navigator from the Social
Security office or unemployment office, or between participants who did not and
did find out about the disability program navigator from family and friends.
Coefficients
of determination were calculated to assist in explaining the amount of variance
between age, years of education, number of days until a participant’s meeting
with the disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting, and total
client satisfaction scores. Results indicated a low percent of shared variance,
little overlap, and that the variables of age, years of education, number of
days until a participant’s meeting with the disability program navigator, and
minutes in the meeting appeared to explain little of the variance in the client
satisfaction scores.
In
Chapter 5, a detailed discussion of the findings of the research is provided,
as well as implications that can be drawn. Recommendations for future research
are offered.
The
purpose of this study was to assess and analyze levels of satisfaction of
customers who were referred to and used the services provided by a disability
program navigator under the Disability Program Navigator Initiative at two
one-stop career centers. In this chapter, a summary and discussion of the
study’s results will be provided, as well as a discussion of the conclusions,
interpretations, and limitations. Recommendations and implications for further
research, and a final conclusion will be presented.
Although the one-stop career center
system has been in existence since its creation by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, there is limited research with
customer satisfaction surveys involving people with disabilities (Barlas,
1998). Questionnaires assessing client satisfaction with services in human
services agencies, however, are plentiful, yet, a significant gap exists
regarding customers’ actual experiences in the use of the one-stop career
centers and services of a disability program navigator. Likewise, there is no data available from disability program navigator
program assessments specifically on customer satisfaction from individuals who
disclosed they had a disability, or required assistance with a
disability-related issue. To add to the limited knowledge in this area, this
quantitative study’s research questions
addressed the factors influencing one-stop career center customer satisfaction,
as follows;
- To what extent are customers satisfied with the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop career centers?
- What areas do customers identify as needing improvement?
- How do the customers’ levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting?
Two surveys were
used to obtain information in assessing client satisfaction, a Background Information Sheet and the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Four one-stop career centers were contacted for this
study, as they were identified as serving people with disabilities by a
panel of experts in a previous study (Bader, 2003).
Two of the one-stop career centers no longer had disability program navigators due
to the fact that the grant funding the program had ended. The other two sites
agreed to participate in this study, and each site was sent 50 survey packets
to hand out to customers who met with the disability program navigators. A
total of 63 surveys were returned, of which 41 were totally completed and
subsequently used in this study. A correlational analysis using the Statistical
Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS, 15.0) was done to
ascertain what, if any, relationships existed between the demographic
information and customer satisfaction variables, as well as how
customers found out about the disability program navigator, how quickly they
were able to meet with the disability program navigator, and the amount of time
spent in their meeting.
The Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) consisted of eight questions about
satisfaction with services received; each question was rated using a Likert
scale of 1 through 4, which were then added together, for a total satisfaction
score ranging from 8 to 32. The highest score that could be given on any one
item was a 4. Mean scores and standard deviations for each of the eight items
on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) are shown in Table 22.
Table 22.
Mean and Standard Deviation on 8 Items on Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
Mean
|
SD
|
||||
|
3.54
|
.596
|
|||
|
3.41
|
.547
|
|||
|
2.98
|
.790
|
|||
|
3.61
|
.542
|
|||
|
3.46
|
.711
|
|||
|
3.51
|
.597
|
|||
|
3.46
|
.636
|
|||
|
3.51
|
.553
|
|||
The lowest
satisfaction ratings were on Item 3 of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8), which was, To what extent has
the program met your needs? This suggested less satisfaction in this area,
and that improvement may be needed in the effectiveness of services provided. Highest satisfaction ratings were on Item 4; If a friend were in need of similar help,
would you recommend our program to him or her? Total client satisfaction
scores ranged from 16 to 32. The mean
was 27.49, the median was 28, the mode was 32, and the standard deviation was
3.97. The majority of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores from both sites
fell between 24 and 32. Data analysis indicated the
majority of customers who met with the disability program navigator were
satisfied with the services they received.
Results indicated
that older respondents tended to have lower total client satisfaction scores,
participants with more years of education tended to have higher total client
satisfaction scores, participants who met with the disability program navigator
sooner tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores, and participants
that spent more time in their meeting with the disability program navigator
tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores. There was no
significant difference in total client satisfaction scores between women and men,
or between participants who self-identified as having a disability and those
who did not self-identify. No significant difference was found in total client
satisfaction scores between participants who did not and did find out about the
disability program navigator from the one-stop career center, from a website or
online, from the Social Security office, from the unemployment office, or from
family and friends. The variables of age, years of education, number of days
until a participant’s meeting with the disability program navigator, and
minutes in the meeting appeared to explain little of the variance in the client
satisfaction scores, with a low percent of shared variance and only a small
amount of overlap.
In this section, an interpretation of the results of the study
in relation to the research questions is presented.
To what extent are
customers satisfied with the services of the disability program navigators in
one-stop career centers?
The
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) was used to obtain data on a client’s
satisfaction with the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop
career centers. Although the majority of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) scores indicated that most customers who met with the disability
program navigator were satisfied with the services they received, the
Questionnaire did not allow for additional feedback as to the specifics of each
item rated. Analysis incorporating both the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) and Background Information Sheet revealed that higher client
satisfaction scores were given by participants with more years of education,
participants who met with the disability program navigator sooner, and
participants that spent more time in their meeting with the disability program
navigator. Lower total client satisfaction scores were given by older
respondents. Results indicated no significant difference in total client satisfaction
scores between women and men, between participants who self-identified as
having a disability and those who did not self-identify, or any of the
participants from any of the referring locations.
What areas do
customers identify as needing improvement?
Descriptive
statistics done on the eight items on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) revealed the lowest rating of 1 was given on both Item 3; To what extent has the program met your
needs? and Item 5; How satisfied are
you with the amount of help you received?
The lowest mean score on any item, the lowest rating score of 1, and the
lowest percentage of favorable responses (78.1%) was on Item 3; To what extent has the program met your
needs? This suggested less satisfaction in this area, and that improvement
may be needed in the effectiveness of services provided. Although it was
anticipated that the data might show that a meeting with the disability program
navigator later, versus sooner, would result in lower client satisfaction
scores, the statistical analysis indicated that this was not so.
Research
Question 3
How do the
customers’ levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability
program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about
the disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the
disability program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting?
Analysis
to explore the relationship between the participants’ total Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores and their age, years of education, number of days
until a meeting with the disability program navigator, and number of minutes
spent in the meeting revealed that age was negatively related to client
satisfaction scores and years of education was positively related to total
client satisfaction scores. Total client satisfaction scores were inversely
related to the number of days until participants’ meetings with the disability
program navigator, while the amount of time spent in the meetings was
positively related to total client satisfaction scores. No significant
differences were found in the degree of relationships between total client
satisfaction scores and gender, whether a disability was disclosed, and where
the individual found out about the disability program navigator. Age, years of
education, number of days until a participant’s meeting with the disability
program navigator, and minutes in the meeting explained little of the variance
in the client satisfaction scores.
Review of the literature has revealed
a lack of research assessing client satisfaction with the services provided by
the disability program navigator in a one-stop career center. This is despite
the fact that there were over 450 disability program navigators in 45
states, DC, and Puerto Rico in 2009 (Workforce 3One, 2009). Previous
research has focused on client satisfaction with the one-stop career centers
only, and few studies have specifically involved people with disabilities. If
the one-stop career center system and Disability Program Navigator Initiative
were successful in achieving the goal of increasing the employment rate of
people with disabilities, economic statistics would reflect this, and should
likewise, reflect an increase in their employment. The U.S. Department of Labor
reported that in September 2009, the unemployment rate of persons with a
disability was 16.2%. The most recent unemployment rate for people with a
disability currently available, that is June 2010, is 14.4% (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010b). Although this
appears to reflect a positive increase in employment of people with
disabilities, in June 2009, the unemployment rate for people with a disability
was 14.3%, and in June 2008, the rate was 9.3% (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010b).
From these statistics, it cannot be determined the specific impact the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative has had on the employment or
unemployment rates of people with disabilities.
In quantitative
methodology, the existence of a relationship among variables must first be
determined, and any established relationship is not proof of a cause-effect relationship
(Szymanski, 1993). Variables not controlled
may suggest causation where there is none (Sproull, 2002; Weinbach &
Grinnell, 2004). Uncontrolled variables in the study included gender, educational
level, and age. Implementation and aspects of the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative varied between the two sample sites, which posed a threat to
statistical and test scores, as well as external validity, that is,
generalizability to other one-stop career centers (Parker, 1993). The
disability-friendliness of the community of the sample one-stop career centers,
as well as the amount of disability trainings provided to the staff at this
study’s research sites, could have impacted the accessibility of individuals
with disabilities to the sites. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
assumed an equal value of each item, since scoring results in a sum for all items
(Sproull, 2002). Therefore, it cannot be determined if any one item had more
weight than another item.
Due to the fact
that only two one-stop career center sites with a disability program navigator participated
in this study, generalization of the findings to other one-stop career centers
in the United States
is limited. Expanding the research to include other one-stop career centers
that have disability program navigators would assist to corroborate and
supplement the study’s findings. Using a true random sampling, or converting
the study’s convenience sample to a random sample, would enhance the quality of
the data. Because data for the study was collected via mail with contacts that
were long distance and from two different data sources, there were most likely
differences in the way the surveys were administered. This may result in under
or over representation of the sample population.
Events beyond the
control of the researcher impacted the length of time to administer 50 survey
packets at each site. These included a change in the disability program
navigator’s responsibilities, departure and subsequent hiring and training of a
new disability program navigator, and major flooding at one site’s location. If
finances and time were not an issue, being able to personally administer and
collect the survey data at the research sites would increase the consistency
and number of usable results. Other factors that may have influenced responses
could have been the gender, age, amount of training or years of experience with
disability-related issues of the disability program navigator, which were not
addressed in this study.
Recommendations in this section
are developed from the findings obtained in this study, and are offered as a
means to contribute to, and expand on, the existing research from the positive
practice incorporating the services provided by the disability program
navigators in one-stop career centers.
Since the study’s variables of age, years of education, number of days
until a participant’s meeting with the disability program navigator, and
minutes in the meeting appeared to explain little of the variance in the
clients’ total satisfaction scores, comments or additional information could be solicited from respondents
as to why they rated an item the way they did, that is, another layer of
information could be requested. Additional feedback could be obtained on the areas
for improvement indicated by customers, which related to the extent the program
met their needs and satisfaction with the amount of help received. A focus
group approach could supply this information, as well as why some customers’ meetings were longer than
others, thereby providing feedback to improve the services provided.
Other
issues that could be investigated in future research could include whether a
respondent’s level of computer literacy had an effect on his or her responses,
and why the age of a respondent appeared to negatively correlate with the
client satisfaction scores. Obtaining information on the type of disability
that was self-disclosed and the severity of it could be compared with a
respondent’s customer satisfaction score, although this is personal information
that individuals may be reluctant to share. Future research addressing customer
satisfaction with disability program navigator services in one-stop career
centers could include obtaining information on the disability program
navigator, the relationship of this information to customer satisfaction, and
the disability program navigators’ feedback. Follow-up studies could be
repeated with the same research sites, or use a different customer satisfaction
questionnaire, as there are many others available, and at least one that has
been shown reliable for people with and without disabilities. Also, a regression
line analysis could be part of a future research.
The
results of this research contributed knowledge concerning the
perceptions and satisfaction of one-stop career centers customers, both with
and without a disability, who used the services of the disability program
navigator. Data analysis showed that a majority of customers reported high
satisfaction levels with the services, that they would recommend the program to
others, and that they would return to the program. Areas for improvement
indicated by customers related to the extent the program met their needs and
satisfaction with the amount of help received. Higher satisfaction scores were
given by respondents who were younger, those who met with the disability
program navigator sooner, and individuals who spent more time in the meeting
with the disability program navigator. There were no significant differences in
the degree of the relationship between a participant’s total client
satisfaction score and gender, whether a disability was disclosed, and where
the individual found out about the disability program navigator. The variables
of age, years of education, number of days until a participant’s meeting with
the disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting appeared to
explain little of the variance in the clients’ total satisfaction scores.
Results of this study’s
correlational analysis between demographic information and the study’s
variables have provided increased insight into what extent the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative has achieved the goals of the one-stop career center
system. This knowledge allows for monitoring changes, understanding for
improvement, program modifications, and provides favorable evidence that any
future plans should incorporate a disability program navigator in every state. This study could also be used for
future research in other one-stop career centers or programs with a disability
program navigator.
It
is hoped that the results of this research will encourage other researchers and
programs to further examine client satisfaction with the services provided by current
and future disability program navigators in one-stop career centers. Disability
program navigators serve as an important resource to many populations with
disabilities, such as youths and veterans (Workforce3 One, 2009).
They serve as a connection to workforce supports and programs, and provide
services that cannot be obtained from other sources. Studies evaluating the
one-stop career centers with disability program navigators have reported
significant advantages of having a disability program navigator in the system,
and that disability program navigators have had a positive impact on one-stop career
centers (Livermore & Goodman, 2009). However, generated reports have provided
only a limited analysis of data, making it difficult to measure the precise impact
of systems change activities on employment outcomes and evaluate any specific
impact of the project on the employment of people with disabilities (Livermore
& Goodman, 2009).
It
is strongly recommended that dedicated and ongoing funding be established in
all states to allow the services of the disability program navigators to continue,
and also be expanded to accommodate the challenging and dynamic future economic
environment. A summary report of six Federal partners recommendations, by the
U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy, specifically
identified expansion of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative in all
one-stop career centers, as well as dedicated and permanent funding of the
Initiative (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2010).
The National Council on Disability (2009) also made the same recommendations in
its National Disability Policy; A Progress Report. In its report, the National
Council on Disability advocated for these recommendations because it was felt
that people with disabilities would not only be better served but “a more integrated, inclusive, and cost-effective approach to
Federal disability policy” would be provided (2009, p 1). This stance was
particularly crucial because, “ In addition to the more than 50 million
Americans with disabilities, the United States faces a rapidly approaching
demographic shift to an older population, with an attendant increase in the
incidence of disability” (National Council on Disability, 2009, p 1).
The recent reauthorization of
the Workforce Investment Improvement
Act in 2010 was an important step in strengthening employment programs
for target populations in the one-stop career centers, as well as emphasizing the importance
of making the Workforce Investment Act more results-driven, rather than
process-driven (Institute for a Competitive Workforce, 2010).
Listening to the voice of the customer through the use of a disability program
navigator in the one-stop career centers could greatly impact satisfaction from
people with disabilities, as research has shown customers’ voices improve an
organization’s competitive position (Stank et al., 1997). Funding for disability
program navigators began in 2002, and extended until June 2010. Unfortunately,
the disability program navigator program may not have the opportunity to
continue its positive impact, because according to Secretary Hilda Solis,
the “administration
proposes to end targeted funding for work incentive grants… (it) has
accomplished its mission. Workforce investment boards are able to serve workers
with disabilities effectively through their regular One-Stop Career
Center operations” (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, 2010). An examination of the budget
plan indicated that the Office of Disability Employment Policy has requested
funding for the fiscal year of 2011 for a Disability Employment Initiative,
which includes plans to build upon the past promising practices of the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010a). Therefore, the future of the disability program navigator
remains to be seen.
Adaptive Environments. (2006). History of universal
design. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from
http://www.adaptenv.org/index.php?option=Content&Itemid=26
American
Customer Satisfaction Index. (n.d.). Retrieved December 30, 2005,
from http://www.theacsi.org/
Anderson, G., Boone, S., & Watson, D. (2002, June). Prioritizing issues & technical
assistance needs for the
rehabilitation of persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. The national picture from state VR programs. Retrieved December 19,
2005, from http://www.uark.edu/depts/rehabres/Conference%20Outline%20for%20website2.PDF
Attkisson, C.C. & Greenfield,
T.K. (1994). Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and Service
Satisfaction
Scale-30. In M.E. Maruish (Ed.), The use
of psychological testing for treatment
planning and outcome assessment (pp 402-420). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Attkisson, C.C. & Greenfield,
T.K. (1999). The USCF client satisfaction scales: I. The Client
Satisfaction
Questionnaire-8. In M.E. Maruish (Ed.), The
use of psychological testing for treatment
planning and outcome assessment (2nd ed.; pp 1333-1346).
Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Attkisson, C. C., & Zwick, R. (1982). The client
satisfaction questionnaire: Psychometric
properties
and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 5, 233-237.
Atwal, A. & Caldwell, K. (2005). Older people: The
enigma of satisfaction surveys. Australian
Occupational Therapy Journal, 52(1),
10-16.
Bader, B.A. (2003). Identification
of best practices in one-stop career centers that facilitate use
by
people with disabilities seeking employment. (Doctoral
dissertation, Virginia
Commonwealth University,
Richmond). Retrieved
January 9, 2006, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (AAT3091823)
Bagenstos,
S.R. (2004). Has the Americans with Disabilities Act reduced employment for
people
with disabilities? Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 25(2),
527-563.
Barlas, S.
(1998). Jobs bill gives power to
locals. American City & County, 113(1), 14.
Berkeley
Policy Associates. (2001). Evaluation of
the DOL disability employment grants. (Revised final report. Vol. I.) Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.berkeley
policyassociates.com
Bernard,
H.R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches.
Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Boeltig, H., Brugnaro, L., Gandolfo, C., & Gelb, A.
(2004). Taking the mystery out of
customer service. Retrieved
January 10, 2006, from http://www.communityinclusion.org/
article.php?article_id=128&staff_id=62
Bolton, B. & Brookings, J. (1991). Work satisfactoriness
of former clients with severe handicaps
to employment. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 57(4), 26-31.
Brase, C.H. & Brase, C.P.
(1999). Understandable statistics (6th
ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Bruyere,
S.M. (2002). Disability nondiscrimination in the employment process: The role
for testing
professionals. In R.B.
Ekstrom & D.K. Smith (Eds.) Assessing
individuals with disabilities in educational, employment, and counseling
setting. (pp 205-220). Washington, DC:
American Psychological.
Bruyere, S.M. (1999). Disability policy: Issues and implications
for the new millennium. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.dimenet.com/dpolicy/archive.php?mode=P&id=8
Bruyere,
S.M., Erickson, W. & Horne, R. (2002). Survey of the federal government on
supervisor practices in employment of people with
disabilities. Retrieved January 9, 2006,
from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/65/
Burkhauser, R.V. & Stapleton, D.C.
(2004). The decline in the employment rate for people with
disabilities:
Bad data, bad health, or bad policy? Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 185-201.
Campbell, W.J. (2002). Testing individuals with disabilities in
the employment context:
An overview of issues and practices. In R.B. Ekstrom & D.K.
Smith (Eds.) Assessing individuals with
disabilities in educational, employment, and counseling setting (pp 193-204).
Washington, DC: American Psychological.
Capella, M.E. (2002). Relationships
among vocational rehabilitation counselor satisfaction, work productivity, and consumer satisfaction. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Arkansas,
Fayetteville). Retrieved
January 9, 2006, from ProQuest Information
and Learning Company Digital Dissertations
database. (3067031)
Capella,
M.E. & Turner, R.C. (2004). Development of an instrument to measure
consumer
satisfaction in vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 47(2), 76-85.
The Center
for an Accessible Society. (2005). Economics
and people with disabilities. Retrieved
December
30, 2005, from http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics- employment
Claes
Fornell International (CFI) Group. (2003). New study shows challenges for
mortgage industry in face of
reforms, rate increases. [Press release]. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://www.cfigroup.com/resources/articles/MBA_press_release.pdf
Cohen, A.,
Timmons, J.C. & Fesko, S.L. (2005). The Workforce Investment Act. How
policy conflict and policy ambiguity
affect implementation. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 15(4),
221-230.
Customer Focus Consulting. (2003).
Customer satisfaction measurement process.
Retrieved
December
22, 2005, from http://www.customerfocusconsult.com/customer-satisfaction- measurement.htm
D’Amico, R., Kogan, D., Kreutzer,
S., Wiegand, A., Baker, A., Carrick, G. & McCarthy, C. (2001). Social Policy Research
Associates. A report on early state and
local progress towards WIA
implementation. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://acinet.org/acinet/ReadingRoom/00-wia-report.pdf
Dawis, R.E. (2005). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment. In D.D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp 3- 23). Hoboken: Wiley.
Dawis, R.W., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H.
(1964). A theory of work adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation 15, 1-27.
Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota,
Industrial Relations Center.
Deese, S.
(2002). Customer satisfaction: A
comparison of community college and employment
security commission JobLink career
centers in North Carolina.
(Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh). Retrieved
January 9, 2006, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (AAT3059910)
DeWilde, E.F. & Hendriks, V.M.
(2005). The client satisfaction questionnaire: Psychometric
properties
in a Dutch addict population. European
Addiction Research, 11(4), 157-162.
Dew, D.W., McGuire-Kuletz, M.
& Alan, G.M. (Eds.). (2001). Providing
vocational rehabilitation in a
workforce environment. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://www.rcep6.org/IRI/IRI/27th_Workforce.pdf
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail
and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York:
Wiley.
Emery, J., & Bryan, M.C. (2005). Disability program navigator project
prospects for systems change—2005.
2005 Four-state study: National overview report. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from http://www.doleta.gov/disability/pdf_docs/2005-Four-State-Study.pdf
Emery, J., Friedman-Peremel, J., Pike, P., Livermore, G.,
Stapleton, D., & Kregel, J. (n.d.).
Colorado’s disability program navigators and systems
change employment initiatives: An evaluation
report. Retrieved September 19, 2006, from http://www.cowinpartners.org
Eustis, N.N., Clark, R.F.,
& Adler, M.C. (1995). Research
agenda: Disability data. Retrieved
May 13,
2006, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/resagdd.htm
Federal News Service. (2009). DPN impact: Oregon
integrated resource team facilitation. Transcript
of Workforce3One Webinar on September 24, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.workforce3one.org/ws/www/Folders/3000927141586574063/transcript.htm
Fournier-Bonilla, S.D. (1998). A
comprehensive quality planning model. (Doctoral dissertation,
Texas A & M
University, College Station). Retrieved January 9, 2006,
from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (AAT9903114)
Funaro, A.
& Dixon, K.A. (2002). How the
one-stop system serves people with disabilities: A
nationwide
survey of disability agencies. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from
http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu
Gervey, R.
& Gao, N. (2009). One-stop career center customer satisfaction questionnaire:
Psychometric properties of an
instrument that can be used by individuals with and without disabilities. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30(1), 21-29.
Gervey,
R., Gao, N. & Rizzo, D. (2004). Gloucester
county one-stop project: Baseline level of
access and satisfaction of one-stop
center customers with disabilities. Journal
of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 103-116.
Giese, J.L. & Cote, J.A.
(2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing
Science
Review. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf
Hall, J.P.
& Parker, K. (2005). One-stop career centers and job seekers with
disabilities: Insights
from Kansas. Journal
of Rehabilitation, 71(4), 38-47. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from
http://cwd.aphsa.org/publications/docs/One%20Stop%20Career%20Center%20and%20J ob%20Seekers%20with%20Disabilities-%20Insights%20from%20Kansas.pdf
Hamner, D.
& Timmons, J.C. (2005). Case studies
of local boards and one-stop centers. Underutilization
of one-stops by people with significant disabilities. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www.communityinclusion.org/pdf/cs13.pdf
Hoff, D.
(2002). One-stop career centers: Serving
people with disabilities. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from: http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=69
Hoff,
D. (1992-2005). The role of public vocational
rehabilitation and one-stops. Retrieved December
19, 2005, from http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=65
Holcomb,
P. & Barnow, B.S. (2004). Serving
people with disabilities through the Workforce Investment
Act’s one-stop career centers. Retrieved December
30, 2005, from http://www.urban.org/publications/411132.html
Houtenville, A.J. & Burkhauser, R.V. (2004). Research brief: Did the employment of
people with disabilities decline in
the 1990s, and was the ADA
responsible? Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/91/
Institute
for a Competitive Workforce ICW/U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2010). Workforce Investment
Improvement Act seeks to improve job training system.
Retrieved July 18, 2010, from http://icw.uschamber.com/newsletter- article/workforce-investment- improvement-act-seeks-improve-job-training-system
Institute for Community Inclusion. (2004). Massachusetts launches the Disability Program Navigator Initiative. MassWorks Issue 1, 2004. Retrieved
September 9, 2006, from
http://www.massworks.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
118&Itemid=61
Jepsen, D.A. & Sheu, H.B. (2003). General job
satisfaction from a developmental perspective: Exploring
choice-job matches at two career stages. The
Career Development Quarterly, 52(2),
162-179.
Judge, T.A. & Bretz, R.D.
(1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(3),
261-271.
Kosciulek, J.F. (2004). Theory of
informed consumer choice in vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation
Education, 18(1), 3-11.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Jansen,
K.J., & Colbert, A.E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the
simultaneous effects of fit with
jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal
of Applied
Psychology, 87(5),
985-993.
Lawson, W.J. (2002). Managing diverse employees with disabilities.
Retrieved
December 30, 2005, from
http://www.icdri.org/Employment/managingdivers.htm
Livermore, G. & Colman,
S. (2010). Use of one-stops by Social
Security Disability beneficiaries
in four states
implementing Disability Program Navigator Initiatives. Final report.
Retrieved
July 30, 2010, from http://www.doleta.gov/disability/pdf_docs/
Final_DPN_Report_05_2010.pdf
Livermore, G. &
Goodman, N. (2009). A review of recent
evaluation efforts associated with programs
and policies designed to promote the employment of adults with disabilities. Retrieved July 18, 2010, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1262&context=edicollect&type=additional
Lordeman, A. (2006). The
Workforce Investment Act of 1998: Reauthorization of job training programs in the 109th
Congress. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/2348.pdf
Lyons, H.Z. (2004). A moderated model of the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of
African-American
employees: Investigating the role of perceptions of fit and racial
climate in the theory of work
adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland).
Retrieved
January 9, 2006, from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations database. (765018881)
Maruish, M.E.
(Ed.; 1999). The use of psychological
testing for treatment planning and outcome
assessment (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Morris, M. & Silverstein, B. (2002). Review of state plans for the Workforce
Investment Act from a
disability policy framework: Executive summary. Retrieved December 30,
2005, from http://disability.law.uiowa.edu/csadp_docs/WIA_Exec_Sum.doc
National Center on Workforce and Disability.
(1998). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
P.L. 101-336 Overview. Retrieved May 19, 2005, from http://www.onestops.info/
article.php?article_id=48
National Council on Disability. (2009). National disability policy: A progress report. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/
2009/Progress_Report_HTML/NCD_Progre ss_Report.html#_Toc948
National Council on Disability. (2005). NCD recommendations Workforce
Investment Act reauthorization.
Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/
publications/2005/workforce_investment.htm
National Council on Disability. (2004). Righting the ADA.
Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/righting_ada.htm#III
Ostroff, C. & Rothausen, T.J. (1997). The
moderating effect of tenure in person-environment fit: A field study in educational organizations. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 70(2), 173-189.
Parker, R.M (1993). Threats to the
validity of research. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 36(3),
130-138.
Patterson, J.B. & Marks, C.
(1992). The client as customer: Achieving service quality and
customer
satisfaction in rehabilitation. Journal
of Rehabilitation, 58(4), 16-21.
Rand Labor and Population. (2004). The future at work – trends and implications.
Retrieved September 18, 2006, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/
RB5070/index1.html
Recovery
Accountability and Transparency Board (2009). The Recovery Act. Retrieved July 30, 2010,
from http://www.recovery.gov/News/featured/Documents/
Education%20Dept.%20ARRA%20Programs%20and%20Jobs.pdf
Richard, M.A. (2000). A
discrepancy model for measuring consumer satisfaction with
rehabilitation
services. Journal of Rehabilitation,
66(4), 37-44.
Rutgers, State
University of N.J., John J. Heldrich Center
for Workforce Development. (2002). Workforce information customer
satisfaction assessment: A primer for state
and local planning. Retrieved
December 30, 2005, from http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/publications/workforce-information-customer- satisfaction-assessment-primer-state-and-local-planning
Schur, L., Druse, D., &
Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of persons with
disabilities.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(1),
3-20.
Sederer, L.I. & Dickey, B.D.
(Eds.; 1996). Outcome assessment in
clinical practice. Baltimore: Williams.
Silverstein, R. (2002). One-stop
career centers and the new Ticket to Work and self-sufficiency
program.
Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=136
Simon, M.K. & Francis, J.B. (2001). The dissertation
and research cookbook (3rd
ed.). Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.
Social Security Administration. (2000). Americans with Disabilities Act: A
guide for people with
disabilities seeking employment. Retrieved
Jan. 9, 2006, from http://www.ada.gov/workta.htm
Social
Security Advisory Board. (2003). The
Social Security definition of disability.
Retrieved October 13, 2006, from http://www.ssab.gov/documents/
SocialSecurityDefinitionOfDisability.pdf
Social
Policy Research Associates & TATC Consulting. (2004). The Workforce
Investment Act after five years:
Results from the national evaluation of the
implementation of WIA. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.spra.com/admin/
uploaded/4cd03879213b2wia%20evaluation.pdf
Spencer, R.A. (2001). Prioritizing customer requirements:
Integrating the voice of the customer
with Kano's Model of customer satisfaction.
(Master’s thesis, California State University). Retrieved January 6, 2006, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (AAT140212)
Sproull, N.L. (2002). Handbook of research methods (2nd
ed.). Lanham: Scarecrow.
Sreenivasan, G. (2003). Does
informed consent to research require comprehension? The Lancet, 362(9400),
2016-2109.
Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P.J.,
& Ellinger, A.E. (1997). Voice of the customer: The impact on
customer
satisfaction. International Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management, 33(4),
4-9.
Stefan, S. (2002). The substantial
limitations of the substantial limitations requirement of the
Americans
with Disabilities Act. In S. Stefan Hollow
promises: Employment discrimination against people with mental disabilities.
(pp 71-88). Washington, DC: American Psychological.
Strauser, D.R. & Lustig, D.C. (2003). The
moderating effect of sense of coherence on work
adjustment. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40(3), 129-140.
Swanson, J.L. & Fouad, N.D.
(1999). Career theory and practice.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Szymanski, E.M. (1993). Research
design and statistical design. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 36(4),
178-182.
Timmons,
J.C., Fesko, S.L. & Cohen, A. (2004). Strategies
of support: Increasing the capacity of one-stop
centers to meet the needs of job seekers with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(1), 27-37.
Timmons,
J.C., Fesko, S., & Cohen, A. (2003). Case studies on the implementation of the
Workforce
Investment Act. Focus on accessibility.
Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=186
Timmons, J.C., Schuster, J., Hamner, D. &
Bose, J. (2002). Ingredients
for success: Consumer
perspectives on five essential elements to service delivery. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 17(3), 183-194.
United States Code. (2004).
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Retrieved December 30, 2005,
from http://uscode.house.gov
University of Colorado
Health Sciences
Center (n.d.). Project WIN: A systems change project to
expand employment opportunities for
individuals with mental and/or physical disabilities who receive public
support. Retrieved
Oct. 21, 2006, from http://cowinpartners.org/
pastprojects.asp
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). More than 50 million Americans report some
level of disability.
Retrieved May 13,
2006, from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/
aging_population/cb06-71.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Disability. Overview. Retrieved May 13,
2006, from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/overview.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Facts for features. CB02-FF-11. July 12, 2002.
12th
Anniversary of Americans with
Disabilities Act (July 26). Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=30267
U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002).
Current Population Survey: Design
and
methodology. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/
prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2003). The New Freedom Initiative. Retrieved January 11, 2006, from http://www.hhs.gov/newfreedom/init.html
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Hurricane Recovery Assistance. Fact
sheet: Disability
Program
Navigator. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from
http://www.dol.gov/opa/
hurricane-fs1.htm
U.S.
Department of Labor. (2010). Secretary
Solis discusses the FY 2010 budget. Transcript.
Retrieved
August 2, 2010, from http://www.dol.gov/budget/presentation.htm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2010a). Fiscal year 2011 budget
in brief. Retrieved August 2, 2010,
from http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget/2011/bib.htm#odep
U.S. Department of Labor. (2010b). June 2010 disability employment statistics
released. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from
http://www.dol.gov/odep
U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Department of Labor awards $14.5 million for
disability program navigators in 13
new states and D.C. Funding for DPN initiatives
will continue in 17 states.
Retrieved October 21, 2006, from
http://projectaction.easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ESPA_
Newsletter_2006_October
U.S. Department of Labor. (2006a). Draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2006-2011. Retrieved October 21, 2006, from http://www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan-draft/
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration. (2005). Disability
Program Navigator
Initiative. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from
http://www.doleta.gov/disability/new_dpn_grants.cfm
U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration. (2000). Training and
employment guidance letter no. 7-99.
Retrieved January 9, 2006, from
http:www.ows.doleta.gov/dmstree/tegl/tegl99/tegl_07-99.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration. (1998). The
Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/wia/wialaw.txt
U.S. Department of Labor, Office
of Disability Employment Policy. (n.d.). Americans
with Disabilities Act focus on
employment. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/adabro/employ.htm
U.S. Department of Labor, Office
of Disability Employment Policy. (2010). January-March
2010 Summary report. A new day:
We’re listening. Six Federal partners’ listening sessions. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.dol.gov/odep/dltour/
six-partners-listening.htm
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
(2005). Workforce Investment Act:
Employers
are aware of, using, and satisfied
with one-stop services, but more data could help
labor better address employers’ needs. GAO-05-259. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05259.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005a). Federal disability assistance wide array of programs needs to be
examined in light of 21st century challenges. Appendix
II: Federal programs serving people with disabilities. U.S. Government Accountability
Office Report to Congressional Committees. GAO-05-626. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05626.pdf
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
(2004). Workforce Investment Act. Labor
has taken several actions to
facilitate access to one-stops for persons with disabilities, but these efforts may not be sufficient. GAO-05-54.
Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-54
Vandenberg, R.J. &
Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: An examination of the processes
underlying realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1),
60-67.
Virginia Commonwealth
University, School of Business, Employment Support
Institute, Workworld. (2005). Disability
Program Navigator. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/disability_program_navigator_dpn_.htm
Virginia Department
of Rehabilitation Services. (2004). Order
of selection.
Retrieved December 19, 2005, from
http://www.vadrs.org/orderofselection.htm
The
White House. (2010). Presidential proclamation--Anniversary of
the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Retrieved July 30,
2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/presidential-proclamation-anniversary-americans-with-disabilities-act
The White House. (2010a). Executive order--Increasing Federal employment of individuals with
disabilities.
Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/executive-order-increasing-federal-employment-individuals-with-disabilities
The White House. (2009). Statement by the President. Retrieved
July 29, 2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-Presidents-signing- statements-on-HR-146-the-Omnibus-Public-Lands-Management-Act
Wilson, S., Burton, J., & Howell, B. (2005). Work and the disability transition in 20th
century
America. Retrieved September
18, 2006, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11036
Witte, R.H., Philips, L.
& Kakela, M. (1998). Job satisfaction of college graduates with
learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(3), 259-265.
Weinbach, R.W. & Grinnell, Jr., R.M. (2004). Statistics for social workers (6th
ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Workforce3 One,
U.S. Department
of Labor/Employment and Training Administration. (2009).
Disability
program navigators’ coordination and collaboration between one-stop career centers and programs that serve disabled veterans
(Handout 1). Retrieved July 18, 2010, from http://www.workforce3one.org/view/2100906960582106913/info
World Health Organization.
(2000). Client Satisfactions Evaluations.
Workbook 6. Retrieved
March 12, 2006, from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_MSD_MSB_00.2g.pdf
ONE-STOP CAREER
CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION
FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
What is your age?
What is your gender?
□ Female
□ Male
How many years of education have you had?
Have you identified yourself as having a disability?
□ Yes
□ No
Did you find out about the disability program navigator from
the one-stop career center?
□ Yes
□ No
Did you find out about the disability program navigator from
a website or online?
□ Yes
□ No
Did you find out about the disability program navigator from
the Social Security office?
□ Yes
□ No
Did you find out about the disability program navigator from
the unemployment office?
□ Yes
□ No
Did you find out about the disability program navigator from
a friend or family member?
□ Yes
□ No
How many days was it after you asked to meet with the
disability program navigator were you able to meet with him/her?
How much time did you spend with the disability program
navigator the first time you met? (minutes)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)