EVALUATING CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: A Guided Tour of Wisconsin’s Comprehensive ADRC Customer Service Evaluation Amy Flowers, Analytic Insight

Agenda 1. Methodology and domain development 2. Results and Implications of the Literature Review 3. Profile of ADRC customers 4. Customer perceptions of quality customer service and how they differ from ADRCs’ and others’ perceptions 5. Subgroups and their influence on satisfaction 6. Impact of Key Drivers on customer satisfaction 7. Questions

1. Methodology  Literature Review  Interviews  Focus Groups  Survey  Feedback  Ongoing Quality Improvement cycle

Domains Means Poor Fair Good Excellent n=1360

Items Comprising Informed Decision Making

Items Comprising Accessibility Statewide total n= 1619

Items Comprising Guidance

Items Comprising Range of Knowledge

Items Comprising Customization

Profile of ADRC Customers

Initial Contact

Customer Profile

Main Reasons for Contact

information that they were getting so that they made an educated choice about what to do next.” ADRC Director 3. Perceptions of Customer Service “A lot of times the services for people with disabilities just aren’t there, so its hard it can be hard for them to help. But if you just feel like they tried, like they said okay, here’s all the options that you can do, here’s the pros and cons of each one then you feel like at least someone is trying to help.” ADRC Customer “…[when] the consumer got the information they needed and understood what they need to consider in making their choices. That we provided not just information but the education to help them process the

Wordle of ADRC’s Customer Satisfaction Definitions

Variance in Definitions  Provided information, resources  Met needs  Listened, understood, feelings  Satisfactory outcome  Customization of Services  Guidance  Accessibility  Decision Making  Information Range ADRC Customer

Outcome Measures

n=1619

Satisfaction and service type 60 or older Physical Mental Alzheimer's Alcohol Developmental disability illness /Dementia or Drugs Disability

Satisfaction and Referral Outcomes

Satisfaction and outcomes

Follow up and Usefulness Usefulness N=344

Follow up after referrals N=344

Domains and Customer Satisfaction Q63 Overall, how would you rate your experience with the Resource Center? mean = * Beta scores in multiple regression analysis indicate the relative impact of each variable on the program’s overall effectiveness score. R2=.520 Significance of the model=.000 INFORMATION RANGE INFORMED DECISION MAKING CUSTOMIZATION OF SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY GUIDANCE Program Strength (Above average, Preponderance Excellent) Moderate Asset (Above average, Preponderance Good) Opportunity for Improvement (Average or below)

Domains and Effectiveness Q64 How would you rate the Center’s ability to help you resolve your situation? Mean = * Beta scores in multiple regression analysis indicate the relative impact of each variable on the program’s overall effectiveness score. R2=.449 Significance of the model=.000 INFORMATION RANGE INFORMED DECISION MAKING CUSTOMIZATION OF SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY GUIDANCE Program Strength (Above average, Preponderance Excellent) Moderate Asset (Above average, Preponderance Good) Opportunity for Improvement (Average or below)

Domains and Usefulness Q65 How useful was the help you received? Mean = * Beta scores in multiple regression analysis indicate the relative impact of each variable on the program’s overall effectiveness score. R2=.398 Significance of the model=.000 INFORMATION RANGE INFORMED DECISION MAKING ACCESSIBILITY GUIDANCE.099 Key: Program Strength (Top 20%) Moderate Asset (Above average) Opportunity for Improvement (Average or below)

Recommendation of ADRC Services

What have we learned about customers? Profile  Wide range of issues bring them to ADRCs  Most common information comes from referral  Almost half are on behalf of others  Almost one in five come in- person  Most have multiple conditions/eligibilities Satisfaction  High levels of overall satisfaction  Focus on customization and guidance  Vast majority willing to recommend

What have we learned about satisfaction?  Few differences in satisfaction between services, self/other  Physical and developmental disabilities, mental health services less satisfied  Referrals most satisfactory in the abstract  May indicate need to follow up, widen range of referrals, customize to additional restrictions  Non-productive referrals have negative effect on willingness to recommend  Among those who rate specific domains as fair or poor, many are still willing to recommend services  59% of those who rate Customization of Services as poor are willing to recommend  Less than one in three (27%) of those who rate Range of Knowledge as poor are so willing

What have we learned about improving satisfaction? OPPORTUNITIES  Widen range of information to improve usefulness and ability to resolve customers’ situations  Make it “easier” to get the right information  Customize services to improve willingness to recommend, overall experience  Follow up on referrals offers an opportunity to turn around result, yet only half report follow-up  Increase customization and guidance STRENGTHS  More than 9 out of 10, 93% would recommend services!  The opportunities offer a move from high good toward excellence  Informed decision making, accessibility have a strong influence on both overall experience and usefulness of the service and are clear strengths  Customers over 65 make up majority of clientele, and tend to be most satisfied

Questions? Amy Flowers, Ph.D. Analytic Insight 250 Center St. #409 Auburn. ME (207)