Gloucester County One-Stop Project: results of staff training on customer satisfaction and employment outcomes for persons with disabilities.

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) mandated a comprehensive reform of Federal job training programs (Public Law: 105-220, 29 USC 2801). WIA legislation created partnerships between the State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) system, the State Employment Service (ES), the State Unemployment Insurance service (UI), and county-run employment and training services previously funded under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The new bureaucratic entity developed by WIA, referred to as the 'One-Stop System' is intended to provide all Americans with a 'seamless' continuum of employment and training services delivered by state, county and local employment and training providers.

Despite the WIA 'vision' of a unified system of employment and training services, Government audits and other independent evaluations consistently report that most One-Stops continue to provide fragmented, stand-alone services, even in situations where partners are co-located (Berkowitz & Rosa, 2002). Thus, the much heralded, customer-friendly, consumer-driven One-Stop Center environment called for by WIA has yet to materialize for most Americans. To facilitate the systems change and organizational re-engineering mandated by WIA, the United States Department of Labor and other funding sources are providing demonstration and system change grants to One-Stop Systems throughout the country in an attempt to rectify existing deficiencies (Department of Labor-ETA Federal Register Notice, Work Incentive Grant, 5/25/2000). Funding to enhance services for persons with disabilities within the One-Stop System is a high priority (DOL-ODEP, 2002; 2003).

In 2001, the New Jersey Council on Development Disabilities (NJCDD) released a Request for Proposal for New Jersey's Workforce Investment Boards to help build capacity within the One-Stop system to serve persons with severe disabilities. The Council was concerned that persons with 'visible' or 'severe' disabilities were not being adequately served by mainstream services within the WIA system. More specifically, the concern was that the 'One-Stop system' might be triaging persons with disabilities to the State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation instead of treating this population within the mainstream service components (ES, WIA) of the One-Stop system.

The Gloucester County Workforce Investment Board in collaboration with the Department of Psychiatric Rehabilitation at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) and the Institute of Community Inclusion (ICI) in Boston were awarded the NJCDD contract (Gervey, Gao & Rizzo, 2004). The Gloucester One-Stop Project was designed to unfold in three phases, a baseline data collection phase designed to assess access and quality of services to persons with disabilities, a staff-training intervention phase to enhance access and quality of services, and a post-intervention phase. The results of the Gloucester County One-Stop Center baseline study revealed a surprisingly high prevalence rate of persons with disabilities within the One-Stop system. Approximately 21% of One-Stop customers (446/2072) reported having a significant disability, half of which claimed to have a severe emotional problem (Gervey et al., 2004). Persons with disabilities reported significantly less satisfaction with services compared to persons without disabilities (Gervey et al., 2004). Moreover, persons with disabilities were less likely to be engaged in a career-oriented activity (e.g., enrolled in job training, employed) over the 3-month, follow-along period (Gervey et al., 2004).

This paper describes the second phase of the Gloucester County One-Stop Project which is designed to examine the impact of staff training on customer satisfaction, and employment and training outcomes of One-Stop customers with disabilities in comparison to customers without disabilities.

Method

Study Design

The project uses a quasi-experimental, time-series design to study the impact of staff training on the quality of services delivered to persons with disabilities within the One-Stop Center. Two cohorts of One-Stop customers were recruited. One cohort received services prior to the initiation of any staff training within the One-Stop Center (baseline cohort). The second cohort received services during the period in which One-Stop staff received customer service training (intervention cohort). Half of each cohort was comprised of persons with disabilities. The other half were persons without disabilities matched to persons with disabilities based on gender, age, and level of education.

Subjects were administered a customer satisfaction questionnaire after their initial visit to the One-Stop Center and then contacted weekly for a period of 12 weeks to assess participation in the One-Stop Center and to record all employment and/or training-related activities.

Subject Recruitment

Individuals with severe disabilities were recruited by members of the Gloucester County One-Stop Project Advisory Board. The Advisory Board comprised of state and local representatives from various disability-specific and consumer advocate organizations, elicited the help of local community provider agencies to identify potential subjects. Informed consent interviews preceded subject enrollment in the study. Subjects were offered up to $100 for their participation in the research.

One-Stop customers without disabilities were recruited through announcements made by One-Stop Center staff at the Reemployment Orientation (RO). The RO is a mandated meeting for all new enrollees in the state unemployment insurance program and is designed to encourage individuals to seek assistance in obtaining employment or training services from the mandated partners of the One-Stop Center. Volunteers from the RO that matched at least 3 demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education) of One-Stop customers with disabilities already enrolled in the study were administered an informed consent interview. Individuals that agreed to enroll in the study were paid up to $100 for their participation.

Subjects

Description and comparison of matched-paired of subjects

A total of 44 subjects were recruited during the baseline and intervention phases of the study: 24 subjects were recruited during the baseline phase and 20 subjects were recruited during the intervention phase. Seventy-three percent (32/44) of the sample is female, eighty percent (35/44) is Caucasian. The average age is 43 years old. On average, subjects reported attending one year of college. There were no significant differences between the two groups (disabled and non-disabled) in terms of gender, race, age, or education hence the matching procedure was successful. There were also no significant differences between the baseline and intervention cohorts. That is, subjects recruited during the baseline phase do not differ from subjects recruited during the intervention phase in terms of gender, race, age or education. Of the 22 individuals with disabilities recruited into the study (across both the baseline and intervention phases) there were: 4 persons with mental illness, 4 persons with developmental disabilities, 4 persons with hearing impairment, 4 persons with visual impairment, 2 persons with cerebral palsy, 2 persons with substance abuse history, 1 person with cerebral palsy, and 1 person with epilepsy.

Instruments

One-Stop Customer Report Card

The One-Stop Customer Report Card was developed by The Law, Health Policy and Disability Center of College of Law at University of Iowa. The report card has been used in several unpublished One-Stop accessibility studies (M. Morris, personal communication, Dec. 2003). The Report Card is a 51-item, nine-page questionnaire that asks subjects to evaluate their initial visit to the One-Stop Center. Items are grouped into six areas of concern: 1) physical accessibility and condition of facility; 2) access to service; 3) work area and equipment; 4) materials and written information; 5) obtaining services, and 6) an overall assessment of One-Stop services. The customer satisfaction questionnaire is considered the 'premier' customer satisfaction questionnaire in use within the One-Stop system. The questionnaire uses both dichotomous and ordinal scaled items. Examples of 'physical accessibility and condition of facility' items include, "Did you have any difficulties finding the entrance?" Were the public restrooms clean and well maintained with supplies?" Examples of 'access to service' items include, "Did the receptionist speak clearly?" How would you rate the friendliness of Center staff?". Examples of 'work area and equipment' items include, "What was your first impression when entering the Self-Service Resource Room?" "Did any staff offer to assist you with computer access or use?" Examples of 'materials and written information' include, "Did the One-Stop materials include people with disabilities?" Examples of 'obtaining service' items include, "Were you recommended to attend the RO meeting?" "Were you given a tour of the facility?" Examples of the 'overall assessment' items include, "How satisfied were you with the physical accessibility and condition of the facility?" How satisfied were you with the accessibility of services?"

Employment and training tracking questionnaire

Research staff maintained telephone contact with all subjects on a weekly basis throughout the study period. Three questions were asked of each subject on a weekly basis and at the 12-week face-to-face exit interview. "Have you visited the One-Stop Center for any reason during the past week and if so what services did you use and who did you come to see?" "Have you obtained a job with or without the assistance of the One Stop Center at any time during the past week (12-weeks)?" "Have you entered or enrolled in a vocational training program with or without the assistance of the One-Stop Center at any time during the past week (12-weeks)?"

Intervention

Study Site

The Gloucester County One-Stop is located in the southern, rural part of New Jersey. The majority of its residents commute to other counties or states (e.g., Pennsylvania, New York) to seek employment (Heldrich Center, 2000). The Gloucester County One-Stop system administers services out of two main office buildings. At the time of this study, State administered services (UI, ES, and DVRS) were located at the Thorofare Office and the County-funded WIA training services were located at the Budd Boulevard office.

Description of Staff Trainer

An outside consultant (the second author-L.C.) was hired on a part-time basis (10 hours per week) for a six-month period (June through November, 2003) to provide staff training to the One-Stop staff. The Staff Trainer is the Director of a Supported Employment program for persons with psychiatric disabilities within Gloucester County and has extensive working knowledge of employment and training services for persons with disabilities. The Staff Trainer was supervised by R.G., the first author of the study.

Description of Staff training

Staff training consisted of five elements: 1) a kick-off 'Disability Provider Fair', 2) a series of staff sensitivity training sessions related to serving persons with disabilities, 3) an on-site, and on-call, case consultation service, 4) a series of employment planning case conferences for persons with disabilities enrolled in the study, and 5) a series of monthly administrative meetings attended by Workforce Investment Board staff, the One-Stop Operator, and Directors of One-Stop partner agencies (i.e., DVRS, ES, and WIA).

Kick-off event (Disability Provider Fair)--The Disability Provider Fair was designed to introduce key personnel within the Gloucester County disability provider community (persons involved in employment programming for clients) to One-Stop staff (ES, WIA, DVRS). The 'Fair' provided a platform for community agencies to discuss the vocational and community resources available to the residents of Gloucester County. It also provided an opportunity for One-Stop staff to provide an overview of their services. A resource book was assembled by the Staff Trainer for One-Stop staff based on the information provided by each of the community-based agencies present at the Fair.

Five community-based, disability-specific agencies participated in the event. These agencies represented services for persons with developmental disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, visual and hearing impairment. State and County agencies also participated in the event including the: the Center for Independent Living, Division of Disability Services, Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired, and the Office of Disabilities for Gloucester County. The New Jersey Work Incentives Network Support, the state funded benefits planning and counseling program for SSA recipients also participated.

Formal staff training session--A consultant from the Institute from Community Inclusion in Boston provided a half-day workshop on providing services to One-Stop customers. In addition to this half-day workshop, the Staff Trainer conducted a series of sensitivity training sessions that included a review and analysis of customer satisfaction ratings and verbatim comments obtained from subjects enrolled in the baseline phase of the Gloucester County One-Stop study. Role-plays and brainstorming techniques were employed in the training sessions to facilitate new ways of thinking about serving persons with disabilities.

Informal staff training--The Staff Trainer spent several days over a course of several weeks conducting observations of routine interactions between One-Stop staff and customers including sitting in on various workshops such as the Re-Orientation (RO) meeting. Following these observations, the Staff Trainer met with individual staff to share strengths and weakness of the presentations and interactions observed. The Staff Trainer eventually partnered with One-Stop interviewers in assisting clients with disabilities access the One-Stop services.

Issues addressed during these informal collaborations included policy issues regarding RO attendance, registration requirements in regard to accessing core services, and necessary accommodations to a client too anxious to attend the RO workshop. The Staff Trainer received phone calls from ES interviewers on an 'as-needed basis' requesting mental health information for customers that disclosed a mental illness. Consultations also were provided on an 'as-needed basis' to brainstorm how best to proceed or respond to requests made by persons with disabilities.

Employment Planning Team meetings--The employment planning team meetings consisted of the Staff Trainer, an ES Interviewer, the Office Manager or Supervisor of the Gloucester County DVRS, and a representative from the Office of Disabilities Services. Other partner services were asked to participate based upon the individual needs of the subjects being 'case-conferenced' by the employment planning team. Representatives from the WIA Training Service, the Unemployment Insurance Service, and the South Jersey Evaluation and Employment Service for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing participated at least once. Five employment planning team meetings were convened. These meetings involved 2 individuals with visual impairment, 1 person with emotional problems, 1 person with learning problems, and 1 person with hearing problems.

Monthly administrative meetings--A monthly, management team was established comprised of representatives from each of the mandated One-Stop partners (ES, UI, WIA, WIB, and DVRS) to address customer dissatisfaction issues identified from the baseline assessment.

Data Analyses

Chi-square statistics are used to: 1) compare baseline cohort customer satisfaction scores with intervention cohort customer satisfaction scores, and 2) compare employment and training outcome data collected for both cohorts.

A total of 41 items on the customer satisfaction questionnaire were targeted for improvement based on baseline cohort ratings. Items were targeted for improvement if: 1) persons with disabilities scored significantly lower levels of satisfaction than persons without disabilities or 2) both persons with and without disabilities reported significant dissatisfaction on the item. Significant dissatisfaction is defined in this study as an item for which less than 80% of the sample reported satisfaction. There were 10 items for which no change was expected given that baseline cohort customer satisfaction ratings were 90% or better. A simple count of the number of items that either improved, remain unchanged, and/or worsened provides the basis for determining the effectiveness of the staff intervention project.

Results

Customer Satisfaction

Given the large disparity found within the baseline cohort in terms of customer satisfaction ratings, our initial analyses compared the satisfaction ratings of persons with and without disabilities during the staff training intervention. In contrast to the baseline cohort, the level of customer satisfaction of persons with and without disabilities during the intervention phase revealed little to no differences. Only 4% (2/51) of the customer satisfaction ratings differed between the two groups. This is in contrast to the baseline cohort where about 40% (20/51) of the customer satisfaction ratings differed.

We compared the two cohort ratings to determine whether satisfaction improved overall between the baseline and intervention phases of the study. Chi-square analyses however, did not reveal significant changes in the overall level of customer satisfaction ratings across the two cohorts. That is, only six of fifty-one customer satisfaction ratings showed significant improvement. However, chi-square analyses did reveal a significant improvement in customer satisfaction for persons with disabilities. A total of 13 of 51 satisfaction ratings of persons with disabilities significantly improved from the baseline cohort to intervention cohort. This is the analysis that is reported in Table 1.

Customer satisfaction ratings showing significant improvement from baseline are identified with Chi-square statistics and labeled with a '2' in the column marked 'Direction of Change'. Twenty-three customer satisfaction items that had been targeted for improvement remained problematic, as noted by the '3' marked in the column labeled 'Direction of Change'.

Table 2 presents items that were only administered to persons with disabilities. According to customers with disabilities, One-Stop staff demonstrated unsatisfactory knowledge and/or willingness to discuss accommodation needs despite the staff training intervention.

Employment and training outcomes

Overall, subject employment and training outcomes remained poor. Only 10 subjects obtained employment and 4 became enrolled in a training program during the follow-up period. Seventy percent (30/44) of all subjects recruited for the study did not obtain a job or become enrolled in training during the 3 month follow-up period. Persons without disabilities were more likely to be employed or enrolled in training than persons with disabilities [chi square](1,N=44)= 5.46, p < .01. Eleven persons without disabilities (50%) were engaged in some form of career activity whereas only 3 persons with disabilities (14%) were engaged in similar activities. There was no difference between subject outcomes during the baseline and intervention phase of the study.

Discussion

The results of the One-Stop staff training intervention are decidedly mixed. While persons with disabilities reported some increase in customer satisfaction, customer satisfaction ratings overall for One-Stop customers remains poor, with half of the satisfaction ratings falling below acceptable levels. While it appears that some staff behaviors were modified through the staff training intervention (e.g., staff became more inclined to recommend the R.O. to all customers coming into the office), most targeted One-Stop practices and staff behaviors did not change. Most notably and most regrettably, staff did not alter the self-service approach used within the One-Stop Center. The lack of individualized, hands-on assistance (e.g., providing walking tours of the One-Stop Center; providing one-on-one assistance to customers within the resource room; offering assistance in completing paperwork) ranks high on our customer dissatisfaction list. The One-Stop Center staff's persistent lack of personal attentiveness to customers poses a significant challenge to those that believe that the One-Stop system can provide all Americans with the help that they need to enter into mainstream employment or training programs. Persons with disabilities and/or persons who require more individualized services can not expect to receive such services within the One-Stop system as it is currently structured.

The lack of personalized service might well explain why the modal number of visits for all One-Stop customers is only a single visit. For those that do return, the average number of repeat visits is two. Of the 44 subjects recruited for this study, a total of 111 visits to the One-Stop were made. Of these 111 visits, 20 were made explicitly to use the self-service resource center and did not involve any contact with One-Stop Center staff. Of the remaining 91 visits that did involve face-to-face contact with One-Stop staff, one third of the contacts resulted in the customer not being able to recall the staff person's name who saw them.

Efforts to obtain buy-in for systems change from One-Stop managers through their involvement in management level meetings and trainings did not appear to result in any tangible outcomes. None of the items that required bureaucratic action, such as the inclusion of persons with disabilities in written materials provided by the One-Stop and/or the practice of soliciting customer satisfaction from all One-Stop customers, were addressed. Some might argue however, that not sufficient time was allotted for these changes to take place.

The intervention strategy itself might be questioned in terms of it robustness and/or effectiveness. However, the staff training intervention was designed based on consultation with the One-Stop Operator and administrators of the mandated partners of One-Stop Center. We were counseled not to be too didactic in our trainings or too intrusive to the regular work schedule of staff. 'Keeping it real'; 'keeping it simple'; and 'keeping it short' were among our mantras in developing the training intervention curriculum. These parameters led us to rely on 'on-the-job' coaching and training using existing administrative and customer-staff interactions as our teaching mediums.

Given the limited scope of our disability sensitivity training curriculum, it is evident nonetheless that fruitful partnerships can be developed within a relatively brief period of time. As a result of the regularly scheduled employment planning teams the Staff Trainer and Employment Services job placement staff developed a working relationship that resulted in several placements for One-Stop customers that otherwise would have fallen between the cracks. As a consequence of the personal relationship that developed between the Staff Trainer and the ES job placement staff, community-based supported employment clients enrolled in the staff trainer's agency began to routinely register with and access services provided by the One-Stop Center, a service that they had been previously unaware.

Notwithstanding some of the benefits that were derived by the project, the de-centralized, management structure that exists in the New Jersey One-Stop system as well as in many other states across the country, poses a daunting challenge to re-engineering efforts within the One-Stop system. In the absence of a clear and authoritative directive and follow-through from a centralized authority, the One Stop partners will continue to operate in their separate 'silos' despite giving 'lip service' to a melding of services.

Study limitations

There are several notable limitations to the current study. The sample size is quite small, and although great care was given to the matching of subjects with and without disabilities, the group of individuals with disabilities did not come from the same pool of recently unemployed laborers as did the group without disabilities. Although all subjects with disabilities expressed an explicit interest in obtaining a job and were enrolled in community-based employment services, the group had significantly poorer work histories than the comparison group. Given the prevalence of persons with disabilities that is now understood to access the One-Stop Center, it is recommended that future studies enroll individuals with disabilities from the pool of recently unemployed workers mandated to come to the One-Stop Center.

While the use of the premier One-Stop Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire provided immediate convenience and face validity its psychometric shortcomings are a determent to quantitative outcome research. Work is currently underway to redesign the customer satisfaction questionnaire so that subscale and total scores can be computed.

Finally, the 3-month follow-up period can also be questioned since unemployment benefits extend for 6 months and a significant number of individuals postpone their job search until close to the end of the benefit period. Thus future outcome studies within the One-Stop Center should extend follow-up period to at least 6-months in order to capture a greater variability in outcome results.

Limitations notwithstanding, this project represents the first empirically based study conducted within the One-Stop Center that examines the quality of services delivered to persons with disabilities. The authors hope that this is just the beginning of research designed to address parity issues within the One-Stop system for persons with disabilities.

Author's Note

This project was funded in part through a grant provided by the New Jersey Council on Development Disabilities.

The authors wish to thank the management and front-line staff at the Gloucester County One-Stop Center and the Project Advisory Board for their guidance and support. Special thanks are extended to Karen Dickel, Program Analyst at the Gloucester County Workforce Investment Board, Diann Morlachetta at the Gloucester County Office of Disability, and Joe Marrone and David Hoff of the Institute of Community Inclusion in Boston, Massachusetts.

References

Berkowitz, M. & Rosa, E. (2002). Responsiveness of One-Stop Career Centers to the needs of persons with disabilities: A survey of New Jersey One-Stop Centers. Final report prepared by Disability Research and Education Program for New Jersey Council on Development Disabilities.

Department of Labor-Employment and Training Administration. Work Incentive Grant. Federal Register Notice, May 5, 2000.

Department of Labor-Office of Disability and Employment Policy-Customized Employment Grant. Federal Register Notice, June 26, 2002, v. 67, no.123, pp. 43154-43169.

Department of Labor-Office of Disability and Employment Policy-Olmstead Grant. Federal Register Notice, May 29, 2003. pp. 32106-32113.

Department of Labor-Employment and Training Administration. (2003). Outcome information for WIA exiters and exiters with disabilities, adults, dislocated workers and older youth who exited between October 1, 2000 and September 30, 2001.

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, 17: 101-113.

Heldrich Center (2000). Cross County employment patterns in southern New Jersey. Final report prepared for the prepared for the New Jersey Department of Labor Public Law: 105-220. 29 U.S.C. Section 2801.

Robert Gervey

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

Ni Gao

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

Leslie Costello

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

Robert Gervey, Psy.D. Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education, Room 424, 432 N. Murray Street, Madison WI 53706 Email:

Table 1.
Customer Satisfaction Survey: Comparison between baseline and
intervention phase One-Stop customers with disabilities

                                     Baseline    Intervention
Survey item                          Sample,     Sample,
                                     disabled    disabled
                                     (N=12)      (N=10)

                                     #     %     #     %

I. Physical Accessibility of
Facility (6 items)

No difficulty finding entrance       10   83%    9    90%
Restrooms clean and/or well
equipped                             12   100%   10   100%
Water fountain in working order
and/or clean                         12   100%   10   100%
Allowed to use phone                 10   83%    8    80%
Telephone conveniently located
and in quiet location                12   100%   9    90%
Waiting area quiet, clean and/or
spacious enough                      11   92%    9    90%

II. Access to Services
(21 items) *

Customer reports 'excellent' first
impression of One-Stop               2    17%    3    30%
Customer rates receptionist as
'very helpful'                       5    42%    7    70%
Receptionist speaks clearly          0    0%     4    40%

Customer is 'very satisfied' with
patience of receptionist             2    17%    4    40%
Customer is 'very satisfied' with
friendliness of One-Stop staff       5    42%    7    70%
Staff offered assistance with
forms                                2    17%    4    40%
One-Stop staff offered a range of
services                             5    42%    6    60%
Customer 'very satisfied' with
one-stop staff communication         2    17%    4    40%
One-Stop staff asked if help was
needed                               3    25%    6    60%

Customer reports having no
difficulty understanding One-Stop
staff's communication                9    75%    8    80%

III. Work Areas and Equipment
(5 items)

Initial impression of Resource
Room 'acceptable'                    11   92%    9    90%
Staff offered assistance with
computer                             3    25%    2    20%
Staff offer adaptive computer aids   1    8%     1    10%
Customer reports no difficulty
using computers                      12   100%   9    90%
Computers at One-Stop Center met
customers needs                      2    17%    2    20%

IV. Materials and Written
Information (8 items)

Materials include people with
disabilities                         2    17%    4    40%
Communication and assistive
technology available                 1    8%     3    30%
Complaints procedures explained      3    25%    1    10%
Customer satisfaction evaluation
forms provided                       3    25%    1    10%
Customer found One-Stop Center
materials helpful                    6    50%    4    40%
All services clearly indicated       5    42%    5    50%
Did materials meet customers needs   4    33%    7    70%

V. Obtaining Services (13 items) *
Available services were explained    5    42%    8    80%

R.O. attendance recommended by
One-Stop receptionist                4    33%    8    80%

Customer attended R.O.               2    17%    8    80%

One-Stop staff offered to walk
customer through the building
for tour                             1    8%     1    10%
One-Stop staff explained Core
Services                             3    25%    6    60%

One-Stop staff explained Intensive
Services                             3    25%    6    60%

One-Stop staff explained Training
Services                             4    33%    7    70%

VI. Overall Customer Impressions
(7 items)

Customer is 'very satisfied' with
information obtained from One-Stop   1    8%     4    40%
Customer rates the physical access
and condition of the One-Stop as
'outstanding'                        1    8%     6    60%

Customer rates access to service
as 'outstanding'                     2    17%    5    50%
Work area and equipment is
outstanding                          1    8%     5    50%

Customer found One-Stop written
materials to be 'outstanding'        0    0%     5    50%

Customer rates obtaining services
from the One-Stop as 'outstanding'   1    8%     7    70%

Customer would use One-Stop
Center again                         7    58%    9    90%

                                     Overall,    Direction of Change
Survey item                          Sample,     (1=Unchanged-positive;
                                     disabled    2=Changed-positive
                                     (N=22)      3=Unchanged-negative)

                                     #     %

I. Physical Accessibility of
Facility (6 items)

No difficulty finding entrance       19   86%    1
Restrooms clean and/or well
equipped                             22   100%   1
Water fountain in working order
and/or clean                         22   100%   1
Allowed to use phone                 18   82%    1
Telephone conveniently located
and in quiet location                21   95%    1
Waiting area quiet, clean and/or
spacious enough                      20   91%    1

II. Access to Services
(21 items) *

Customer reports 'excellent' first
impression of One-Stop               5    23%    3
Customer rates receptionist as
'very helpful'                       12   55%    3
Receptionist speaks clearly          4    18%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 8.56
                                                 p < .036
Customer is 'very satisfied' with
patience of receptionist             6    27%    3
Customer is 'very satisfied' with
friendliness of One-Stop staff       12   55%    3
Staff offered assistance with
forms                                6    27%    3
One-Stop staff offered a range of
services                             11   50%    3
Customer 'very satisfied' with
one-stop staff communication         6    27%    3
One-Stop staff asked if help was
needed                               9    41%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 2.76
                                                 p < .096)
Customer reports having no
difficulty understanding One-Stop
staff's communication                17   77%    1

III. Work Areas and Equipment
(5 items)

Initial impression of Resource
Room 'acceptable'                    20   91%    1
Staff offered assistance with
computer                             5    23%    3
Staff offer adaptive computer aids   2    9%     3
Customer reports no difficulty
using computers                      21   95%    1
Computers at One-Stop Center met
customers needs                      4    18%    3

IV. Materials and Written
Information (8 items)

Materials include people with
disabilities                         6    27%    3
Communication and assistive
technology available                 4    18%    3
Complaints procedures explained      4    18%    3
Customer satisfaction evaluation
forms provided                       4    18%    3
Customer found One-Stop Center
materials helpful                    10   46%    3
All services clearly indicated       10   46%    3
Did materials meet customers needs   11   50%    3

V. Obtaining Services (13 items) *
Available services were explained    13   59%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 3.32
                                                 p < .069
R.O. attendance recommended by
One-Stop receptionist                12   55%Q   2
                                                 [chi square] = 4.79
                                                 p < .029
Customer attended R.O.               10   46%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 8.84
                                                 p < .003
One-Stop staff offered to walk
customer through the building
for tour                             2    9%     3
One-Stop staff explained Core
Services                             9    41%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 2.76
                                                 P < .096
One-Stop staff explained Intensive
Services                             9    41%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 2.76
                                                 P < .096
One-Stop staff explained Training
Services                             11   50%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 2.93
                                                 p < .087
VI. Overall Customer Impressions
(7 items)

Customer is 'very satisfied' with
information obtained from One-Stop   5    23%    3
Customer rates the physical access
and condition of the One-Stop as
'outstanding'                        7    32%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 7.02
                                                 P < .03
Customer rates access to service
as 'outstanding'                     7    32%    3
Work area and equipment is
outstanding                          6    27%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 5.15
                                                 p < .076
Customer found One-Stop written
materials to be 'outstanding'        5    25%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 7.77
                                                 p < .021
Customer rates obtaining services
from the One-Stop as 'outstanding'   8    36%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 10.91
                                                 p < .004
Customer would use One-Stop
Center again                         16   73%    2
                                                 [chi square] = 2.79
                                                 p < .097

Table 2.
Customer satisfaction items pertaining to disability-related issues:
Comparison between baseline and intervention phase One-Stop Customers
with Disabilities.

                                      Baseline   Intervention
                                      Sample,    Sample,
Survey item                           disabled   disabled
                                      (N=12)     (N=10)

Disability-related issues             #   %      #   %

One-Stop staff discussed disability
issues with customer                  5   4%     0   0%
One-Stop staff asked customer
about needed accommodations           4   33%    2   20%
One-Stop staff demonstrates 'very
good' knowledge of disabilities       1   8%     1   10%
Customer with disability treated
the same as persons without
disabilities                          8   67%    9   90%

                                      Overall,    Direction of Change
                                      Sample,    (1=Unchanged-positive;
Survey item                           disabled     2=Changed-positive
                                      (N=22)     3=Unchanged-negative)

Disability-related issues             %     #

One-Stop staff discussed disability
issues with customer                  5    2%              3
One-Stop staff asked customer
about needed accommodations           6    3%              3
One-Stop staff demonstrates 'very
good' knowledge of disabilities       2    9%              3
Customer with disability treated
the same as persons without
disabilities                          17   77%             1