Overview

To assess members’ satisfaction with services provided by the Foundation, 100 members were surveyed between 15 May 2007 and 26 July 2007.  Members aged 20 years and over were selected randomly from the member database.  The results from that survey are provided below.  The approach taken was effectively a pilot and consideration needs to be given to the value of and best approach for obtaining member satisfaction information in the future.

Method

A telephone survey was conducted with randomly selected members from the member database.  Some members who were contacted to provide feedback declined to participate, but the refusal rate was low.  Calls were made during the day and evening to ensure a representative sample of members was invited to participate in the satisfaction survey.  A minimum of five phone calls were made at different times during the day before a member was defined as not contactable. Mana Kāpō and Pacific Services staff with Māori, Samoan and Tongan language skills obtained feedback from Māori and Pacific members. Specific quotas of Māori and Pacific members were sought.

No complaints about the survey process were received.

Demographic profile

Of the 100 members surveyed, six were blind and 94 were vision impaired.  They ranged in age from 23 to 87 years, with 8 aged 20 – 40 years; 35 aged 41 – 64 years and 57 aged 65 or over.  Of these, 76 described themselves as New Zealand European/Pakeha; 8 Māori; 10 Pacific; 1 Asian, and; 5 Other ethnicity.  Just under half were male.  Their preferred format was large print (70) followed by audio (20), ordinary print (8), email (5) and braille (1). Note that in terms of preferred format, some members gave more than one response as sometimes their preferred format   varied, depending on what type of information was being sent.

Services accessed

When asked which services members had received in the last year, unsurprisingly, Library Services were most commonly used. A total of 267 services were used by those surveyed with many people using multiple services in the past year.  Using the base of 100 (the number of survey respondents), the most commonly used service was Library with just under half (48) of members using this service. Equipment Services (25), Adaptive Communications (24) and access to Total Mobility (24) were the next most commonly used services.  Note that nearly a third (31) of those surveyed had not used any Foundation services in the last year.

Children’s Services were not covered by the survey.  Children were deliberately excluded from this sample, as undertaking research involving children is often of a more  sensitive nature..  Only members aged 20 years and over were invited to participate.  Deafblind Services were not identified through this survey process either, however deafblind members were  not deliberately excluded.  It is recommended that satisfaction surveys with both Deafblind and Children’s Services are evaluated separately and consideration given to the best methodology to ensure that representative information is obtained.  

Total number of users of each service

48 Library services (Talking Books)
31 None
29 Other (please specify), of whom 24 mentioned taxi vouchers/Total Mobility
25 Equipment services (purchase of equipment such as a white cane)
24 Reading and writing techniques (Adaptive Communications)
17 Orientation and Mobility
16 Recreation and peer support activities
13 Daily living skills
12 Needs Assessment
12 Computer related technology services 
12 Māori and Pacific support services
  7 Financial assistance through the Pearson Fund
  7 Telephone Information and Advice
  4 Guide Dog Services
  4 Counselling
  4 Employment Services
  1 Accessible Format Production
  1 Volunteer Services such as driving members to eye related appointments
  0 Children’s services
  0 Deafblind services

The value of asking a question about which services are accessed is that satisfaction responses can be linked back to specific service areas.  However, with such a small sample the validity of information by service area decreases. Consequently, no further breakdowns are provided in this report.  With a larger sample size, analysis could be conducted by service.

Satisfaction with services

At an aggregate level it is reasonable to conclude that members are satisfied with services provided by the Foundation, indeed members are generally very satisfied with services.  Only four responses expressed dissatisfaction and were made by three people (i.e. one person rated two separate services negatively).

Nearly 95% of those who rated a service  were either satisfied or very satisfied with the service. Note that one member could rate more than one service and 217 responses were received from the participants.

Satisfaction ratings

168 Very satisfied
37 Satisfied
8 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
1 Dissatisfied
3 Very dissatisfied
41 Not applicable

Satisfaction with waiting times

Members were generally satisfied with the length of time they waited for service delivery. 90% of the 73 members who responded to this question were satisfied or very satisfied with the length of time they waited. Two members expressed dissatisfaction about the length of time they waited for a service. 

Satisfaction with the length of time until service provided

23 Very satisfied
44 Satisfied
4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
  1 Dissatisfied
  1 Very dissatisfied
27 Not applicable

Satisfaction with the manner of staff

Members were also satisfied with the manner of the staff from the Foundation, with 90% being either satisfied or, more often, very satisfied.  Two members were dissatisfied and they were also dissatisfied with the services provided. 

Satisfaction with manner of staff

74 Very satisfied
16 Satisfied
  2 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
  0 Dissatisfied
  2 Very dissatisfied
  5  Don’t know/Not applicable

It should be noted about a third of these members may not have had service-related contact with the Foundation (other than this survey process) during the last year.

Having a say in services received

Almost all responses to the question, ‘do you feel that you were able to have a say in the service/s you received from the Foundation?’ indicated that members feel that they do have a say in this area.  76 people agreed that they did have a say and only one respondent considered that they did not have a say in services received. 

Information about services available

There is some room for improvement in terms of  the amount of information about services members feel they have.  But the number of people who felt that they did not have sufficient information about the range of services was still low.  Eleven people (11%) felt that they did not have enough information about services.  87% felt they did.

The type of information requested was mostly general information.

Formal communication with members

As with information generally, there is some room for improvement in terms of sending members information in their preferred format.  While 82% of members received information from the Foundation in their preferred format, 14% of members did not. It was apparent from responses that members’ preferences change over time. Preferred format information should be checked with members regularly to ensure that they still wish to receive information from the Foundation and that the format is appropriate.

Does the Foundation make a difference?

Members were asked, ‘how much of a difference would you say the Foundation’s services have made to your day to day life?’  Four out of five members said the Foundation made a difference to their day-to-day life and two of these in every five said the Foundation made a major difference.   Although a third of the members surveyed did not use any services in the last year, the Foundation still made a difference. 

The Foundation makes a difference
41 A major difference
40 Some difference
14 No difference
  1 Made it worse
  4 Not known/not applicable
 
Increased confidence and independence were the factors most often cited when explaining how the Foundation made a difference.

The factors that made a difference to members’ day-to-day lives included:

63 increased confidence/independence
39 equipment has improved daily living
29 knowing support is there 
19 improved reading ability
15 assistance available (eg. information, skills including O&M and ADL)
  4 employment assistance
  4 Other (specify)
16 Don’t know

Members could respond to as many categories as they wished.  More members stated that the Foundation made a difference to their confidence and independence than any of the other categories.  This was often associated with skill development (eg. O&M/ADL) . 

For those who felt that the Foundation had not made a difference to their day to day lives the most common reason was because they did not need the services yet.  In some cases this could be a result of not being ready for, or not being fully aware of, available services.

Cultural appropriateness

No one stated that the Foundation’s services were culturally inappropriate.

Is the way in which we deliver services culturally appropriate to you?
i. Yes 92
ii. No 0
iii. Don’t know/no response 8.

Knowledge of the Foundation’s complaints system

Most members (89%) were aware of the Foundation’s complaints system.

Conclusions and recommendations

While improvements could be made to the survey process, the type of information collected is valuable and, if collected on a regular basis, provides useful monitoring information about the quality of services provided by the Foundation.  A telephone-based survey is appropriate for most members, however consideration needs to be given to how best to include children (and their families) and deafblind members in the information obtained.  Further work should be undertaken to establish the most appropriate means of getting reliable feedback from these members.

A sample size of about 400 members would give better reliability and potential to drill down into some service areas. Even then, the small number of members using some services will mean that this quantitative tool should continue to be supplemented by other evaluation tools.