Satisfaction Survey Community & Children’s Resource Board of St. Charles

1. Satisfaction SurveyCommunity & Children’s Resource Board of St. Charles Report of the Findings Lisa Richter Cynthia Cluff August, 2009

2. Contents

3. Voice of the Family Satisfaction Survey Introduction and Objective of Satisfaction Survey • The Community and Children’s Resource Board (CCRB) of St. Charles county has commissioned a county-wide Satisfaction Survey among families who received direct services sometime in 2008 from any of 14 CCRB funded agencies. Important steps in the Voice of the Family Satisfaction Survey are: Systematically listen directly to families on service quality and effectiveness Reinforce & reward positive measures and outcomes 1 6 Overall Satisfaction 90% 80% 2 5 With the objective of:a) identifying strengths & opportunity areasb) obtaining benchmark measurements Develop goals/action plans with agencies 4 3 Connect agency staff to Voice of the Family Satisfaction Survey results Communicate results in a meaningful and actionable report Note: this survey does not include families receiving School-Based Prevention Services.

4. Step 1: Developed a database of population served. Asked each of 14 agencies to submit information on children served in 2008 in a consistent spreadsheet format. Step 2: Developed survey instruments. Developed questionnaire and cover letter drafts, revised per CCRB staff and board member work session. Pre-tested survey instruments with a handful of head of household parent/guardians in person at St. Louis Crisis Nursery (Home & Community Services) and Youth In Need (Teen Parent Services), revised to ensure clarity and accuracy. Step 3: Collected data via mail. Mailed to entire population of children served; except for Crider, Sts. Joachim & Ann, Crisis Nursery, and Youth In Need, where mailed to a smaller sample drawn from entire population. Also, Preferred Family Healthcare only submitted a small portion of their population for mailing due to confidentiality agreements. Mailed surveys end of May 2009. Collected data June and July 2009. Mailed packets included: outer envelope personalized to head of household, personalized cover letter to head of household, personalized questionnaire, a postage paid return envelope addressed to RichterIntel. Cover letter guaranteed “All responses are confidential and individual responses will not be associated with any one person.” See last two pages of this document for a copy of the cover letter and questionnaire Step 4: Followed Up to Obtain More Completed Surveys. Emailed or did in person reminders to select agencies and requested reminders to families to fill out surveys. Completed a number surveys over the phone with specific targeted agencies and service area populations, by contacting parents/guardians at least three times. Step 5: Analyzed data and developed final report. Aggregated and organized data, including developing a ‘High, Moderate, and Low Score’ scale for viewing the ratings questions (scale is based on statistics and judgment). Also conducted statistical analysis to determine relative influence of 9 individual attributes on Overall satisfaction. Finally, calculated significant differences between groups where applicable. How the Survey was Conducted • The Voice of the Family Satisfaction Survey was conducted primarily by mail using the following systematic steps: Note: Sts. Joachim and Ann Care Service and Youth in Need, due to pre-existing confidentiality status, self administered their database development, mailing of surveys, and follow-up. Their questionnaire and cover letters were slightly different: 2 pages vs. 1 page front and back, the family member name appeared on the cover letter and not the questionnaire. Questionnaire only was returned to RichterIntel.

5. Who Participated in Survey: by Service Area • About 2,600 parents/guardians were mailed a survey (which is about 80% of the 2008 population). With about 530 surveys being completed, the return rate was 25% 4. • For service areas and agencies (latter, next page) with a robust population of 100+ children served, the goal was to have a statistical minimum of 30 completed surveys and/or obtain a minimum 25% return rate. • For service areas and agencies with smaller populations of <100 children served, the goal was to obtain as high of a number of completed surveys and return rate as possible by contacting by phone those not responding by mail. 1 ‘2008 Population’ are those served that had a mailing address. 2 Shaded areas in ‘Sample Mailed to’ are where a sample was mailed to vs. the entire population. 3 ‘Undeliverable’ = attempted to contact by mail and received ‘return to sender not deliverable,’ for some also attempted contact by phone and received either, disconnected phone, whereabouts unknown, wrong #, or something similar 4 Return rate (%) = completes total / (sample mailed to– undeliverable) *100

6. Who Participated in Survey: by Agency • Below shows participation by the 14 agencies. 1 ‘2008 Population,’ those served that had a mailing address. 2 Shaded areas in ‘Sample Mailed to’ are where a sample was mailed to vs. the entire population. 3 ‘Undeliverable’ = attempted to contact by mail and received ‘return to sender not deliverable,’ for some also attempted contact by phone and received either, disconnected phone, whereabouts unknown, wrong #, or something similar 4 Return rate (%) = completes total / (sample mailed to – undeliverable) *100 5 Preferred Family Healthcare submitted only 7 names due to obtaining confidentiality from families, thus, their sample is not their entire population and cannot be considered representative, results for this agency need to be interpreted directionally.

7. Demographic Profile of Children Being Served • Almost three out of five children being served by CCRB agencies are male. • The largest age group, almost half, being served is children 13-18 years of age. • Almost three out of five parents/guardians say the family member was in crisis when referred for services. 528 parents/guardians participated in the CCRB Satisfaction Survey.

8. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: System-Wide • Considering all 500+ parents/guardians that participated in the survey, Overall satisfaction is high. • Staff respectful and caring and Staff well trained and knowledgeable receive the highest ratings of all 9 individual attributes. These attributes also have the highest impact on Overall satisfaction. • Services helped family member be more successful in school is the lowest rated attribute. 528 parents/guardians participated in the CCRB Satisfaction Survey; base for each attribute is those providing a rating (with Don’t Know/Doesn’t Apply responses removed from all bases of ratings questions). Number of parent/guardians marking Don’t know/Doesn’t apply (not included in bases above) is notable for 2 attributes: Services helped our child be more successful in school (110 marked Don’t Know/Doesn’t apply), Staff provided us with helpful referrals (88 marked Don’t know/Doesn’t apply). * Note: The attribute Communicated effectively with us is highly correlated with several other attributes, attributes that perhaps are components of ‘communicating effectively.’ These other attributes are Staff provided timely responses to requests,Staff well trained and knowledgeable and Staff provided us with useful skills.

9. Suggestions For Improvement: System-Wide • When asked for suggestions for improvement or changes, parents/guardians most frequently said: More/better communication, Dissatisfaction with the quality of service, or Staff shortages/turnover. 56% gave no answer. Multiple responses accepted.

10. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: byGender of Child • Considering the results by gender, parents/guardians have the same level of satisfaction whether the child being served is male or female. Note: 304 are males and 220 are females; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

11. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: by Age of Child • Considering the results by age group, there are some significant differences: • Directionally, it appears that parents/guardians of 9-12 year olds, as compared to the other two age categories, have slightly lower Overall satisfaction. • Further, for parents/guardians of older children, those ‘9-12’ and ‘13-18,’ it appears that satisfaction drops considerably in several areas: Services helped our family situation and Services helped family member be more successful in school. A, B, C = a significant difference between the designated age groups. For instance, Group C is significantly different than Group A on two attributes. Group B is significantly different than Group A on one attribute. Note: 160 children are 0-8 years, 124 are 9-12 years, 235 are 13-18; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

12. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: by In Crisis vs. Not in Crisis • When looking at results by whether the family member was ‘in crisis’ vs. ‘not in crisis,’ parents/guardians whose family members were ‘not in crisis’ have significantly lower Overall satisfaction and lower satisfaction on a number of attributes. Was family member in crisis when referred for services? Note: 310 were in crisis, 147 were not in crisis; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

13. Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Overall Satisfaction At-a-Glance: 9 Service Areas (1) • Viewing the results by service area, there is high Overall satisfaction for most service areas. • Note that within each service area Overall satisfaction may range depending on individual agency ratings that contribute to that service area (next slide). Overall, I am satisfied with agency staff & services Number completing surveys in each Service Area noted in parentheses; base is those providing a rating. In general, samples sizes under 30 are considered small for quantifying; use caution in interpreting. * Even though this sample size is small, it represents a return rate of from about 50% to up to 80% of the population from which it was drawn; never the less, interpret with caution as several people providing different ratings can account for a somewhat large shift in percentages. +Small sample, <25% return rate and sample below 30; interpret with caution.

14. High Score 87%+ Moderate Score 80%-86% Low Score <80% Overall Satisfaction At-a-Glance: 9 Service Areas (2) • Parents/guardians have high satisfaction with most agency programs, but there are some opportunity areas. NOTES: Number of completed surveys in each Service Area/Agency Program noted in parentheses; base is those providing a rating. In general, samples sizes under 30 are considered small for quantifying; use caution in interpreting. * Even though sample size is small, it represents a return rate of at least 25% up to 100% of the population from which it was drawn; never the less, interpret with caution as several people providing different ratings can account for a somewhat large shift in percentages. +Small sample, <25% return rate and sample below 30; interpret with extreme caution. Lutheran Family & Children’s Services had a population of 1 served in Respite Care; this 1 family did not complete the survey and thus no results are listed under Respite Care.

15. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Temporary Shelter* • Parents/guardians have high Overall satisfaction with Temporary Shelter services and high satisfaction with over half of the individual attributes. • There are some areas of opportunity as seen in the table below. • Further, in open ended comments several families suggested Other (9%), a printed copy of a resource guide would be helpful, services did not help due to the uncooperativeness of family member. Note: 23 completed surveys in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though this sample size is small, it represents 48% of the population from which it was drawn; never the less, interpret with caution.

16. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Respite Care • Parents/guardians give high scores to almost all aspects of Respite Care. • Open ended suggestions for improvement or changes include: • Staff shortages (5%), need more staff, not enough staff to go around. • More frequency of services (3%), with more weekends a month available. • More prompt delivery of service (3%), having to wait for availability for respite care. • More/better communication (3%), notify parent ahead of time of body check/bath/removing clothing. Note: 58 completed surveys in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

17. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Home & Community • Parents/guardians have high satisfaction with almost all aspects of Home & Community. • Open ended suggestions for improvement or changes include: • Dissatisfaction with the quality of service (7%), the agency shouldnot blame/judge the parent, look for effective techniques, focus on and support the child, address the problems they say they will address, a parent/partner did not show for appointments, staff burn out, staff not capable, more time may need to be given to find job. • Staff shortages/turnover (4%), a need for more staff and consistency with having the same counselor. • More/better communication (3%), more interaction between parent and agency staff, return phone calls, communicate upfront about body checks. • Administrative improvements (3%), offer shortened/condensed programs so more fathers/full time working can attend, availability to meet later in evenings, offer men-only meetings, parent/partner present, ability to contact in emergency. Note: 220 completed surveys in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

18. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Teen Parent+ • Teen Parents have high Overall satisfaction and high satisfaction on over half of the individual attributes. • Suggestions include: • Expand the skills taught (18%), in addition to parenting skills, need to be taught living skillsto know how to find an apartment, get a job, and budget and pay bills. • Staff shortages/turnover (7%), more volunteers/donations, not having to switch nurses/counselors. • More training/knowledge (7%), need to adopt method for parenting that is consistent across shifts/days. Note: 28 completed surveys in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. + Small sample, <25% return rate and sample below 30; interpret with caution.

19. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Outpatient Psychiatric • Overall satisfaction is high for Outpatient Psychiatric services, but there are opportunities for improvement as shown below. • Suggestions for improvement include administrative improvements (14%) such as having a live person to assist with appointments, more convenient location, more timely appointment reminder calls, and more understanding of missed appointments. Note: 35 completed surveys in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

20. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Outpatient Substance Abuse • Overall satisfaction is high with Outpatient Substance Abuse, but there are several areas with opportunity for improvement. One important area to focus on improving is Services helped our family situation. • Suggestions for improvement include More/better communicationis needed (6%), keeping the family informed with a note or a follow up phone call. Note: 33 completed surveys in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

21. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Counseling • For Counseling, Overall satisfaction is high and satisfaction is high with more than half of the individual attributes. Opportunity areas are noted in the table below. • Suggestions for improvement include: • More/better communication (8%), more follow-up from counselor, speak to the counselor directly to know what is going on. • Dissatisfaction with quality (6%), with a counselor, a lack of a connection/want more options if counselor does not work out, a counselor not showing for appointments/not notifying,services not being what was needed. • More prompt delivery of service (4%), timely appointments/not a long lag between appointments, had to wait a while to get started. • Administrative improvements (4%), inform of office being closed/counselor not available, a counselor on call. Note: 98 completed surveys in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

22. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Crisis Intervention* • Overall satisfaction with Crisis Intervention is low and satisfaction is low with most attributes. • Suggestions for improvement include: • More/better communication (38%), would like to have communication with the counselor and know the results of meetings, haven’t spoken with counselor/spoken once or twice/child or school tells me they met. • More meetings/frequency of services (14%), would likemore meetings, more frequent meetings, or more time in the meetings, regular pattern to meetings. • Staff shortages/turnover (10%), frequent changes in counselors, staff seems over-worked/over-scheduled. Note: 29 completed surveys in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though this sample size is small, it represents 78% of the population from which it was drawn; never the less, interpret with caution.

23. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Transitional Living* • Satisfaction is low in all aspects for Transitional Living. • Several comments for improvement are: • Dissatisfaction with quality (50%), needs to be amore caring staff. • Other (25%), make sure the child is attending school and completing their education. Note: 4 completed in this Service Area; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though this sample size is small, it represents 80% of the population from which it was drawn; never the less, extreme caution in interpreting, recommend directional interpretation.

24. Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Overall Satisfaction At-a-Glance: 14 Agencies • Viewing the results by individual agencies, there is high Overall satisfaction for most agencies. • No agency has low Overall satisfaction. Overall, I am satisfied with agency staff & services Number completing surveys with each Agency noted in parentheses; base is those providing a rating. In general, samples sizes under 30 are considered small for quantifying; use caution in interpreting. * Even though sample size is small, it represents a return rate of about 29% up to 100% of the population from which it was drawn; never the less, interpret with caution as several people providing different ratings can account for a somewhat large shift in percentages. + Preferred Family Healthcare, different from all other agencies, only obtained confidentiality agreements with 7 families in total. These 7 families do not account for the whole population served and the sample cannot be considered representative since it was not drawn is any scientific way. We can say at most that these results are what 5 families think about Preferred.

25. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Children’s Home Society* • Parents/guardians have high satisfaction for Children’s Home Society. • Suggestions for improvement are: staff shortages (50%), need more staff. Note: 4 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though sample size is small, it represents 100% of the population from which it was drawn; interpret with caution.

26. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Family Support Services* • Parents/guardians have high satisfaction with Family Support Services. • Suggestions for improvement are: • More frequency of services (22%), more availability for respite care on weekends, some say in the selection of which weekend. Note: 9 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though sample size is small, it represents 100% of the population from which it was drawn; interpret with caution.

27. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Our Lady’s Inn* • Teen moms have high satisfaction with a little more than half of the individual attributes. Staff well trained and knowledgeable is an important area to focus on improving. • Suggestions for improvement include: • Expand skills taught (42%) such as how to find an apartment, get a job, budget, and pay bills. • More training (17%) meaning there needs to be a consistent parenting method taught and consistent rules used. • Staff shortages (8%), more volunteers/donations would help. • Administrative improvements (8%), wish they had a nursery for smaller children. Note: 12 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though sample size is small, it represents 75% of the population from which it was drawn; interpret with caution.

28. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Preferred Family Healthcare+ • Overall satisfaction with Preferred Family Healthcare is high. Staff provided timely responses to requests is an important area to focus on. • Suggestions for improvement include: • More/better communication (20%), parents want to be kept informed, have calls returned, be involved. • Dissatisfaction with quality of service (20%), parents not aware of what is going on. Note: 5 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. + Preferred Family Healthcare, different from all other agencies, only obtained confidentiality agreements with 7 families in total. These 7 families do not account for the whole population served and the sample cannot be considered representative since it was not drawn is any scientific way. We can say at most that these results are what 5 families think about Preferred.

29. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Salvation Army* • Satisfaction is high for the Salvation Army. • No suggestions for improvement were offered. Note: 1 completed a survey with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though sample size is small, it represents 100% of the population from which it was drawn; interpret with extreme caution. Also note that the Salvation’s Army population consisted of 12 who had an address on file, all but one of these were undeliverable/unreachable by mail or phone.

30. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: St. Louis Crisis Nursery • St. Louis Crisis Nursery receives high satisfaction on most aspects. • Suggestions include: • More/better communication (5%), notify upfront of full body checks and doctor visits, would like periodic calls to check in with family. • More prompt delivery of service (5%), not waiting a long time for help. • Administrative improvements (4%), later evening appointments and staff availability for emergencies. Note: 77 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

31. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Sts. Joachim & Ann Care Service • There is high satisfaction with Sts. Joachim & Ann Care Service on almost all aspects. • Comments or suggestions include: • Dissatisfaction with quality of service (9%), moreunderstanding of family issues and a more realistic timeframe to find a job and receive a paycheck. • Staff shortages (6%). Note: 32 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. Recall that Sts. Joachim & Ann, due to pre-existing confidentiality, self mailed.

32. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: United Services* • United Services has all high scores. • Several families noted dissatisfaction with quality (9%), staff member was burned out and there needs to be better rotation of staff, a staff member was not effective in handling the child. Note: 23 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though sample size is small, it represents 100% of the population from which it was drawn; interpret with caution.

33. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Crider Health Center (1) • Crider receives high scores on Overall satisfaction. • Looking specifically at the Outpatient Psychiatric program, scores are mostly high. Suggestions for improvement include: • Staff shortages (15%), more timely appointments, need more staff to serve more people. • More prompt delivery of service (15%), a quicker response when in crisis. • Other (15%), transportation difficult for family, expand services (i.e., dental help). • Looking at the Partners with Families program, scores are almost all high. Suggestions for improvement include: • Staff shortages/turnover (6%), high turnover, more staff so can serve more and serve longer. • Dissatisfaction with quality (6%), try different techniques, not blame family, more impact on school/ social success. • Other (6%), need person who knows signing, agency not at fault as child made poor decisions. Note: Number completing surveys for this Agency/Program is noted in parentheses; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though sample size is small, it represents 81% of the population from which it was drawn; interpret with caution.

34. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Crider Health Center (2) • School Based Mental Health has high scores on many attributes. Suggestions for improvement include: • Staff shortages/turnover (11%), less turnover, staff stretched too thin. • Dissatisfaction with quality (8%), advocate for child, help family more with situation, accomplish what you said you would accomplish. • Continue services (8%), continue from elementary to middle school, more services for high schoolers, inform parent before discharging. • More meetings (5%), more time in meetings, more frequent meetings. • Pinocchio has high Overall satisfaction, but has opportunity for improvement with a number of lower scores. Suggestions for improvement include: • More/better communication (8%), more interaction directly from agency. • More coordination with school (8%), secure teacher support. • Continue services (8%), wish could continue as child still struggles. Note: Number completing surveys in this Program is noted in parentheses; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. + Small sample, <25% return rate and sample below 30; interpret with extreme caution. Also note no phone follow-up, phone numbers not provided.

35. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Youth in Need • Youth in Need has high Overall satisfaction and high scores on some attributes, but there is opportunity for improvement. • Suggestions include: • Dissatisfaction with quality (4%), not happy with counselor/staff, not happy with changing counselors, need more counselors that care about kids. • More prompt delivery of service (4%), sometimes have to wait, took a while to get started. • Staff shortages/turnover (3%), don’t like to switch counselors/nurses, more staff that care about kids. • Other (3%), printed copy of resource guide would be great, service didn’t help due to uncooperative child. Note: 95 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. Recall that Youth in Need, due to pre-existing confidentiality, self mailed.

36. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Bridgeway Behavioral Health* • Bridgeway Behavioral Health has high Overall satisfaction and high satisfaction on more than half of the individual attributes. One area to focus on improving is Services helped our family situation. • Suggestions include: • More/better communication (4%), follow up phone calls. • Dissatisfaction with quality (4%), did not feel needed services. • Other (4%), need drug testing to be random, unannounced. Note: 28 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating. * Even though sample size is small, it represents 29% of the population from which it was drawn; interpret with caution.

37. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: F.A.C.T. • There is high Overall satisfaction with F.A.C.T and high satisfaction with most individual attributes. • Suggestions for improvement include: • Dissatisfaction with quality (11%), parent/partner not showing up, needs not met, person at F.A.C.T not focusing on child. • More/better communication (5%), return phone calls. • Administrative improvements (5%), meetings for men only, help with IEP services. Note: 37 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

38. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Catholic Family Services • Catholic Family Services receives a moderate score on Overall satisfaction. More than half of the individual attributes receive a low score. One important attribute to focus on improving is Services helped our family situation. • Suggestions for improvement include: • More/better communication (18%), little communication, counselor needs to call parent to keep them informed. • Administrative improvements (9%), more convenient location, live person to handle appointments, notified of office closing/counselor being unavailable. • More meetings/frequency of services (8%), more meetings needed, more time in meetings, meeting in a regular pattern. • Staff shortages/turnover (5%), staff over-scheduled, saw every other week vs. every week, changing counselors too often. • Prescription medicine capability/knowledge (5%), offering other medicines, trying something other than medicine, knowledge of medicine and autism. Note: 66 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

39. Impact on Overall Satisfaction Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Satisfaction: Lutheran Family Children’s Services • Lutheran Family Children’s Services receives a moderate score on Overall satisfaction. One important area to focus on is Services helped our family situation. • Suggestions for improvement include: • More/better communication (20%), contacting families and informing them as to what is going on, more timely responses to calls. • Dissatisfaction with quality (13%), more options of counselors if one does not work out, the services did not match or meet the needs, the counselor was not available when appointments were made. • Prescription medicine capability/knowledge (10%), a doctor on staff that could evaluate/prescribe. • More coordination with school (7%), to have services available in school settings. Note: 30 completed surveys with this Agency; base for each attribute is those providing a rating.

40. Recommendations • Communicate to stakeholders that with feedback from 500+ parents/guardians a key strength of the services being provided to the children is the staff at the individual agencies. • Overall satisfaction with agency staff & services system-wide is very high at 92%. • Staff was respectful and caringreceived the highest score of all system-wide (96%). Staff well trained and knowledgeable received the second highest score system-wide (93%). • Every agency received a score >90% on Respectful and caring. • All service areas but one received a score of >90% on Respectful and caring (Transitional Living 75%) • Satisfaction with outcome-focused attributes may be more difficult to achieve. • Consider working with agencies, schools, and professional associates to develop longitudinal milestones for follow-up and tracking Successful in school and Helped our family situation. • Consider working with agencies and professional associates to develop critical skill sets related to various service areas that can then be communicated to the family and children. • Helped family member be more successful in school (68% system-wide, lowest score of all). • Only one of nine service areas received a high score for this attribute (Respite 91%). • Helped our family situation (86%, important attribute with higher impact on Overall satisfaction). • Only three of nine service areas received high scores for this attribute (Respite 100%, Home & Community 89%, Teen Parent 89%) • Provided us with useful skills (84%). • Only two of the nine service areas received a high score for this attribute (Respite Care 96%, Home & Community 87%).

41. Recommendations • Consider advocating or promoting through schools, agencies, and other non-profit advocates communication, education, and assistance at earlier levels. Successful outcomes in school or in the home may be reached with more children at a younger age. • Helped family member be more successful in school (71% and 60% for 9-12 and 13-18, respectively vs. 81% for 0-8 year olds) • Helped our family situation (82% for 9-12 and 13-18 vs. 92% for 0-8 year olds). • Consider aggregating information on other resources that families can access to learn more or obtain additional help (includingonline sources). • Provided us with helpful referrals (84%, system-wide). • Only three of nine service areas received high scores for this attribute (Respite 96%, Home & Community 90%, Teen Parent 89%) • Develop a system for handling ‘not in crisis’ families and clearly communicate this process to families so expectations are clear and needs are met in a timely manner. • Consider clarifying what ‘in crisis’ means so the most effective use of agency resources can be achieved. Almost three out of five families say they are in crisis, but from telephone interviews it appears that it may be unclear to families what ‘in crisis’ means. • Families that were not in crisis when referred for services vs. those that were in crisis have significantly lower Overall satisfaction (86% vs. 94%).

42. Recommendations • Communicate to agencies the family’s suggestions for improvement to better meet their needs. Potentially set up guidelines to address specifics. Three key areas for improvement are: • Communication with the families. They want to be involved and know what is going on. They want phone calls returned. • Quality and effectiveness of staff. Clear expectations for staff and clear quality of service delivery for families should be established/communicated. • Staff shortages and staff turnover. Identify best practices for staff retention and share among agencies, develop plans for handling transitions to new counselor/staff member. • Additionally, work with agencies that may be experiencing significantly increased workloads or have added new programs/service areas to ensure delivery of quality service. • Encourage the gathering and consent of online contact information for potential use in communications, could be effective use of resources.

43. Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Summary of Ratings by Service Area

44. Impact on ‘Overall satisfaction’ Higher Lower Moderate Score 80%-86% High Score 87%+ Low Score <80% Summary of Ratings by Agency

45. OVER PLEASE 2440 Executive Drive, Suite 214, St. Charles, MO 63303 636.939.6200 www.stcharlescountykids.org board of directors Ron Berrey, ED.D. Chairperson Valerie White Vice Chairperson Dan Kuntz Treasurer Julie Eckstein Chuck Gross Betty Kramer Gil Lauer Frank Martinez Arthur Wash Bruce Sowatsky, LCSW Executive Director Janet Lewien, M.A. Grants Administrator Dear «Head_of_Households__First_Names» «Head_of_Housholds_Last_Name», In 2008, your family received services from «AGENCY». These services were funded by the Community and Children’s ResourceBoard of St. Charles County (CCRB) through the passage of a sales taxin 2004. The CCRB is conducting a Customer Satisfaction Survey toobtain your opinions on the services it funds. Your responses will helpus to measure satisfaction and improve services. You are receiving one survey from each agency for each familymember that received services. The name of the AGENCY, the nameof the SERVICE, and the name of the FAMILY MEMBER are printedat the top of the survey. As the parent or guardian, we are asking you to give us your opinions on the services your family member received. Please return your survey in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. We have hired an independent firm, RichterIntel, to tabulate the results. All responses are confidential and individual responses will not be associated with any one person. The CCRB will receive a summarized report. Thank you for taking the time to complete this very important survey. Sincerely, ID CCRB Chairperson For assistance in completing the Survey, please call Cynthia Cluff at 314.961.5211 or email at ccluff@aol.com

46. A. Is family member listed above a: -1 Male -2 Female B. Age of family member listed above:-1 0-8 yrs -2 9-12 yrs -3 13-18 yrs C. Was family member in crisis when referred for services? -1Yes-2No -0 Don’t Know/Not Sure (in a situation where immediate help was needed) Satisfaction Survey 2009 Provide feedback on the specific AGENCY, SERVICE, and FAMILY MEMBER listed below. IMPORTANT! Check one response for each item listed.If you do not know about an item or it does not apply to you, please check ‘Don’t Know/Doesn’t Apply’ for that item. Tell us your opinions about: Agency Family member received services: Child’s name Provided this service: Service Area IMPORTANT! Please fill out gender and age for the family member listed above. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Don’t Know/Doesn’tApply RATE THE AGENCY STAFF ON … • Staff was respectful and caring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . .. . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .-0 • Staff communicated effectively with us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .-0(explained what was happening and why, addressed concerns, explained goals) • Staff seemed well trained and knowledgeable . . . . .  . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0 • Staff provided timely responses to requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0 • Staff provided us with useful skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . -0 • Staff provided us with helpful referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . -0 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Don’t Know/Doesn’tApply RATE THE SERVICES ON … • Services helped our family situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . .. . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .-0 • Helped family member be more successful in school . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0(check Don’t Know/Doesn’t Apply if this does not apply to family member listed at top of survey) • Service were delivered in a timely manner-0(able to begin receiving services promptly when first contacted agency) RATE YOUR OVERALL OPINION • Overall, I am satisfied with agency staff & services. . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  . . . . .. . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .-0 11. What suggestions for improvement or changes in this service will better meet your needs? (Please be specific) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Unique ID, return survey mailing directions, phone number for questions about survey