ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A...

8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR

1/161

ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM

CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR

by

Mary R. Noble

NANCY POMEROY, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

PAULA STECHSCHULTE, Ph.D., Committee Member

DEBRA HURD, Ph.D., Committee Member

Charles Tiffin, PhD, Dean, School of Public Service Leadership

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

December 2010


2/161

Abstract

Created by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, the one-stop career center system was

designed to ensure that effective employment and training services were available to everyone,

thereby increasing the available workforce and employment of individuals with and without

disabilities (Jobs bill gives power to locals, Barlas, 1998). Measures, calculations of performance

levels, and assessment of customer satisfaction were required (Training and employment

guidance letter no. 7-99,U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2000). In

2002, the Disability Program Navigator Initiative was developed to specifically assist individuals

with disabilities in one-stop career centers, directly and indirectly (Disability Program Navigator

Initiative,U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). To gain

insight on whether the goals of the one-stop career center system were met, levels of satisfaction

of one-stop career center customers who used the services provided by a disability program

navigator were assessed. A sample of 41 ranged from 25-74 years of age with educational levels

from 9-19 years. More than 50% of respondents scored the disability program navigator service

with favorable response ratings on all eight items of the survey used in this study, the Client

Satisfaction Questionnaire (The USCF client satisfaction scales, Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999).

Data analysis results indicated no significant differences in total customer satisfaction scores

between women and men or between participants who self-identified as having a disability and

those who did not. There were no significant differences in total customer satisfaction scores

between participants who found out about the disability program navigator from the one-stop

career center, from a website/online, from the Social Security office, unemployment office, or


3/161


4/161

iv

Dedication

This academic milestone is dedicated to several individuals. The most important person was my

loving, supportive, and understanding husband, Scott, who was instrumental in starting my

academic journey and vital to finishing it, and was always there for me. My caring parents,

Beatrice and Jacob, encouraged and supported my education pursuits in more ways than one.

Lastly, I hope that my sons, Kevin and Rob, accepted and understood all the time I spent on this

endeavor.


5/161

v

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge and offer my sincere gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Wendy Andberg and Dr.

Nancy Pomeroy, for their ongoing encouragement, guidance, support, and advice. I am grateful

to my dissertation committee, Dr. Paula Stechschulte and Dr. Debra Hurd, several of my former

college professors, Paige Berry, Dr. Amy Armstrong, Dr. Allen Lewis, and Dr. Christine Reid, as

well as Dr. Joann Richardson, who inspired me to continue my education. I am thankful to

several colleagues, Laurie Meadows, Richard Kriner, Dr. Joe Ashley; to the staff at the

Richmond Career Advancement Center in Virginia; as well as Dr. Beth Bader, Sarah Littlebear,

and Margaret McCall, who listened to me, and provided feedback and/or encouragement. A

special thank-you to Patty and the deceased Dr. D. Dale Kleppinger, and in particular, Pattys

never-ending commitment to me. I acknowledge, too, my familys support, Peggy, Denise, Eric,

April, my in-laws, Sue and Ray, my parents, Beatrice and Jacob, and especially my wonderfully

supportive husband, Scott. I extend a sincere thank-you to each of these individuals.


6/161

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments v

List of Tables ix

List of Figures xi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 3

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 6

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 8

RATIONALE 10

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 12

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 13

DEFINITION OF TERMS 15

ASSUMPTIONS 18

LIMITATIONS 18

NATURE OF THE STUDY AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 20

ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STUDY 22

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 23

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 23

FEDERAL LEGISLATION TARGETING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 27

ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS 37


7/161

vii

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 40

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER SYSTEM 43

DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR INITIATIVE 54

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 62

RESEARCHERS PHILOSOPHY 62

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 63

RESEARCH DESIGN STRATEGY 66

SAMPLING DESIGN 66

MEASURES 67

DESCRIPTION OF THE CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8) 68

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 71

DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 73

LIMITATIONS OF METHODOLOGY 75

EXPECTED FINDINGS AND ETHICAL ISSUES 76

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 80

INTRODUCTION 80

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE 80

SUMMARY OF RESULTS 85

DETAILS OF ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 86

CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 95

CONCLUSION 115


8/161

viii

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 119

INTRODUCTION 119

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS 119

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 123

LIMITATIONS 126

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 127

CONCLUSION 125

REFERENCES 133

APPENDIX A. DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR POSITION DESCRIPTION 145

APPENDIX B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION SHEET 150


9/161

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. RESPONSES TO ITEM 1. HOW WOULD YOU RATE THEQUALITY OF SERVICE YOU RECEIVED. 97

Table 2. RESPONSES TO ITEM 2. DID YOU GET THE KINDOF SERVICE YOU WANTED. 97

Table 3. RESPONSES TO ITEM 3. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THEPROGRAM MET YOUR NEEDS. 98

Table 4. RESPONSES TO ITEM 4. WOULD YOU RECOMMENDTHE PROGRAM TO A FRIEND. 98

Table 5. RESPONSES TO ITEM 5. HOW SATISFIED ARE YOUWITH THE AMOUNT OF HELP RECEIVED. 99

Table 6. RESPONSES TO ITEM 6. HAVE THE SERVICES HELPEDWITH YOUR PROBLEMS. 99

Table 7. RESPONSES TO ITEM 7. OVERALL GENERALSATISFACTION WITH SERVICE. 100

Table 8. RESPONSES TO ITEM 8. WOULD YOU COME BACKTO THE PROGRAM. 101

Table 9. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 8 ITEMS ON CLIENTSATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8). 101

Table 10. PEARSONS CORRELATION RESULTS FOR AGE AND TOTALCLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8) SCORES. 103

Table 11. PEARSONS CORRELATION RESULTS FOR YEARS OFEDUCATION AND TOTAL CLIENT SATISFACTIONQUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8) SCORES. 104

Table 12. PEARSONS CORRELATION RESULTS FOR DAYS UNTIL MEETINGWITH DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR AND TOTAL CLIENTSATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES. 105


10/161

x

Table 13. PEARSONS CORRELATION RESULTS FOR MINUTES SPENTIN MEETING WITH DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR ANDTOTAL CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE SCORE. 105

Table 14. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTALCLIENT SATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES FORWOMEN AND MEN. 107

Table 15. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTAL CLIENTSATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES AND PARTICIPANTS WHOSELF-IDENTIFIED A DISABILITY. 108

Table 16.INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTAL CLIENTSATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES AND PARTICIPANTS WHO

FOUND OUT ABOUT DISABILITY PROGRAMNAVIGATOR FROM ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER. 109

Table 17. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTAL CLIENTSATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES AND PARTICIPANTS WHOFOUND OUT ABOUT DISABILITY PROGRAMNAVIGATOR FROM A WEBSITE/ONLINE. 110

Table 18. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTAL CLIENTSATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES AND PARTICIPANTS WHOFOUND OUT ABOUT DISABILITY PROGRAM

NAVIGATOR FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE. 111

Table 19. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTAL CLIENTSATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES AND PARTICIPANTS WHOFOUND OUT ABOUT DISABILITY PROGRAMNAVIGATOR FROM THE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE. 112

Table 20. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTAL CLIENTSATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES AND PARTICIPANTS WHOFOUND OUT ABOUT DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATORFROM FAMILY/FRIENDS. 113

Table 21. COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION FOR CLIENTSATISFACTION SCORES. 115

Table 22. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION ON 8 ITEMS ONCLIENT SATISFACTION CSQ-8. 121


11/161

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1. AGES OF PARTICIPANTS. 83

Figure 2. YEARS OF EDUCATION OF PARTICIPANTS. 84

Figure 3. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT OF AGES OF PARTICIPANTS. 88

Figure 4. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT OF YEARS OFEDUCATION OF PARTICIPANTS. 89

Figure 5. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT FOR NUMBER OF DAYS UNTIL

PARTICIPANTS MEETING WITH DISABILITY PROGRAMNAVIGATOR. OUTLIER AT 14-DAY MARK. 90

Figure 6. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT FOR MINUTES IN PARTICIPANTSMEETING WITH DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR.OUTLIERS AT 2-MINUTE MARK AND 45-MINUTES MARK. 91

Figure 7. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT FOR PARTICIPANTS TOTALCLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8) SCORES. 92

Figure 8. NUMBER OF DAYS UNTIL MEETING WITH DISABILITY

PROGRAM NAVIGATOR. 93

Figure 9. MINUTES IN MEETING WITH DISABILITYPROGRAM NAVIGATOR. 95

Figure 10. DISTRIBUTION OF CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE(CSQ-8) SCORES. HISTOGRAM SHOWS BIMODAL SHAPE. 96


12/161

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

In 1998, the one-stop career center system was created by the Workforce Investment Act

to ensure that effective employment and training services were available to all individuals,

including people with disabilities (Barlas, 1998). Measures and calculation of performance levels

regarding core and customer satisfaction in the one-stop career centers were required under the

Workforce Investment Act (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration,

2000). The levels of performance standards that were expected, however, had considerable

bearing on the ability of each states workforce system to include people with significant

disabilities (Bader, 2003). To address this problem, the Department of Labor and the Social

Security Administration established the Disability Program Navigator Initiative in 2002 (U.S.

Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). This initiative was specifically

designed to assist individuals with disabilities to secure the most favorable employment

outcomes in the one-stop center career center system, through a variety of ways, both directly

and indirectly.

The Disability Program Navigator Initiative provided an individual with expertise on

workforce development issues, not only to assist people with disabilities in the one-stop center

career centers and to facilitate their access to disability services, but to increase the capacity of

the one-stop career center to serve this population (Emery et al., n.d., Holcomb & Barnow,

2004). This was accomplished by working directly with customers, referring them to other

relevant programs and services, training one-stop career center staff, and conducting community


13/161

2

outreach (Emery et al., n.d.). Through funding in state grants, disability program navigators also

were utilized in the 2005 Disability Program Navigator Hurricane Initiative, which provided

temporary assignments of workforce professionals for people with disabilities in the Gulf Coast

area (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.; U.S. Dept. of Labor,

Employment & Training Administration, 2005).

Although the one-stop career center system has been in existence since 1998, there is

limited information regarding the experiences and satisfaction of its customers who used the

services provided by a disability program navigator. Customers who met with a disability

program navigator included individuals, one-stop career center staff, community organizations,

employers, and local businesses (Emery et al., n.d.). More specifically, customers included

people with multiple employment challenges, and who had non-visible, undiagnosed, and non-

reported disabilities, such as psychiatric, learning or other cognitive disabilities, or traumatic

brain injuries. This also consisted of people who were not only disabled, but were youth in the

foster care and juvenile justice systems, ex-offenders, TANF recipients, disabled veterans, older

workers, customers in need of English as a Second Language services, and customers who were

illiterate and/or homeless (Federal News Service, 2009). Despite the fact that in 2009, the Office

of Workforce Investment with the Employment and Training Administration reported 450

disability program navigators across 42 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S.

Virgin Islands and Guam (Federal News Service, 2009), there is a significant deficit of data

regarding the utilization of the services of a disability program navigator by one-stop career


14/161

3

center customers. Therefore, customer satisfaction levels with the Disability Program Navigator

Initiative cannot be determined, or to what extent customers were satisfied.

Assessment of satisfaction from one-stop career center customers who used the services

of a disability program navigator would provide insight and understanding for improvement and

modifications of the Initiative, as well as future funding for it. Findings would contribute to a

greater understanding of the needs of people with disabilities, and ultimately, possibly increase

the employment of individuals with disabilities in the workforce. Obtaining information

regarding the levels and differences of customer satisfaction with the services of a disability

program navigator could also be used to determine how effectively the Disability Program

Navigator Initiative accomplished the goals of both the one-stop career center program and the

Workforce Investment Act. This would allow for modifications by decision-makers and policy-

makers, as well as continued and future funding.

Background of the Study

President Clinton signed the Workforce Investment Act as Public Law 105-220 on

August 7, 1998 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998). The

intentions of the Workforce Investment Actwere toconsolidate funds into the Workforce

Development System, thereby replacing a number of smaller federally supported employment

programs, and to combine, coordinate, and improve employment, training, literacy, and

vocational rehabilitation programs in organized labor (National Council on Disability, 2005).

The Workforce Investment Act is organized into five titles concerning job training; adult


15/161

4

education; amendments to both previous employment acts and vocational rehabilitation acts; and

general provisions targeting all adults ages 18 and older, dislocated workers, and youths aged 14-

21 with low incomes (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998). Title

I of the Workforce Investment Act specifically established the one-stop career center delivery

system as an access point for employment-related and training services (Dept. of Labor,

Employment & Training Administration, 1998). The one-stop career center system was also

designed to integrate, collaborate, and upgrade relevant community programs and resources, and

to provide employers with a larger pool of qualified, skilled workers (Rutgers, 2002). Federally

mandated partnerships in one-stop career centers provided individuals with meaningful and

seamless access to information, services, and opportunities in the world of work.

The Workforce Investment Act expired on September 30, 2003, and the Job Training

Improvement Act, House Bill H.R. 27, was passed on March 2, 2005, reauthorizing the Act

(Lordeman, 2006). The bill also contained amendments to Title I of the Workforce Investment

Act of 1998 that affected the one-stop career center system (Lordeman, 2006). The bill affected

the one-stop career center systems by increasing the role and flexibility of the State Workforce

Investment Board, streamlining funding and bureaucracy, eliminating duplication, strengthening

resource allocation, and improving accountability.

Despite the efforts of the Workforce Investment Act and the one-stop career center

system, only about 37% of people with disabilities are reported in the national workforce (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2006). Six percent of adults aged 16 to 64 with a disability report the presence of

a condition that makes it difficult to remain employed or to find a job (U.S. Census Bureau,


16/161

5

2006). Average earnings of workers with disabilities are lower; they are under-represented in the

workforce, and experience both higher rates of poverty and limited access to employee benefits

(Timmons, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).

The Workforce Investment ActsStandardized Record Data revealed a significant

decrease from 2001 to 2003 in percentages of people with a disability successfully exiting the

one-stop career center program (National Council on Disability, 2005). A case study of one-stop

career centers in six states also found that the number of people with disabilities who used the

one-stop career centers was lower than what was expected (Hamner & Timmons, 2005). Reasons

suggested for the underutilization were that data collection systems lacked the ability to clearly

identify people with disabilities; non-disclosure of a disability by customers; insufficient

appropriate services for people with more significant disabilities; and limitations of staff time to

assist them in accessing services (Bader, 2003; Hamner & Timmons, 2005). Other reasons that

one-stop career centers were not used by more individuals with disabilities were the customers

lack of ability and personal comfort levels in using the one-stop career centers self-directed

services (Bader, 2003; Hamner & Timmons, 2005). There was also reluctance by the one-stop

career center staff to serve people with disabilities because investment of the additional time and

support required to assist those with disabilities could possibly result in inadequate outcomes to

meet mandatory performance measures (Bader, 2003; Hamner & Timmons, 2005). It was found

that employers who were aware of one-stop career centers and used its services were more likely

to be large and medium-sized employers (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005).

Reasons given by employers for not using the one-stop career centers services were a lack of


17/161

6

information on the services offered or the breadth of services available, and/or the use of other

training/hiring resources (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005).

In an effort to streamline services and create seamless service delivery among the one-

stop career center partners, one of the additions jointly developed by the U.S. Department of

Labor and the Social Security Administration was the Disability Program Navigator Initiative.

Established in 2002, the Initiative provided an expert in the one-stop center career centers who

had knowledge and experience on workforce development issues relative to people with

disabilities (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). Appendix A

provides a description of the disability program navigator position. In 2004, there were

approximately 227 disability program navigators who facilitated access to disability services to

secure the most favorable employment outcome for one-stop career center customers with

disabilities (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004; U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, 2005). On June 30, 2006, additional U.S. Department of Labor grant monies

were awarded to both fund disability program navigators in 13 states and to maintain the

program in 17 states (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006). This study assessed the satisfaction of one-stop

career center customers who utilized the services of the disability program navigator in two one-

stop career centers, thereby providing insight on the programs effectiveness in meeting its goals.

Statement of the Problem

Performance accountability for customer-focused results in the one-stop career center

system was required by the Workforce Investment Actof 1998, whichinvolved data collection,


18/161


19/161

8

disabilities, and serving as a resource on federal disability incentives and benefits; thereby

improving the coordination of one-stop career centers resources for people with disabilities

(Institute for Community Inclusion, 2004). Nevertheless, only a few studies are presently

available regarding customers levels of satisfaction with the services provided by a disability

program navigator. Since implementation in 2002, the Disability Program Navigator Initiative

continued to evolve, and information from the individuals it was designed to assist is valuable to

determine if, in fact, it has satisfactorily met the needs of its customers.

Purpose of the Study

One of the best practices found at one-stop career centers serving people with disabilities

was an individual with expertise in disability issues, termed a disability program navigator, and

previously referred to as a disability resource specialist (Bader, 2003). The Disability Program

Navigator Initiative provided funding for such an expert, who could provide on-site disability

consultation, screenings, assistance in identification, coordination, and facilitation of

communication among the one-stops, community disability providers, and disability resources

(U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). Often opportunities,

participation, and involvement of people with disabilities are frequently denied or limited due to

agency regulations, lack of accessibility, inadequate supports, and stereotypical attitudes

(Kosciulek, 2004). Assumptions are frequently made that limit choices by people with

disabilities, and are based on the avoidance of undesirable or unavailable alternatives and/or a

lack of knowledge of capabilities and desires (Kosciulek, 2004). The Disability Program


20/161

9

Navigator Initiative sought to address the lack of informed choices for people with disabilities. In

addition to serving as a point of contact for people with disabilities, disability program

navigators assisted one-stop career center staff, management, and partner agencies with

disability-related issues (Bader, 2003).

The purpose of this quantitative study was to assess and analyze levels of customer

satisfaction at one-stop career centers that participated in the Disability Program Navigator

Initiative, in an effort to augment the limited research in this area. The survey used in this study

allowed for a determination of customer satisfaction levels and incorporated the voice of the

customer. The voice of the customer has been a frequent focus of business research to

improve customer satisfaction and develop a more competitive edge (Stank, Daugherty, &

Ellington, 1997). A tenet of management approaches, such as Demings Total Quality

Management, Quality Function Deployment, and the Kano Model of customer satisfaction, the

voice of the customer indicates that assumptions are not made regarding the customer wants

(Spencer, 2000; Stank et al., 1997). Rather, it is what the customers themselves want that drives

service development and delivery, and it is achieved through measurement of their perceptions of

services as they are, not as the organizations imagine services are, or as they believe customers

want (Fournier-Bonilla, 1998; Spencer, 2000). A basic rule of business and an age-old adage is

that if you do not measure it, you cannot manage it(Customer Focus Consulting, 2003). Acustomer-driven focus enables an organization to maximize limited funding and resources to

provide what the customers want, and to determine what is not needed (Spencer, 2000).


21/161

10

Findings in this study contributed to increased insight as to what extent the Initiative has

achieved the goals of the one-stop career center system. The study could be replicated in future

studies for evaluations and research with programs that have a disability program navigator.

Rationale

The Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (2001) indicated that

key goals of the one-stop career center approach, in its application to people with disabilities,

were to streamline services, empower individuals, and provide universal accessibility.

Streamlined services from all partners enabled activities and information to be co-located,

coordinated, and integrated as a whole (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,

2001). Financial empowerment for individuals was achieved with Individual Training Accounts

that allowed eligible adults to purchase training services, in conjunction with advice, guidance,

and support through the one-stop career center system (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability

Employment Policy, 2001). Universal accessibility to core employment-related services ensured

that any individual was able to access a variety of employment services (Dept. of Labor, Office

of Disability Employment Policy, 2001; Timmons, Fesko & Cohen, 2004). Accessibility

included physical access to a center, as well as virtual and computer-based resources, programs,

and services (Funaro & Dixon, 2002; Hoff, 2002). Universal accessibility in all aspects of the

one-stop career center enables use by diverse populations, including people with a disability,

such as physical, sensory, and learning disabilities, mental retardation, mental health issues, and

head injuries (Hoff, 2002).


22/161

11

Other goals of the one-stop career center system were to develop an accurate

performance assessment of its responsiveness to people with disabilities (Hall & Parker, 2005),

and to create meaningful and seamless service delivery between the workforce and disability

systems (Cohen, Timmons, & Fesko, 2005). Seamless service delivery consists of a streamlined

delivery of services by different agencies, and is smooth, coordinated, and efficient, reduces

paperwork, avoids duplication, and links multiple programs into one system (Cohen et al., 2005).

Therefore, a person with a disability would not need to navigate multiple services systems in

order to access a variety of necessary services, which can be overwhelming (Cohen et al., 2005).

Instead, the partner agencies of the one-stop career center negotiate with each other to

collaborate and coordinate their services, resulting in improved consumer outcomes and

simplification of the process for customers (Cohen et al., 2005).

If the one-stop career center system was successful in achieving the goal of increasing the

employment rate of people with disabilities, economic statistics would reflect this, and should

likewise, reflect an increase in their employment. Evaluation of the performance of the one-stop

career centers employment services, however, revealed that Workforce Investment Act

customers with disabilities were typically less likely to enter employment and retain employment

when compared to peers without disabilities (Hall & Parker, 2005). Holcomb & Barnow (2004)

found that, although the program enrolled a number of people with disabilities, only a small

proportion of them were actually served. Furthermore, people with disabilities who exited the

program had lower employment and earnings than other exiting customers (Holcomb & Barnow,

2004). The Center for an Accessible Society (2005) has also indicated that the percentage of


23/161

12

people with disabilities in the workforce remains at 30%, the same as when the Americans with

Disabilities Act became law.

The rationale for this study was that it is crucial to obtain an assessment as to what extent

the Disability Program Navigator Initiative has met the needs of its customers. An evaluation of

the Initiatives customer satisfaction levels allows the one-stop career centers, decision makers,

and policy makers to identify whether the program provided quality services and achieved the

one-stop career center systems goals. Obtaining information on these issues enables future

modifications to increase customer satisfaction levels and use, improve the services provided by

the disability program navigator in the one-stop career centers, and obtain future funding. In light

of the implications of three major trends for the future of work; which are shifting demographic

patterns, the pace of technological change, and the path of economic globalization; it is

imperative that there is greater labor force recruitment and participation by people with

disabilities (Rand Labor & Population, 2004). Due to advances in medical care, improvements in

the prevention and treatment of disease, and improved workplace conditions that have reduced

the physical demands of labor, disability subsequently is less of a health concern for working age

men and women (Wilson, Burton, & Howell, 2005).

Research Questions

The purpose of this quantitative study was to assess customer satisfaction and examine

the factors that influence customer satisfaction of individuals who were referred to, and used the

services of a disability program navigator in a sample of one-stop career centers. The


24/161

13

quantitative research design was descriptive and included a survey of customer demographics

and levels of satisfaction, allowing for a systemic analysis and description of the data and

characteristics of the one-stop career centers customers (Simon, 2001). There was no

manipulation of variables or attempts to establish causality (Simon, 2001). The survey in this

study was used to elicit respondents rated opinions of relevant satisfaction concepts, and since

these were ordinal measures of internal states in terms of less and more to classify and/or rank

them (Bernard, 2000), statistical data was obtained indicating differences in satisfaction levels

(Sproull, 2002).

The following research questions were addressed.

1. To what extent are customers satisfied with the services of the disability program

navigators in one-stop career centers?

2. What are the areas that customers identify as needing improvement?

3. How do the customers levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability

program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the

disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability

program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting?

Significance of the Study

The rationale for this studys research problem was based on the national emphasis

toward assisting more people with disabilities to obtain employment, and the continuing desire

and drive to utilize the one-stop career center system more efficiently and effectively. The one-


25/161

14

stop career center system continues to experience substantial developments and changes, which

have contributed toward the lack of studies regarding the Disability Program Navigator

Initiative. Neither the levels of satisfaction by customers who received services under the

Initiative, or the success of the Initiative in achieving the goals of the one-stop career program

can be determined. This study addressed this deficiency by providing data and information for

future studies, and contributed to greater insight and understanding of the needs of people with

disabilities in the job-seeking process.

Order of Selection

A change in approximately 58.3% of the state vocational rehabilitation agencies had a

significant impact on the referrals of people with disabilities to the one-stop career centers

(Anderson, Boone, & Watson, 2002). The nationwide change was the order of selection. Under

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, all states receive federal funds to provide vocational

rehabilitation services to people with disabilities. However, if a state determines there will be

insufficient resources to provide vocational rehabilitation services to all eligible individuals who

apply, an order of selection process can be implemented (United States Code, 29 USC, 721). In

the order of selection process, eligible individuals with the most significant disabilities are served

first, and then eligible individuals with a significant disability may be served next, on a first-

applied, first-served basis (United States Code, 29 USC, 721). The procedure established

categories of priorities based on the significance of the disability and the associated functional

limitations, thereby creating a waiting list for eligible individuals who fall into categories that

cannot be served until funding is available (Virginia Dept. of Rehabilitation Services, 2004).


26/161

15

Individuals on the Order of Selection waiting list are entitled to appropriate referrals to

other state and federal programs, including other providers within the state workforce investment

system, such as the one-stop career centers (United States Code, 29 USC, 721). If an individual

qualifies for services from a vocational rehabilitation agency, under the Workforce Investment

Act, he or she can choose not to utilize these services, since it is not mandated that an individual

must use vocational rehabilitation (Hoff, 1992-2005). Alternatively, the individual can use a

combination of both vocational rehabilitation and one-stop career center services (Hoff, 1992-

2005). Past studies have found that the one-stop career center system alone has not met the needs

of its customers with disabilities, and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative was

subsequently created to address this deficiency.

In light of the order of selection process implemented by over one-half of state vocational

rehabilitation departments, as well as the deficit in research on people with disabilities in the

one-stop career center system, it is imperative to determine whether the Disability Program

Navigator Initiative met this populations needs. Therefore, an assessment of customer

satisfaction was crucial for obtaining information that can be used to ascertain this.

Definition of Terms

Terms used in this study are defined as follows.

Customer. An individual who directly benefits from the serviced provided (Deese,

2002).


27/161


28/161

17

One-Stop Career Center Partner. An entity that is participating, with the approval of

the workforce local board and chief elected official, in the operation of a one-stop career center

program delivery system (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998).

Reasonable Accommodation.Modification of an environment and conditions to enable

individuals with disabilities to participate on an equal basis (Social Security Administration,

2000).

Universal Accessibility. Services, products, and environments that are designed to

enable use to the greatest extent possible by any individual, without the need for adaptation,

special design, or assistive technology (Adaptive Environments, 2006).

Vocational Rehabilitation Agency.An agency that provides employment-related

services to people with disabilities to achieve their vocational and economic goals (U.S. Dept. of

Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998).

Workforce Investment Act. The federally-funded legislation authorizing the state and

local communities to develop a new workforce delivery structure through one-stop career centers

(Deese, 2002). One-stop career centers are located in a community business that has met federal

criteria and receives funding under the Workforce Investment Act for the purpose of providing

employment-related services under one roof. The community businesses may be a state or local

government agency, a nonprofit organization, community colleges, or a for-profit firm (Holcomb

& Barnow, 2004).


29/161

18

Assumptions

The following assumptions were made for the purpose of this study.

1. Voluntary respondents were solicited by the contact person in participating research sites

following instructions provided in the researchers instructions.

2. Participants answered questions on the surveys honestly.

3. Participating one-stop career centers and their disability program navigators were able to

facilitate reasonable accommodation to allow an individual with a disability to complete

the surveys if it was requested.

Limitations

The following were the limitations of this study.

1. Limitations of the use of a self-administered questionnaire included lack of control over

how the questions were interpreted or answered, and the researchers inability to

administer it to all types of disabilities, such as those who are illiterate because of a

disability (Bernard, 2000).

2. Due to the number of one-stop career centers nationwide with a disability program

navigator, it was not possible to survey each one. Participating one-stop career centers

were chosen from a sample of nationwide one-stop career centers that serve people with

disabilities that were identified by a panel of experts (Bader, 2003). This limited the

generalizability of the studys findings.


30/161

19

3. Respondents were limited to those who actually met with the disability program

navigator at participating one-stop career centers. This allowed for a sample that

possessed characteristics important for this study (Sproull, 2002).

4. Respondents were further limited to those whom the contact person at the one-stop career

centers solicited for participation, were able and willing to participate, and voluntarily

completed and returned the surveys. Additionally, survey respondents were limited to

one-stop career center customers who met with the disability program navigator and were

capable of understanding and completing the surveys.

5. Another limitation was the time period during which data was collected, which was not a

randomly determined time period, but based on time, convenience, and availability of

both the disability program navigators and their customers. Therefore, the months during

which the surveys were collected may have had an effect on the study.

6. Under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act,a service delivery framework is created

for the fundamentals and principles of the one-stop career center system (Deese, 2002;

Morris, 2002). Each state, however, has the flexibility to develop and implement specific

strategies, activities, and interventions that meet the communitys needs (Deese, 2002;

Morris, 2002). Therefore, variations in implementation of the Disability Program

Navigator Initiative among one-stop career centers limited the ability to generalize this

studys findings to other one-stop career centers and their customers (Bader, 2003).


31/161

20

Nature of the Study and Theoretical Framework

This study was a descriptive study of customer satisfaction based on previous survey

instruments and the goals of the one-stop career center system. The primary focus was to survey

the levels of satisfaction from customers who utilized the services of a disability program

navigator. The quantitative data collection included selected demographics, such as, gender, age,

and education level, and was used to segment groups (Sproull, 2002). The survey design enabled

assessment of the relationship among the levels of satisfaction and demographic data, and

provided information for improvement of services (Sproull, 2002). The one-stop career centers

assistance with administration of the survey sent an important message to their customers

(Deese, 2002), which was that customer satisfaction is not only desirable and valuable to the

system, but that customers perspectives and input are paramount (Deese, 2002).

Theoretical Framework

This study was based on the theoretical framework of work and employment, specifically

the theory of work adjustment. The focus of the one-stop career center system is to assist its

customers to find and obtain employment, a significant vocational goal of adult career

development (Jepsen & Sheu, 2003). Considering the amount of time most individuals spend

working, the overall attitude of liking or disliking of a job, that is, job satisfaction, is a significant

marker of adult vocational adjustment, as well as a major indicator of quality of life (Jepsen &

Sheu, 2003; Witte, Philips & Kakela, 1998). Work and career theories are used to explain,

understand, and predict an individuals vocational behavior and job satisfaction (Swanson &

Fouad, 1999). Vocational behaviors include career choice, work adjustment, and life span career


32/161

21

progress, as well as the trait-and-factor theory (Swanson & Fouad, 1999). Also referred to as

person-environment fit or congruence, trait-and-factor theories focus on the match between

individual traits and work environmental factors (Swanson & Fouad, 1999).

The person-environment fit theoretical foundation assumes that when individuals are

more satisfied, their work performance is better, the employing organizations are more effective,

workers organizational commitment is higher, and employee turnover is less, thus resulting in

enhancement of vocational adjustment, individual positive experience, and environmental

compatibility (Kristof-Brown, Jansen, & Colbert, 2002; Ostroff & Rothausen, 1997). Judge and

Bretz (1992) have also reported literature and findings on person-organization fit indicating that

employees who match job or organizational values are more satisfied and less likely to leave the

company. One of the significant person-environment fit theories addressing the degree of match

between an individual and environment is the Theory of Work Adjustment (Lawson, 2002;

Lyons, 2004; Swanson & Fouad, 1999a).

Theory of Work Adjustment

Developed by Dawis, England, and Lofquist, the Theory of Work Adjustment has also

been used as a model for people with disabilities in the workforce (Dawis, England, & Lofquist,

1964; Dawis, 2005; Lyons, 2004; Strauser & Lustig, 2003). The concepts of the Theory of Work

Adjustment concern the individual, the work environment, and the unique interaction between

the two, and predict job satisfaction, success, and tenure (Swanson & Fouad, 1999). Using a dual

focus, the Theory of Work Adjustment describes the relationship between an individual and his

or her work environment, and how there is continual interaction, or correspondence, between


33/161

22

them in harmoniously meeting each others needs and requirements (Lyons, 2004; Swanson &

Fouad, 1999). The dynamic process of meeting these dual demands is called work adjustment,

and consists of both satisfactory coworker relationships and satisfactory job performance (Dawis,

England, & Lofquist, 1964). Stronger correspondence and congruence lead to increased job

retention and tenure, that is, the length of time that an employee remains in an organization

(Lyons, 2004).

According to Lofquist & Dawis Theory of Work Adjustment (1964), a match between a

worker and rewards of a job will result in job satisfaction and subsequent employment stability

(Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1990). Job satisfaction also predicts attendance, participation, morale,

and overall life satisfaction (Bolton & Brookings, 1991). The Theory of Work Adjustment was

the theoretical foundation for this study in that achievement of employment and subsequent work

adjustment and job satisfaction are goals of both the one-stop career center system and the

Disability Program Navigator Initiative.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 reviews the literature on people with disabilities, customer satisfaction, one-

stop career centers, customer satisfaction in the one-stop career center system, and the Disability

Program Navigator Initiative. Chapter 3 describes the methodology design, the sample

population, the survey instruments, data collected, anticipated findings, and ethical issues.

Chapter 4 identifies the data analysis strategy and findings of the research. Chapter 5 contains a

discussion on the findings, implications, and recommendations for further study.


34/161

23

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Significant research exists on customer satisfaction and customer satisfaction of people

with disabilities. There is a substantial gap, however, on the research of customers who used the

services of a disability program navigator in one-stop career centers, whether or not the customer

had a disability. This chapter reviews applicable literature on people with disabilities and

relevant federal policy, one-stop career centers, and customer satisfaction. Also included in this

chapter are discussions of literature on customer satisfaction and assessment in the one-stop

career centers, and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative.

People With Disabilities

Several definitions of a person with a disability currently exist in data collection,

measurement, and eligibility criteria of public, private, and governmental programs. Capturing

the concept of disability for the purpose of measurement is, and has been, an ongoing challenge,

and influences the goals of programs assisting people with disabilities (U.S. Census Bureau,

2004). Challenges have included collecting statistics to match a surveys purpose, development

and suitability of the measurement approach, and reporting of the statistics, which reflect

inadequate flexibility in the data to distinguish among mild, moderate, and severe disability

(Eustis, Clark, & Adler, 1995; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). These challenges are discussed in the

following section.


35/161

24

Models of Disability

According to Moore and Feist-Price (as cited in Bruyere, 1999), three perspectives have

been identified in defining disability; they are the medical model, the economic model, and the

sociopolitical model. The medical model considers disability as a deficiency within an

individual, emphasizes the functional limitations of disability, and influenced the structure of the

Social Security Administrations benefits programs (Burkhauser & Stapleton, 2004; Bruyere,

1999; Social Security Advisory Board, 2003). Two disability programs of the Social Security

Administration providing cash benefits to individuals are Social Security Disability Insurance

and Supplemental Security Income (Silverstein, 2002). The same definition of disability is used

for both programs, that is, the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a

medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is expected to last for a continuous

period of not less than 12 months or to result in death (Silverstein, 2002).

The economic perspective of disability focuses on the limiting effects of a disability in

the amount of work an individual can do (Bruyere, 1999). The sociopolitical model focuses on

the fact that it is an individuals societal environment that labels them as different, and not the

actual disability itself (Bruyere, 1999). A more recent model of disability views the

environmental barriers and attitudes of other people as the handicap of the disability (Bruyere,

1999).

Definitions of Disability

The Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 both used the

definition of handicapto define disability(National Council on Disability, 2004; Office of


36/161

25

Disability Employment Policy, n.d.; U.S. Dept of Labor). The two federal acts broadly define a

person with a disability as an individual who has a physical or mental disability that substantially

limit a major life activity, or who has a record of such a disability, or is regarded as having such

a disability (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). The definition,

based on the Nagi framework, recognizes the interaction of the environment and impairments in

the cause of disabilities, and views disability as a difficulty in performing socially expected

activities (Livermore & Goodman, 2009).

Two questions about disability in the Census 2000 were based on daily functional

limitations, and subsequently used to define six specific subpopulations of disability (Livermore

& Goodman, 2009). An individual was considered to have a disability if he or she answeredyes

to either question. According to the Census 2000, which used a functional limitation of disability

to identify the total population with disabilities, there are 49.7 million people aged 5 and over

with a disability in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).

Disability is defined by the Current Population Survey as a person with a disability

who has a health problem or disability which prevents him/her from working or which limits the

kind or amount of work he/she can do (U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002).

The Current Population Survey, sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, is one of the oldest, largest, and most well-recognized surveys in the

United States. It provides information on labor force statistics and extensive social, economic,

and demographic data (U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). The Current

Population Survey is a multistage stratified sample consisting of individuals 15 years of age or


37/161

26

over, who are not in the Armed Forces, or in any institution, such as prisons, long-term care

hospitals, or nursing homes (U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002).

Work limitation questions appear in the American Community Survey, National Health

Interview Survey, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Panel of Income Dynamics, Survey of

Income and Program Participation, and the Health and Retirement Survey (Livermore &

Goodman, 2009). Bagenstos (2004) indicated that none of these organizations measure disability

according to the definition used by the Americans With Disability Act, and this has resulted in

identification of none or only some of the same population. Houtenville and Burkhauser (2004)

also agreed that a representative sample of the population with disabilities is nonexistent due to

the lack of a data source that captures all aspects of a disability. Moreover, an individual must

report that he or she has a disability in order to be counted in data collection of people with a

disability. Parker and Hoff (2004) reported that unfamiliarity with the definitions of disability, or

the fear of stigma or discrimination, might cause individuals not to disclose that they have a

disability, further resulting in an under-counting of this population.

In an effort to provide a unified standard language and framework to describe disability,

functioning, and health, an international classification was developed by the World Health

Organization (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The classification reflects the more current

perspective of disability as a complex interaction between a person and his or her environment,

and considers not only the individuals impairment, but also barriers in the environment that

prevent full social participation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Schur, Kruse, and Blanck (2005)

wrote that No matter what the definition, employment levels of people with disabilities remain


38/161

27

well below those of non-disabled people, and the majority of non-employed people with

disabilities would prefer to be working (p 5).

Federal Legislation Targeting People With Disabilities

The federal government has enacted many laws, programs, and incentives targeting

people with disabilities to assist them in obtaining and maintaining employment. An overview of

applicable federal legislature relevant to this study is discussed in the following sections.

Rehabilitation Actof 1973

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973was the first federal requirement forremoval of

discriminatory barriers in employment for people with disabilities, and also provided vocational

rehabilitation benefits to people with disabilities (Stefan, 2002). Section 501 of the Act required

affirmative action by federal agencies in hiring and advancement of qualified people with

disabilities (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). Section 503

required employers with federal contracts exceeding $10,000 to take affirmation action in

employing individuals with disabilities, and Section 504 prohibited discrimination by employers

and organizations receiving federal financial aid (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability

Employment Policy, n.d.).

Americans With Disabilities Act

Modeled after the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act

became law on July 26, 1990 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,

n.d.). The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibited discrimination based on disability in the

private sector and state and local governments in employment, public accommodations, services,


39/161

28

and transportation provided by public and private entities (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of

Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). Five titles comprise the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Title I specifically prohibiteddiscrimination in all employment practices of employers with 15 or

more employees if an individual is qualified to perform the essential job functions (U.S. Dept. of

Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). Title I also mandated that an employer

must provide reasonable accommodations or modifications for a qualified individual with a

disability, provided such accommodation does not present an undue hardship on the business

operation (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).

A qualified individual is defined as a person with the education and/or experience to

perform the essential functions of a job with or without reasonable accommodation (National

Center on Workforce and Disability, 1998). Essential job functions are fundamental job duties

that an employer considers during the selection process, and do not include marginal functions

that the employer would prefer and/or like an employee to perform (Campbell, 2002). Undue

hardship is an action that is excessive, substantial, disruptive or extensive so that it

fundamentally alters the natural operation of a business (Bruyere, 2002). The Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission enforces theAmericans With Disabilities Act,and in 1999,

comprehensive policy guidance and documents were released on reasonable accommodations

and undue hardship (Bruyere, 2002; Social Security Administration, 2000). The year 2010

marked the 20thanniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and has resulted in

renewed efforts towards greater workforce participation by people with disabilities.


40/161

29

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999

The purpose of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 was to

provide more resources and control by beneficiaries over the resources, and to increase the

number of employment service providers, including the one-stop career center (Burkhauser &

Stapleton, 2004; Silverstein, 2002). The Act provided other services that encouraged federal

disability benefit recipients to seek employment, which included counseling to assist in

understanding the impact of earning on benefits, applying for and receiving available work

incentives, as well as the extension of medical benefits while an individual is working

(Silverstein, 2002; U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).

Implemented in 2001, a Ticket to Work is issued by the Social Security Administration to people

with disabilities 18 through 64 years old who receive federal disability benefits and meet criteria

for voluntary participation (Silverstein, 2002). The holder of a Ticket can then assign it to any

eligible service provider, called an employment network, which includes the state vocational

rehabilitation system and one-stop career centers. Social Security Administration compensates

the employment network for employment service costs of a specified amount when the

individual is no longer entitled to federal disability cash benefits (Silverstein, 2002). A Ticket

holder can re-assign the Ticket to another employment network of his or her choice if they wish,

as long as the employment network is willing to accept the assignment (Silverstein, 2002). An

employment network must apply to participate in the Ticket to Work program and provide

documentation of monthly earnings of program individuals in a timely and efficient manner

(Silverstein, 2002). As of May 31, 2005, there were 1,320 employment networks, and out of


41/161

30

10,669,219 tickets issued nationwide, 7,493 tickets have been assigned to employment networks

(Social Security Online, 2005).

An evaluation of the first five months of implementation and statistics of the Ticket to

Work program was conducted in 2004 (Mathematica Policy Research, 2004). The survey

reported low Ticket rates and beneficiary participation, concentrated assignments among a few

employment networks and state vocational rehabilitation agencies, and general dissatisfaction

and variety in other employment networks (Mathematica Policy Research, 2004). Factors

contributing to low participation by one-stop career centers included high risk, low payments,

and long delays in payments (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).

Additional federal policy regarding individuals with disability include the Uniform

Federal Accessibility Standards and ADA Accessibility Guidelines, developed pursuant to the

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968(U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,

n.d.). The Standards and Guidelines required buildings built with federal funds or leased by

federal agencies to be accessible for people with disabilities. Likewise, the Telecommunications

Act of 1996 ensured that telecommunications equipment is designed to be accessible and usable

by people with disabilities (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year for a

worker to care for family members with serious health conditions, to recover from serious health

conditions, or care for newborn children (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment

Policy, n.d.). The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 addressed additional assistive technology


42/161


43/161

32

well as their awareness of executive orders issued in 2000 concerning employment and

accommodation of individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce (Bruyere et al., 2002).

The executive orders referred to three specific orders that related to the hiring of 100,000

qualified individuals over a five-year period, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions

written procedures on reasonable accommodation, and the July 2000 Federal Initiative on

telecommuting and telework for people with significant disabilities (Bruyere et al., 2002). Even

though respondents reported significant involvement in the recruitment process, over a third of

them were not aware of any of the three executive orders, while only one in five was aware of all

three orders (Bruyere et al., 2002).

Federal Tax Incentives

Federal tax incentives are available to encourage the recruitment and hiring of individuals

with disabilities. These include the Disabled Access Credit available to small businesses

regarding eligible access expenditures and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit in hiring and

employing people with disabilities (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,

n.d.; U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002). If a business makes its facility or public

transportation vehicle more accessible and usable by people with disabilities, it is entitled to the

Architectural and Transportation Barrier Removal Deduction, under Section 190 of the Tax

Reform Act (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). If specific

criteria are met, the deductions can result in a reduction of overall employment costs, improved

employee morale, and enhancement of customer base.


44/161

33

In a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (2002), it was found that tax incentive

credits encouraging the hiring, retention, and accommodation of workers with disabilities was

reported by only a very small proportion of 1999 corporate and business taxpayers. The report

concluded that actual information at the time was limited and inconclusive regarding the tax

incentives effectiveness, perhaps due to a lack of awareness.

Recent Federal Policy Prior to 2006

Further efforts of the federal government to improve employment services for people

with disabilities included the New Freedom Initiative. The New Freedom Initiative was

described as a comprehensive set of guidelines and strategy that allowed full integration of

people with disabilities into all aspects of American life (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human

Services, 2003). Announced by President Bush in 2001, the New Freedom Initiative was an

effort to eliminate barriers to equality faced by Americans with disabilities, and included the

Integrating Americans with Disabilities into the Workforce Initiative (U.S. Dept. of Health &

Human Services, 2003).

The Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration jointly established the

Disability Program Navigator Initiative in 2002 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2005). The initiative

provided an expert on workforce development issues for people with disabilities in the one-stop

center career centers, who also facilitated access to disability services to secure the most

favorable employment outcome (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).

On May 8, 2005, the House passed H.R.1261 (New York State Workforce Investment

Board, n.d.) The legislation clarified the methodology for determining funds that one-stop career


45/161

34

center partners contributed to infrastructure costs (New York State Workforce Investment Board,

n.d.). A major job training reform plan as part of the fiscal year 2006 was proposed by President

Bush. The budget request gave governors the flexibility to combine resources into their state

grants for vocational rehabilitation that provided services to people with disabilities in the

workforce (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002). Several additional federal programs were

directed at employers in hiring, retaining, and accommodating workers with disabilities. These

programs included the Business Leadership Network, Disability and Business Technical

Assistance Centers, Employer Assistance Referral Network, Job Accommodation Network,

Project EMPLOY, Projects With Industry, Ticket to Hire, and Workforce Recruitment Program

(U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002).

Current Federal Policy as of 2006

Goals of the U.S. Department of Labors Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011

included prior years results and long-term targets, which were; A prepared workforce; a

competitive workforce; safe and secure workplaces; and strengthened economic protections

(U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006a). One of the performance goals under a competitive workforce

recognized that the employment rate for people with disabilities has not increased significantly in

the past twenty years (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006a). The plan implemented an approach to

increase the capacity of the workforce investment system by comprehensively addressing this

issue in developing policies and strategies affecting people with disabilities and employers (U.S.

Dept. of Labor, 2006a).


46/161

35

On Feb. 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of

2009.This Act contained areas affecting people with disabilities, including recovery funding for

the Social Security Administration application processing system, recovery funding to the

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), recovery funding for vocational

rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement, and monies to states to

fortify their Medicaid programs (Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, 2009).

H.R.146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, was signed on March 30,

2009 by President Barack Obama, which included the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act

focusing on improving the quality of life of Americans living with paralysis (The White House,

2009). On July 26, 2010, President Barack Obama issued a Proclamation reaffirming the

Americans With Disabilities Act.The Presidential Proclamation identified the steps that were

being implemented towards achieving the goals of the Act, and included consistent and effective

enforcement of the Act by eliminating discrimination in employment, housing, public services,

and community accommodations; expanded funding for the Individuals With Disabilities in

Education Act (IDEA); health care reforms enacted in the Affordable Care Act; andjoining the

international community to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With

Disabilities in 2009 (The White House, 2010). President Obamas Executive Order--Increasing

Federal Employment of Individuals With Disabilities, was also issued on July 26, 2010. In this

Order, the President established the Federal Government as a model employer of individuals

with disabilities (The White House, 2010a). In light of the fact that there are more than 20

federal agencies and approximately 200 programs that provide a variety of services and


47/161

36

assistance to people with disabilities, for a more comprehensive list of 192 of the programs,

reference is made to the Appendix II. Federal Programs Serving People With Disabilities, in a

report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2005a).

Published studies by IBM, Sears, and Dupont, which are major companies employing

people with disabilities, have reported a lower turnover employee rate and equal to, or better,

attendance rate than that of employees without disabilities (Dew, McGuire-Kuletz & Alan,

2001). The Economic Impact Study in 2002 by Chicagos Mayoral Task Force on the

Employment of Individuals With Disabilities examined the costs and benefits associated with

workers who had disabilities. The three-year study found that costs associated with workers with

disabilities were minimal, employees with disabilities were dedicated and reliable; they had

fewer scheduled absences, had nearly identical job performance ratings, the difference in amount

of supervision required ratings were relatively minor among employees with and without

disabilities, and the workforce was more diverse (DePaul University, 2007). Nonetheless, there

was a persistence of manager bias towards employees with disabilities, a lack of promotion

opportunities, and that disability employment agencies and/or disability advocates had to be used

in recruiting and hiring workers with disabilities (DePaul University, 2007).

Although the employment rate of working-age people with a disability increased from

37.9% in 2003 to 37.5% in 2004, the gap between the employment rates of working-age people

with and without disabilities increased from 39.7 percentage points in 2003 to 40.3 percentage

points in 2004 (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, 2004). Despite federal

interventions, unemployment rates continue to be higher for individuals with disabilities and


48/161

37

their average earnings are lower (Timmons, Schuster, Hamner, & Bose, 2002). People with

disabilities represents the largest unemployed minority in the United States, which continues to

remain relatively unchanged since the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (The Center for

an Accessible Society, 2005).

One-Stop Career Centers

The one-stop career center system was specifically established in 1998 by Title I of the

Workforce Investment Act as an access point for employment-related and training services

(Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998). The one-stop career center

system has been described as a no-wrong door because it allows individuals with disabilities to

choose, receive, and blend a variety of employment and training services through a single door

(Dew, McGuire-Kuletz, & Alan, 2001). Productive and effective partnerships in one-stop career

centers also provide individuals with meaningful and seamless access to information, services,

and opportunities in the world of work.

To achieve the goal of a comprehensive statewide workforce investment system, at least

one local career center providing core and more intensive services, together with access to

mandated partnership agencies services, was required in areas where the population exceeded

200,000 (Barlas, 1998; Dew et al., 2001). In 2004, the total number of functioning one-stop

career centers in the United States was over 3,000 (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).

One-stop career centers are obligated to ensure that their facility and services are

universally accessible to any individual seeking employment (Rutgers, 2002). In addition, the


49/161

38

Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Regulations for the Workforce Investment Act stated

that people with disabilities have a right to use the one-stop system, and are entitled to

reasonable accommodations and modifications when using its services (Hoff, 2002). Section 188

of the Workforce Investment Actcontained the requirements for equal opportunity and anti-

discrimination for the one-stop career centers, which included a description of discrimination on

the basis of disability (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2004). A Section 188 checklist

was available that assessed a centers nondiscrimination obligations and performance, increased

accessibility, and identified resources to ensure compliance with these requirements (National

Council on Disability, 2005). Unfortunately, many one-stop career centers were not equipped to

serve people with disabilities, and automatically referred these individuals to the public

vocational rehabilitation system (Hoff, 2002).

Goals of the One-Stop Career Center System

The Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, (2001) indicated that

in its application to people with disabilities, key goals of the one-stop career center approach

were to streamline services, empower individuals, and provide universal accessibility.

Streamlined services were to be provided by all partners to programs, while activities and

information were to be co-located, coordinated, and integrated as a whole (Dept. of Labor, Office

of Disability Employment Policy, 2001). Financial choices to empower individuals through

Individual Training Accounts allowed eligible adults to purchase training services, in

conjunction with advice, guidance, and support through the one-stop career center system, (Dept.


50/161

39

of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001). Universal accessibility to core

employment-related services ensured that any individual was able to access a variety of

employment services (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001; Timmons,

Fesko & Cohen, 2004). Universal accessibility to all aspects of the one-stop career center

allowed for use by diverse populations, including people with physical, sensory, and learning

disabilities, mental retardation, mental health issues, and head injuries (Hoff, 2002).

Accessibility included physical access to a center, as well as access to its virtual and computer-

based resources, programs, and services (Funaro & Dixon, 2002; Hoff, 2002).

Other goals of the one-stop career center system were to develop an accurate

performance assessment of its responsiveness to people with disabilities (Hall & Parker, 2005),

and to create seamless service delivery between the workforce and disability systems (Cohen,

Timmons & Fesko, 2005). Seamless service delivery consists of a smooth, coordinated, and

streamlined delivery of services by different agencies, is efficient, links multiple programs into

one system, and reduces paperwork and duplication (Cohen et al., 2005). Therefore, a customer

with a disability would not be required to physically seek and navigate multiple services to

access a variety of needed services (Cohen et al., 2005). Seamless services delivery simplifies

the process for the customer, since partnering agencies in the one-stop career center negotiate

each others agencies to collaborate and coordinate services, resulting in improved consumer

outcomes (Cohen et al., 2005).


51/161

40

Customer Satisfaction

The roots of customer satisfaction research were established in the healthcare and

business fields over 30 years ago (Capella & Turner, 2004). Aspects of customer satisfaction

studied have included perceived performance, customer expectations, service quality, delivery,

and the gaps and relationships between these concepts (Davis, 2003). Customer satisfaction

questionnaires are the most common way of collecting satisfaction data, and are used as an

outcome measure, a basis for reforming or improving services, and a determination of best

practice and best value (Atwal & Caldwell, 2005). Additionally, Saroki (2002) pointed out that

customers bring unique perceptions and expectations that can be used to evaluate service

quality and satisfaction (p 10).

Definitions of Customer Satisfaction

Similar to the variety of definitions of disability, differences exist not only in definitions

of customer satisfaction and measurement of its concepts and variables, but also in application to

diverse and dissimilar settings (Giese & Cote, 2000). The resulting numerous measures and

variables for customer satisfaction have resulted in no single definition that accommodates all

consumer views and circumstances (Giese & Cote, 2000).

Further evidence of the inconsistency in definitions of consumer satisfaction can be

located in research that addresses the characteristics constituting a quality service. Patterson

(1992) wrote that four characteristics comprise a quality service that meets or exceeds customer

expectations. Parasuraman (1988), however, stated that service quality is formed by five

characteristics that address both the consumers expectations and evaluation, and that there is a


52/161

41

relationship between service quality opinions and satisfaction. Anton believed that customer

satisfaction refers to several aspects of a relationship with a customer, while Karten argued that

both the product and service process are equally important (Rutgers, 2002).

Deese (2002) discussed the difference between customer service and customer

satisfaction, and indicated that customer service involves measurement of the standards

established by authorities, boards, or experts. Customer satisfaction, on the other hand, is

measured by the customers standards in meeting their expectations (Deese, 2002). Expectations

contributing to the customers experience include availability, responsiveness, timeliness,

comprehensiveness, pleasantness, and reliability of the services provided, as well as overall

satisfaction with the services (Deese, 2002).

It has been recommended that customer satisfaction data collection not only assess past

performance, but consider the ultimate purpose of the information and how it can be used in

shaping the future (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000; Rutgers, 2002). This involves a

positivistic and objective approach, as well as classical science measurement of the isolated parts

of a phenomenon (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000). The use of Likert scales is also

suggested when surveying customer satisfaction with service delivery (Rutgers, 2002). Likert

scales supply a numerical scale to the question of an individuals agreement, approval, and/or

opposition (Rutgers, 2002) and enable respondents to rate variables that measure attitudes,

emotions, perceptions, and expectations for various issues (Bernard, 2000).


53/161


54/161

43

Customer Satisfaction in the One-Stop Career Center System

Performance accountability for customer-focused results required by the Workforce

Investment Actof 1998 have included data collection, tracking of performance, analysis of

information, and modification of strategies for improvement (DAmico et al., 2001). A Training

and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL 7-99) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration in 2000, addressed core and customer satisfaction

measures for one-stop career centers required under the Workforce Investment Act. The TEGL

7-99

ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A...

Documents

Transcript of ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A...