DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

PERSON SERVED SATISFACTION SURVEY ANALYSIS AUGUST 2008

To stay on target at both strategic and tactical levels, House of Hope/Stepping Stones must constantly monitor and assess its performance against a series of goals or performance indicators. Only by setting specific, measurable goals and tracking performance can we determine the degree to which we are achieving the desired service and business outcomes. Appropriate organizational and stakeholder representatives must review and analyze results to determine areas for improvement. This review and analysis positions the House of Hope / Stepping Stones to develop and initiate quality improvement changes.

The House of Hope and Stepping Stones strive to obtain meaningful input from the person's being served. Input is defined in a very broad sense. This includes person served satisfaction surveys, weekly community meeting, grievances and quarterly meetings with the Chief Executive Officer. All surveys are analyzed to determine areas of improvement and treatment needs.

The attached report represents the itemized results of the Department of Corrections person served satisfaction survey conducted August 18 at House of Hope and August 15 at Stepping Stones. This survey is conducted annually as part of our contractual requirements. This report provides the analysis of this data, resulting response and method of integration into the business practices of the organization.

HOUSE OF HOPE (HOH)

Overall satisfaction with the staff at HOH of the surveys completed reflects an 97% ratio for clinical and 91 % for support staff. Overall satisfaction with the HOH program reflects a 94% ratio. The 2008-2009 Outcomes Management System, created to measure the effectiveness and efficacy of the program and increase positive outcomes, established a goal of 80% satisfaction with staff and 80% satisfaction with treatment services. Therefore, we have exceeded this measure for this years Department of Corrections Survey.

Of note is the below 80% satisfaction rating on one (1) of the twenty three (23) indicators. This indicator is:

I How would you rate the employment phase of the program

76%

I

It is recommended that this indicator be reviewed at the next Advocacy meeting to obtain input as to the reasons for this low rating. It is also recommended that the Program Director at House of Hope review with DOC residents to determine if corrective action is required.

F:\SURVEYS\PERSON SERVED\0808 DOC SATISFACTION SURVEY ANAL YSIS.doc

Pag 3

Person Served Comments

In reviewing the Person Served comments, they appear to reflect the percentage ratings of the survey questions. It is recommended that the leadership review the comments at the next scheduled Staff Meeting and report any Program Planning, Performance Improvement and/or Organizational Advocacy issues that can be addressed.

STEPPING STONES (55)

Overall satisfaction with the staff at SS of the surveys completed reflects a 92% ratio for clinical and 83% for support staff. Overall satisfaction with the SS program reflects a 92% ratio. The 2008-2009 Outcomes Management System, created to measure the effectiveness and efficacy of the program and increase positive outcomes, established a goal of 80% satisfaction with staff and 80% satisfaction with treatment services. Therefore, we have exceeded this measure for this years Department of Corrections Survey.

Of note is the below 80% satisfaction rating on six (6) of the twenty three (23) indicators. These six indicators are as follows:

How would you rate the employment phase of the proQram 77%
How would you rate the programs medical services 77%
How would you rate these treatment activities: 57%
Ed ucational/vocational
How would you rate these treatment activities: Employment 57%
assistance
How would you rate the amount of treatment activities you received 77%
during the program: Family counseling
How would you rate the amount of treatment activities you received 64%
during the program: Educational/vocational training

It is recommended that these six (6) indicators be reviewed at the next Advocacy meeting to obtain input as to the reasons for these low ratings. It is also recommended that the Program Director at Stepping Stones review with DOC residents to determine if corrective action is required.

Person Served Comments

In reviewing the Person Served comments, they appear to reflect the percentage ratings of the survey questions.

It is recommended that the leadership review the comments at the next scheduled Staff Meeting and report any Program Planning, Performance Improvement and/or Organizational advocacy issues that can be addressed.

F:\SURVEYS\PERSON SERVED\0808 DOC SATISFACTION SURVEY ANAL YSIS.doc


SUMMARY

The purpose of the Department of Corrections Satisfaction Survey is to determine the expectations and preferences Person's Served by our funding source, Department of Corrections. The information is collected for DOC to better understand how we are performing from the person served perspective, to determine if we are meeting their current and future needs.

This Analysis has addressed the deficiencies noted and recommendations addressing Program Planning, Performance Improvement, Organizational Advocacy and Financial Planning.

House of Hope / Stepping Stones looks fOlWard to input from DOC in their evaluation of the Person Served Surveys.

It is recommended that the DOC Person Served Satisfaction Survey Results and this Analysis be presented to the Board of Trustees at the next meeting to address the use for Strategic Planning and Resource Planning.

1

F:\SURVEYS\PERSON SERVED\0808 DOC SATISFACTION SURVEY ANAL YSIS.doc


DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PERSON SERVED SATISFACTION SURVEY HOUSE OF HOPE RESULTS AUGUST 18, 2008

Of the 33 person's served at House of Hope, 33 surveys were completed representing a 100% response. The following recaps these responses.

Question Excellent Good Adequate Fair Poor Blanl'.
How would you rate the program overall 42% 33% 18% 06% 00% 00%
How would you rate the intensive drug 33% 42% 12% 12% 00% 00%
treatment phase of the program
How would you rate the employment 24% 39% 09% 18% 06% 03%
phase of the program
How would you rate the programs 33% 42% 18% 00% 03% 00%
medical services?
How would you rate the programs food 39% 36% 15% 06% 03% 00%
service?
How would you rate the programs 51% 39% 06% 03% 00% 00%
treatment counselors?
How would you rate the programs 30% 45% 15% 06% 03% 00%
support staff?
How would you rate the programs facility 36% 42% 15% 06% 03% 00%
accommodations?
How would you rate the individual 39% 48% 06% 00% 03% 03%
counseling?
How would you rate the large group 33% 55% 09% 00% 00% 03%
counseling?
How would you rate the small group 48% 42% 06% 00% 00% 03%
counseling?
How would you rate the family 33% 45% 12% 03% 00% 06%
counseling?
How would you rate the financial /budget 24% 33% 18% 12% 06% 06%
training?
How would you rate the 30% 30% 21% 09% 00% 09%
educational/vocational training?
How would you rate the employment 27% 36% 18% 09% 06% 03%
assistance?
How would you rate the AA/NA 63% 27% 06% 00% 00% 03%
meetings?
How would you rate the amount of 52% 36% 09% 00% 00% 03%
individual counseling you received
during the program
How would you rate the amount of large 36% 45% 09% 03% 00% 06%
group counseling you received during the
program

F:\SURVEYS\PERSON SERVED\081808 doc survey - hoh.doc

Page 10f4


Question . Excellent Good Adequate Fair Poor Blank
How would you rate the amount of small 45% 36% 06% 06% 00% 06%
group counseling you received during the
program
How would you rate the amount of 30% 42% 15% 06% 00% 06%
family counseling you received during
the program
How would you rate the amount of 27% 33% 12% 15% 00% 12%
educational/vocational training you
received during the program
How would you rate the amount of 61% 30% 06% 00% 00% 03%
AA/NA meetings you received during the
program
How would you rate the amount of 30% 36% 12% 03% 06% 12%
financial/budget training you received
during the program

F:\SURVEYS\PERSON SERVED\081808 doc survey - hoh.doc

Page 2 of5