1. 1
GCA
Family
Feedback
Analysis
Purpose
The
family
feedback
form
allows
us
to
assess
the
customer
service
at
the
GCA.
Regular
analysis
of
feedback
allows
us
to
monitor
our
service
delivery
and
make
sure
we
are
meeting
the
needs
of
those
who
access
our
programs.
The
feedback
form
was
created
to
be
a
quick
questionnaire,
with
6
questions
concerning
services
accessed,
response
times
to
inquiries,
satisfaction
ratings,
reasons
for
leaving,
peer
referrals,
and
suggestions
for
possible
services.
The
following
is
a
preliminary
analysis
based
on
surveys
from
44
participants.
Services
Accessed:
Knowing
which
services
are
accessed
more
often
helps
inform
on
resource
allocation.
A
representative
sample
will
show
which
services
require
more
time,
human
and
Cinancial
capitol.
Below
is
the
percentage
of
participants
who
accessed
each
respective
service
at
the
GCA.
The
survey
allowed
participants
to
check
off
more
than
one
service.
Respite:
65.1%
Zone:
32.6%
Workshops:
14%
Behaviour
Services:
11.6%
TPAS:
9.3%
Social
Work:
7%
Consults:
2.3%
Adult:
0%
Professional
Training:
0%
Other:
18.6%
(This
included
services
such
as
speech
therapy,
summer
camps,
Saturday
respite
and
social
skills
training)
A
large
majority
of
participants
accessed
both
the
respite
and
zone
programs,
together
making
up
more
than
97%
of
the
trafCic
at
the
GCA
(according
to
this
survey).
Adult
and
professional
training
programs
went
unused
by
the
44
participants
of
this
survey.
It
is
important
to
consider
that,
with
such
a
small
sample,
these
Cindings
are
likely
not
representative
but
may,
however,
be
indicative
of
the
proportion
of
use
of
these
services
in
future
analyses.
For
example,
while
it
is
unlikely
that
adult
services
are
not
accessed
at
all
(as
indicated
by
the
above
0%),
all
services
listed
may
increase
in
“use”
proportionately
as
more
participants
complete
the
survey.
Another
important
consideration
is
whether
the
results
are
representative
of
speciCic
times
of
the
year.
The
feedback
forms
were
not
dated,
so
they
did
not
allow
for
a
monthly
analysis
of
which
services
are
accessed
more
frequently.
It
is
possible
that
services
with
low
access
frequency
in
this
sample
may
show
higher
access
frequency
over
the
next
few
months.
Jessica Barnett
2. 2
Similarly,
the
distribution
of
service
access
may
be
indicative
of
available
funding.
Services
with
less
Cinancial
accessibility
may
be
less
frequently
accessed.
Response
Time:
Participants
were
asked
how
quickly
the
GCA
responded
to
clients’
initial
contact
and
were
given
3
options:
Right
Away:
25.6%
24-48
Hours:
65.1%
>48
Hours:
9.3%
With
over
90%
of
participants
having
their
calls
returned
within
48
hours,
it
is
no
wonder
the
GCA
gets
high
satisfaction
ratings
(as
will
be
discussed
below).
This
data
could
be
largely
credited
to
efCicient
reception
services,
with
the
volume
of
inquiries
clearly
being
under
control.
If
you
are
leaving
services
at
the
GCA
please
state
the
reason
why:
A
large
minority
of
participants
were
not
leaving
the
GCA
and
their
responses
were
recorded
as
“No
Answer”.
While
it
may
not
seem
necessary
to
include
the
percentage
of
those
who
are
not
leaving
GCA
services,
it
would
be
a
helpful
statistic
in
determining
Clow
of
trafCic
in
and
out
of
the
GCA,
which
would
also
help
inform
on
resource
allocation.
No
Answer:
55.8%
Program
Ended:
30.2%
Goals
Met:
4.7%
Aged
Out:
2.3%
Funding
No
Longer
Available:
0%
Other:
7%
(This
included
responses
such
as
“not
sure”,
“waiting
for
other
services”,
and
“inconvenience”)
In
this
case,
over
78%
of
participants
who
left
the
GCA
did
so
because
the
program
ended
(68%)
or
their
goals
were
met
(10%)
and
just
over
2%
left
because
the
client
aged
out.
There
were
no
clients
lost
due
to
unavailable
funds.
While
service
delivery
may
be
considered
successful
with
over
if
the
program
has
ended
and
goals
are
met,
lack
of
funding
and
aging
out
may
become
factors
affecting
client
satisfaction
if
they
are
not
monitored.
Furthermore,
an
open
ended
question
allows
us
to
receive
information
on
factors
we
may
not
be
aware
of.
In
this
case,
7%
of
participants
left
due
to
unanticipated
factors;
a
proportion
that
could
increase
considerably
with
sample
size.
Jessica Barnett
3. 3
Rate
your
experience:
Participants
were
asked
to
rate
their
experience
at
the
GCA
by
indicating
how
much
they
agreed
with
a
matrix
of
7
statements
(responses
from
strongly
disagree
to
strongly
agree):
1.
The
staff
were
polite
and
courteous
Mean:
4.77
Strongly
Disagree:
0%
Disagree:
0%
Neutral:
2.3%
Agree:
18.6%
Strongly
Agree:
79.1%
2.
I
was
directed
to
the
appropriate
service
Mean:
4.56
Strongly
Disagree:
0%
Disagree:
0%
Neutral:
4.7%
Agree:
34.9%
Strongly
Agree:
60.5%
3.
When
I
came
to
the
centre
I
was
greeted
by
staff
and
my
questions
were
answered
Mean:
4.42
Strongly
Disagree:
0%
Disagree:
2.3%
Neutral:
4.7%
Agree:
30.2%
Strongly
Agree:
60.5%
4.
I
was
given
adequate
information
Mean:
4.58
Strongly
Disagree:
0%
Disagree:
0%
Neutral:
4.7%
Agree:
32.6%
Strongly
Agree:
62.8%
5.
I
felt
I
was
understood
when
communicating
with
the
staff
Mean:
4.65
Strongly
Disagree:
0%
Disagree:
0%
Neutral:
4.7%
Agree:
25.6%
Strongly
Agree:
69.8%
6.
I
was
able
to
get
where
I
was
going
relatively
easily
Mean:
4.42
Strongly
Disagree:
0%
Disagree:
0%
Neutral:
11.6%
Agree:
34.9%
Strongly
Agree:
53.5%
7.
I
was
generally
satisied
with
the
services
provided
Mean:
4.67
Strongly
Disagree:
0%
Disagree:
0%
Neutral:
0%
Agree:
32.6%
Strongly
Agree:
67.4%
The
mean
ratings
(out
of
5)
for
each
statement
seem
to
show
that
participants
found
the
staff
polite
(statement
1,
mean
=
4.77)
and
understanding
(statement
5,
mean
=
4.65)
and
were
generally
satisCied
with
the
services
at
the
GCA
(statement
7,
mean
=
4.67),
The
only
statement
to
receive
a
negative
rating
was
“when
I
came
to
the
centre
I
was
greeted
by
staff
and
my
questions
were
answered”.
Jessica Barnett
4. 4
Although
it
is
difCicult
to
distinguish
whether
this
rating
was
due
to
the
participant’s
unanswered
questions
or
lack
of
a
prompt
greeting,
it
may
be
possible
to
further
analyze
the
data
and
see
how
closely
this
statement
correlates
with
other
statements
with
lower
means.
For
example,
lower
(though
still
very
good)
ratings
may
be
contributed
to
general
confusion
caused
by
unanswered
questions
(statement
3,
mean=4.42),
inadequate
information
(statement
4,
mean=4.58,
and
poor
directions
(statement,
mean=4.56)
in
a
confusing
location
(statement
6,
mean
=
4.42).
Would
you
refer
GCA
to
family
or
friends?
It
is
not
surprising
that,
with
such
high
satisfaction
ratings,
100%
of
participants
said
they
would
refer
family
and
friends
to
the
GCA.
Many
felt
the
need
to
express
themselves
in
the
space
provided
for
explanation
of
“no”
responses,
using
words
like
“deCinitely”,
“absolutely”,
“always”.
They
remarked
on
how
knowledgeable,
kind,
and
helpful
staff
are.
Please
list
the
services
you
would
like
to
see
available
at
the
GCA:
When
participants
were
asked
to
list
any
services
they
would
like
to
see
at
the
GCA,
there
were
4
themes
that
clearly
emerged
from
the
preliminary
sample:
• About
30%
of
participants
requested
extended
availability
of
respite
programs,
speciCically,
extended
hours,
and
more
weekend
or
holiday
respite
options.
• 22%
of
participants
wanted
to
see
extended
hours
in
programs
other
than
respite
(ex.
Summer
camps,
athletics,
typical
weekday
hours
of
operation),
in
order
to
better
accommodate
parents/guardian
workdays.
• 35%
of
participants
requested
more
programs
to
address
social
and
community
inclusion.
SpeciCic
suggestions
highlighted
a
need
for
programs
that
address
making
and
keeping
friends,
emotion
control,
and
skills
training
for
both
school
and
work
transitions.
• 13%
of
participants
suggested
Cinancial
services
that
could
aid
in
program
accessibility.
Limitations
The
Cirst
and
most
important
limiting
factor
in
this
analysis
is
the
small
sample
size.
44
participants
can
in
no
way
be
representative
of
the
large
volume
of
clients
that
access
GCA
services
on
a
monthly
or
annual
basis.
Furthermore,
in
order
to
be
generalizable,
there
is
a
need
for
further
demographics
within
the
feedback
form.
SpeciCically,
dating
the
forms
would
be
ideal
in
determining
what
types
of
services
are
used
more
frequently
at
certain
times
of
year
as
well
as
help
determine
which
forms
should
be
included
in
a
monthly
or
annual
review.
The
second
important
limitation
to
this
survey
is
regarding
the
“multiple
selection”
attribute
for
“services
accessed”.
Participants
were
able
to
choose
more
than
one
option
in
Jessica Barnett
5. 5
this
question,
which
limits
the
ability
to
run
speciCic
statistical
tests.
For
example,
if
we
wanted
to
see
whether
satisfaction
ratings
varied
according
to
which
services
were
accessed,
we
would
not
be
able
to
distinguish
which
service
(of
the
many
a
participant
could
select)
earned
the
satisfaction
rating.
For
this
reason,
it
may
make
more
sense
to
limit
participants
to
choosing
one
service
to
review
on
each
form.
It
is
also
difCicult
to
determine
if
satisfaction
ratings
are
due
more
to
the
quality
of
the
services
or
to
the
reception.
Many
of
the
statements
in
the
satisfaction
matrix
could
refer
to
the
greeting
and
information
they
might
get
from
reception,
or
the
information
they
get
from
the
staff
running
their
program.
It
might
be
prudent
to
better
distinguish
where
participants
are
(or
are
not)
getting
their
information.
Perhaps
have
separate
sections
rating
reception
and
the
service
they
are
reviewing.
Finally,
many
participants
wrote
in
free
space
on
the
feedback
forms
that
they
would
like
to
be
contacted
and
informed
about
various
issues.
It
may
be
necessary
to
either
collect
contact
information
on
the
feedback
forms
(and
acquire
the
proper
consent)
or
emphasize
somewhere
on
the
form
that
the
questionnaire
is
anonymous
and
that
inquiries
should
be
directed
toward
reception.
Conclusion
In
summary,
the
preliminary
data
for
the
Family
Feedback
Form
show
promising
results
with
the
majority
of
GCA
clients
expressing
positive
reviews.
With
a
few
tweaks
to
the
questionnaire
design
and
a
more
representative
sample,
the
data
can
be
put
to
use
in
customer
service
and
resource
allocation.
Jessica Barnett
