one-stop career centers: an assessment of satisfaction from customers using services of a...
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
3/161
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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.
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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.
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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,
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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,
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
18/161
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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-
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
27/161
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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.
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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.
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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.
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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,
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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.
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
42/161
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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.
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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.
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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).
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
53/161
-
8/12/2019 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
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