[nfbmi-talk] our commission should do this and so should cap
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Wed Aug 25 12:50:55 UTC 2010
MYSTERY
SHOPPER
REPORT
A summary and findings of the
Michigan Rehabilitation Council Inquiry into the
Michigan Rehabilitation Services District Offices
Initial Point of Contact Customer Service Practices
March 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC
I. Introduction – The Michigan Rehabilitation Council
II. Overview
III. General Findings
IV. Table One – Findings by District
V. Phone Response
VI. Information Requested & Provided by MRS Staff
VII. Miscellaneous Practices
VIII. Document Review
IX. Recommendations
X. Summary
I. INTRODUCTION: The Michigan Rehabilitation Council (MRC)
An excerpt regarding State Rehabilitation Council federal legislative mandates:
One of the functions for each State Rehabilitation Council includes: “. . . shall after consulting with the State workforce investment board – review, analyze, and advise the designated State unit regarding the performance of the responsibilities of the unit under this title, particularly responsibilities relating to - . . . the extent, scope, and effectiveness of services provided;” (Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended Title 1, Section 105, (c) (1) (B)).
As the State Rehabilitation Council in Michigan, the MRC works to achieve this section of the federal mandate through a number of activities. First and foremost, is the ongoing educational opportunities provided for the membership with regard to the MRS system. In addition, participation at MRS meetings at all levels of their organization assures the opportunity for input and advice for the topic at hand. The culmination of a variety of modalities utilized to “review, analyze, and advise MRS, results in the MRC’s ability to effectively monitor the Bureau with constructive feedback. This myriad of activities has established a respectful, productive partnership between the MRC and MRS.
Michigan Rehabilitation Council Mission:
To improve Vocational Rehabilitation Services in Michigan.
Michigan Rehabilitation Council Vision:
Vocational Rehabilitation Services are provided in a manner which is respectful, equitable, and effective in achieving meaningful employment outcomes for people with disabilities.
The Michigan Rehabilitation Council
3490 Belle Chase Way, Suite 110
Lansing, MI 48911
517/887-9370
877/335-9370 – toll free
mrc at mrcouncil.org
II. OVERVIEW:
In late May 2006, the Michigan Rehabilitation Council (MRC) received reports which indicated that Michigan citizens applying to Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS) in the Detroit area were being scheduled for Customer Orientation in September. Since this 4 month timeframe far exceeded the 30 day practice required by the MRS Administration in which a customer should be scheduled for Orientation, the MRC assumed the responsibility to investigate the accuracy of the reports. This type of “waiting list” for Orientation could be an indicator that the MRS office did not have the resources necessary to provide timely services to all customers. If this were true, federal regulations require the state unit to enter into an Order of Selection for services if the situation can not be resolved by a re-allocation of resources. The MRC determined that they would implement a statewide inquiry of each field office’s practices regarding the time frame of scheduling customers for Orientation. The Mystery Shopper Activity (MSA) was indicated, implemented and designed so that each MRS office would be contacted by a “mystery shopper” portraying a customer interested in MRS services. For this activity, 35 of the 37 MRS field office locations would be the sample. The two sites omitted were: Detroit Schools and Disability Management Program, as they were not relevant to the activity. It was determined that one call would be made to each of the 35 sites.
Mystery Shopper Activity Goal:
Two goals were determined for the MSA: (1) To determine the timeframe a customer might face when being scheduled for MRS Customer Orientation, and (2) To experience the customer service received by customers during this initial point of contact at each MRS field office.
Methodology:
In an effort to achieve the above goals, two customer biographic sketches were designed, which included names, contact information, and disability characteristics which would present the person calling as “most significantly disabled”. Both were unemployed. These roles would be assumed by two MRC Staff who, using the Mystery Shopper methodology would call each MRS office on two consecutive days at the end of May 2006. Not anticipating the need to leave messages for MRS staff and wait for call backs, the Mystery Shopper activity was extended, with final contacts completed in late July 2006.
III. GENERAL FINDINGS:
In an effort to accurately reflect the findings of the MSA, the next several pages show the commonly found experiences by the two MSA callers: The method by which the phone was answered; information requested by MRS staff; information provided by MRS staff; date scheduled for orientation; and additional information related to practices by the field office. The first MSA Goal, (1) To determine the timeframe a customer might face when being scheduled for MRS Customer Orientation, was achieved. The findings revealed a statewide scheduling variance ranging from 2 days to 16 weeks before a customer was scheduled for Orientation. In July 2006, the draft version of Table 1 was provided to the MRS Bureau Director and the Deputy Director so that they had information about the scheduling of Orientation time frames across Michigan. It was expected that they would utilize these preliminary results to immediately address the critical issues. At the same time, the draft table was provided to the MRC Executive Committee. In December 2006, the MRS Administration conducted a mandatory statewide teleconference meeting for all staff focused on Referral, Orientation, Intake, Application and Assessment Policies. This meeting demonstrated the Bureau’s concerns about the quality of services provided to customers entering into the MRS system. During this meeting, the Bureau Director referenced the pending MRC Mystery Shopper Report which was expected to provide additional information related to the practices being reviewed that day.
DIVISION I District Office Worksheet to follow:
OFFICE
PHONE ANSWERED
INFO REQUESTED
INFO GIVEN
ORIENTATION
MISC INFO
DATE OF CONTACT
DATE
Eastern MI District
CARO
IN PERSON
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
June 5th
* Thorough, empowering
May 22nd
overview of VR process
FLINT
IN PERSON, transferred to voicemail left
NA *
NA *
NA *
* Never made contact
May 22nd
message, call returned same day, shopper
called back next day, counselor of day
changed, phone tag ensued
PORT HURON
IN PERSON, fill out forms, upon return
Name, address, disability
*Most likely June 8th
*Contact with Counselor, about 6 wks
May 22nd
Orientation would be scheduled*
Grand Rapids District
First - May 22nd
VOICE MAIL, long message, 2 steps on
NA *
NA *
NA *
*Never made contact
Second - late June
Menu; then leave message for return call, or
follow prompt if SS recipient to person
Marquette District
Mid - June
IN PERSON
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
Scheduled 3-4 wks
* Thorough overview of VR process
Complete Application
from receipt of
Counselor at Orientation
application-mid June
Northern MI District
ALPENA
IN PERSON, sign releases, upon receipt
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
Within 4-6 wks
*Thorough overview of VR process
May 22nd
scheduled for Orientation within 4-6 wks
Complete release & bring
disability information
GAYLORD IN PERSON,
IN PERSON, Orientation within 1 week
Name, address, disability
Brief overview given
Within 1 week
May 22nd
Traverse City
IN PERSON, Orientation June 6th
Name, address, disability
Prompted*Orientation
June 6th
*Info supportive & explained process,
May 22nd
Packet explained
& how Counselor assigned.
Oakland District
OAK PARK
IN PERSON, transferred to intake worker
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
Within 2 weeks
* Wait for Orientation Session
First - May 22
message left, no response, called again 6/20
Second - June 20
response same day, Orientation scheduled
within two weeks
WATERFORD
IN PERSON, transferred to Orientation staff
Name, address, disability, SS,
Services explained*
w/in 3-4 weeks
*Outstanding overview of MRS
May 22nd
scheduled for June 5th initial appointment
working
system offered, individualized
w/counselor, then Orientation w/in 3-4 wks
process w/CRC, takes time, good
results if willing to work w/Counselor
DIVISION II District Office Worksheet:
OFFICE
PHONE ANSWERED
INFO REQUESTED
INFO GIVEN
ORIENTATION
MISC INFO
DATE OF CONTACT
DATE
Detroit West District
DETROIT FORT ST
IN PERSON, Orientation scheduled
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
June 8th
*Wait for Orientation Session
May 22nd
DETROIT GRAND RV
IN PERSON, Orientation scheduled
Name, address, disability
Services explained*
June 22nd
*Basic info about job services
May 22nd
DETROIT MILWAUKEE
IN PERSON, Orientation scheduled
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
September 13th
*Told to wait for Orientation, when
May 22nd
asked why the long wait, response
was that they didn't have enough staff
w/Counselor about 4 weeks after
West Central District
BIG RAPIDS
IN PERSON, Orientation would be
Name, address, disability,
Prompted*
Mid to late July
*Told MRS helps people find jobs,
May 22nd
scheduled in about two months.
county
when asked why the wait was so
long, told they had staff vacancies
w/Counselor about 4 weeks after
HOLLAND
VOICEMAIL , message, no return call,
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
June 23rd
*Orientation will provide info
First - May 22nd
tried back 3 times, Orientation scheduled
Second - 3 times
w/in one week.
mid June
MUSKEGON
IN PERSON, Orientation within 2 weeks
Name, address, disability
Told MRS is a job
June 15th
training program
DIVISION III District Office Worksheet:
OFFICE
PHONE ANSWERED
INFO REQUESTED
INFO GIVEN
ORIENTATION
MISC INFO
DATE OF CONTACT
DATE
Ann Arbor District
ADRIAN
IN PERSON, scheduled immediately, with
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
May 30th w/Couns.
*Told services dependent on type
May 22nd
counselor, then Orientation w/in 2 weeks
of disability
ANN ARBOR
VOICEMAIL , then Intake Worker,
Name, address, disability, 5-6
Told MRS is a job
June 5th w/Couns.
Told Orientation would provide info
May 22nd
scheduled with Counselor, then 2-4 wks. for
questions asked
training program
Orientation
JACKSON
IN PERSON, Orientation scheduled, then
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
June 8th
Told Orientation would provide info
May 22nd
counselor w/in 2 weeks
Lansing District
IN PERSON, transferred to Intake
Name, address, disability, 20
Told MRS is a job
Within 1 week
May 22nd
Worker, scheduled within one week for
minutes of questions, bring
training program
Orientation w/Counselor
medical docs to appointment
Macomb District
CLINTON TOWNSHIP
IN PERSON, 8 minutes of questions,
Name, address, disability, 8
Prompted*
May 25th
Told MRS is a job training program
May 22nd
scheduled for Orientation, on hold 4 minutes
minutes of questions, dis.
waiting for Counselor, message left, call
characteristics challenged
returned seven days later
ROSEVILLE
IN PERSON, 1st call, on hold 11minutes
Name, address, handicaps,
Prompted*
Undetermined
Told MRS is a job training program
First - May 22nd
sent to voicemail, message, call not returned
SS, disability information
Second - June 15th
2nd call, loud music in background as staff
explained requirements for Orientation, not
sure when next session was told to call back
Mid-MI District
BAY CITY
IN PERSON, 1st call Intake person not
Name, address, disability
Told MRS help
June 15th
available, 2nd call scheduled for orientation
people w/handicaps
find jobs
MIDLAND
IN PERSON, MI Works office, transferred
Name, address, disability
Told MRS is a job
June 15th
Told Orientation would provide info
First - May 22nd
to MRS, voicemail, left message, no return
training program
Second - June 20th
call, 2nd call scheduled Orientation
MT. PLEASANT
IN PERSON, scheduled Orientation
Name, address, disability
Prompted*
June 12th
Told Orientation would provide info
May 22nd
Counselor within 4 weeks
SAGINAW
IN PERSON, scheduled for Orientation
Name, address, disability
Sending packet of
mid - June
Told MRS is a job training program
May 22nd
once packet is returned
info to review, sign &
Counselor within 4 weeks
return
Western Wayne District
LIVONIA
VOICEMAIL, 1st call message, no return call
NA
NA
NA
NA
First - May 22nd
2nd call, message, no return call
Second - June 15th
MONROE
IN PERSON, scheduled Orientation
Name, address, disability
Told MRS is a job
June 7th
Counselor within 4 weeks
May 22nd
training program
TAYLOR
IN PERSON, scheduled Orientation
Name, address, disability, SS
Prompted*
June 5th
Told Orientation would provide info
May 22nd
WAYNE
IN PERSON, 1st call, 6 minutes of questions,
Name, address, disability, SS
Told MRS is a job
June 27th
First - May 22nd
transferred to voicemail, message, no
numerous questions regarding
training program
Second - June 20th
return call, 2nd call orientation scheduled
lifestyle challenges
DIVISION IV District Office Worksheet:
OFFICE
PHONE ANSWERED
INFO REQUESTED
INFO GIVEN
ORIENTATION
MISC INFO
DATE OF CONTACT
DATE
Detroit East District
DETROIT - MACK
VOICEMAIL, 1st call message, no return call
NA
NA
NA
NA
First - May 22nd
2nd call, message, no return call
Second - June 20th
DETROIT - PORTER
IN PERSON, Orientation scheduled
Name, disability, zip code
Prompted*
July 17th
Told Orientation would provide info
June 20th
Counselor within 4 weeks
Southwest MI District
BATTLE CREEK
IN PERSON, Orientation scheduled
Name, disability, address,
Prompted*
mid - June
* Thorough overview of VR process
May 22nd
4-6 questions asked
BENTON HARBOR
IN PERSON, Orientation scheduled, see
Name, disability, address,
Provided MRS
May 24th
May 22nd
counselor w/in 2 weeks
overview
KALAMAZOO
IN PERSON, Orientation scheduled, see
Name, disability, address,
Provided MRS
May 23rd
May 22nd
counselor w/in 2 weeks
overview
V. PHONE RESPONSE
In this day of electronics, it was heartening to note that the majority (31 of 35 sites or 89%) of office phones were answered in person by friendly individuals. Four offices had their phones answered by a voice mail system. The variance in the length of an in person phone call ranged from 3 – 20 minutes. A minority of offices left the Shopper on hold for periods of 5 or more minutes. Four categories identify as the style in which phone calls were managed, as rated by the two Mystery Shoppers. Table 2 depicts each category and identifies the respective office.
TABLE 2 – Phone Response Detail
In person response, who scheduled orientation.
In person response, then transferred to another individual and/or voicemail.
Voicemail system response.
In person response, transferred to intake worker, then transferred to VR Counselor.
Offices with this practice:
Adrian, Alpena, Battle Creek, Bay City, Benton Harbor, Big Rapids, Caro, Detroit: Fort, Grand River, Milwaukee, & Porter; Gaylord, Jackson,
Kalamazoo, Mt. Pleasant,
Marquette, Monroe,
Muskegon, Port Huron,
Saginaw, Taylor,
Traverse City, Waterford
Offices with this practice:
Clinton Township
Flint
Holland
Midland
Oak Park
Roseville
Wayne
Offices with this practice:
Ann Arbor
Detroit - Mack
Grand Rapids
Livonia
Office with this practice:
Lansing
23 Offices in this category
or 69%
7 Offices in this category
or 20%
4 Offices in this category
or 9%
1 Office in this category
or 3%
N = 35
VI. INFORMATION REQUESTED AND PROVIDED BY MRS STAFF
INFORMATION REQUESTED:
The majority of offices managed the initial phone contact with the Shopper by asking if they had a disability, their zip code or mailing address, and their name (29 of 35 sites or 59%). In most cases, the MRS staff person would offer the date, time and location of the Orientation session and confirm the Shopper’s attendance. A few offices informed Shoppers that they needed to bring their Driver’s License or State Identification Card and Social Security Card to Orientation. An even smaller number of offices informed the Shopper that they would receive an application in the mail, which they were to complete and bring with them to Orientation. At 4 of the 35 offices or 14% told the Shopper’s were told to bring medical information which documented their disability to Orientation. Both Shopper’s found a wide variety of questions asked from office to office. As many as 7 of the 35 offices or 29% requested additional information. Questions included: What is your age; what is your social security number; are you a social security recipient; do you own a vehicle; do you have access to the use of a vehicle; how do you get around; what is your job status; have you ever been fired (the Shopper biographic sketches were designed as currently unemployed); do you really want to work; where do you live; do you live by yourself or with others; are you looking for help with housing; do you have a phone; do you have an e-mail address; what is your current income source; how much is your income; do you have health insurance; do you have Medicaid and/or Medicare; have you finished high school; have you attended college; do you want to attend college; do you abuse substances such as alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription drugs; have you or are you involved with any legal issues; if so, are the legal issues civil or criminal; do you have a family doctor; what prescribed medications do you use; have you ever been hospitalized and if so, what was the reason; and do you have any long term medical and/or therapy needs?
INFORMATION PROVIDED:
The majority of offices offered no information to the Shopper about the MRS service delivery system (17 of 35 sites or 59%). Of the 35 offices contacted, one site (3%) provided a thorough overview of MRS services, the Orientation experience and the next steps after Orientation. This call lasted less than 5 minutes. The Shopper reported feeling empowered and hopeful and understood the initial MRS process.
Of the 31 offices which answered their phones in person, 17 or 55% were prompted by the Shopper to explain the MRS service delivery system. A small number (5 sites or 16%) responded by providing an accurate, informative, and motivating overview of the service process. In these situations, the Shoppers reported feeling encouraged about MRS services and eager to attend Orientation, all as a direct result of their perceived attitude of MRS staff. In addition, a wide array of responses to these prompts were received including: “Orientation will explain everything”; “services available depend on the severity of your disability”; “it could take you a year to find a job with us”; and “we help handicapped people find jobs, but sometimes they don’t pay much”.
In retrospect, one of the MSA shortcomings was that Shoppers did not ask each MRS site about when they should expect to meet their counselor. Our findings do indicate that in 13 of the 35 offices or 29% this information was provided. The timeframes for the first contact with a Counselor was reported as follows: immediate, 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 20 weeks. Specifically, in 8 of the 35 offices or 23% it was indicated that the Shoppers would meet with their Counselor within 1 – 2 weeks. In 6 of the 35 offices or 17%, customers would be waiting 4 - 6 weeks following Orientation to meet with their Counselor.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS PRACTICES
The MSA identified practices that merit comment. There were 11 of the 35 sites or 31% that responded to the Shoppers by forwarding them to voicemail and/or the office phones were answered by a voicemail system. As a result, there was much less information gleaned, making it difficult for the Shopper to gain a sense of friendly or welcoming customer service at that particular location. Of the 10 messages left on a voicemail system, seven calls were returned with “phone tag” lasting for nearly eight days in each situation. One message was returned seven business days later. In the situations were contact had not been made, the Shoppers repeated attempts in mid – to late June. Though some progress was made, the majority of messages were not returned. Strikingly, during the original attempt by the Shoppers to make contact with MRS staff, two messages received no response. In one office, the voicemail system had a myriad of menu choices, which overwhelmed the Shopper, who hung up and then called back to listen to the choices a second time. In another office, the phone was answered by a MI Works! staff person, who upon learning that the Shopper was a person with a disability immediately told them that they would be transferred to MRS, so that they would get the help they needed.
VIII. DOCUMENT REVIEW
Prior to formulating the MSA recommendations to the Bureau, the MRC staff reviewed a plethora of literature in an attempt to inform the recommendations. The document review included: 911 Data Analysis Report; RSA’s Annual Review Report of Michigan Fiscal Year (FY) 2005; MRS FY 2007 Action Plan and FY 2006 Final Progress Report; Culture of Poverty documents as authored by Ruby Payne; MRS Customer Satisfaction Reports; MRS Performance Indicators; Strategies to Address Poverty as authored by MRS staff Tom Jones; MRC Orientation Project Report; Multicultural Counseling Competency Study; historic State Plan Attachment 4.2 recommendations as authored by the MRC; A New Paradigm for Vocational Evaluation: Empowering the VR Customer through Vocational Information authored by the 30th Institute on Rehabilitation Issues; MRC MCTI Focus Group Report; customer input received from a variety of Town Hall and/or Focus Group experiences; and the 2006 Comprehensive Needs Assessment of MRS and Michigan Commission for the Blind.
There were a number of common factors found in the above literature with regard to the value of an informative, culturally sensitive, timely initial point of contact by customers entering a bureaucratic system, such as MRS. In the Comprehensive Needs Assessment of June 2006, key informants identified “Improved Staffing Practices” and “Service systems too bureaucratic”, as the most noted barriers encountered. Customer focus groups also reported that “there was too much bureaucracy in the process.” The writings of Ruby Payne echo this sentiment by reinforcing the importance of the initial point of contact by customers as greatly influencing the individual’s ability to engage and benefit in the service process. The combination of document review and the MSA findings resulted in the formulation of the recommendations.
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
As stated earlier in this report, the motivation for the implementation of the Mystery Shopper Activity began as an attempt to determine if customers were waiting excessive periods of time to attend a MRS Orientation session in their respective communities. We also anticipated learning about the MRS standard of Customer Service across the state. In addition to achieving these two goals, the overall MSA experience resulted in identifying practices which appear to have been designed for Bureau ease, rather than customer benefit. Though the MSA utilized a small call sample (one call to each office), the results indicate concerns, because each customer is important. The MRC recognizes the opportunity provided by the MRS service system (with the 35 field site locations as utilized in the MSA) to be fluid and flexible enough to adjust to the needs of their respective community resources. At the same time, the MRC believes that universal practices for the initial point of contact for customer service should be established and implemented consistently across the MRS system. Therefore, the MRC presents the following recommendations in the spirit of enhancing the customer experience as they begin their work within the MRS system.
1. Establish a standard of Customer Service Excellence
All Michigan citizens who make an initial contact for MRS services should experience friendly, competent and well informed staff. The MSA revealed that this is not always the case. The MRC recommends that the Bureau design a standard of Customer Service Excellence for initial contact that is simple, has clear expectations and is easy to implement. Practices such as placing callers on hold for longer than 5 minutes should be eliminated. Educating staff who answer phones about person first language and disability awareness is imperative, labels such as “handicapped” are antiquated at best. For example, informing a customer that they will be “accepted” into the MRS system once it has been determined that they have a severe enough disability, which occurred in at least 3 offices, could be interpreted at the initial point of contact that MRS is in an Order of Selection for Services. The MRC presumes that this is not the message MRS wants to communicate. In an effort to establish this new expectation in a cost effective manner, perhaps a training module could be developed via the MRS E Learn system and reviewed within each District for implementation.
2. Establish Practice Standards for the return of voicemail messages
At the initial point of contact, a customer should not have to experience the anxiety and frustration associated with a voicemail answering system and then is expected to manage multiple days of “phone tag”. As Table 2 depicts, 4 offices utilize a voicemail system to answer their phones, while 7 transferred the Shoppers to the MRS staff person they needed to make contact with. Since MRS Counselors are quite often out in the field, the Shoppers had to leave a voicemail message. Section VII. Miscellaneous Practices depicts the inconsistent and lengthy response times to customers. The MRC views this as a poor example of Customer Service and believes that there should be a universal standard established and practiced across the Bureau on voicemail management.
3. Eliminate the use of “pre-screening” questions.
The MRS sites that presented the MRC Shoppers with a myriad of questions left them feeling devalued, disempowered and wondering if they really wanted to pursue services from this kind of bureaucracy. Historically, the MRC has challenged this MRS practice, only to be informed that the questions serve to enhance the customer’s experience as they first enter into the Bureau’s system. After the MSA experience, the MRC once again challenges the practice as “screening out”, rather than scheduling in. The MRC strongly recommends that at the initial point of contact, the questions should be limited to gathering basic information (name, contact information, disability characteristic(s) and if the caller is a Social Security recipient) from the customer. Several of the questions asked felt too in depth and personal without benefit of a counseling relationship or confidentiality.
4. Design a standard statement for the initial customer contact.
One critical aspect of Customer Service is to educate and inform a potential customer of the service system so that they can make a decision about whether the opportunity fits their needs. Since the majority of offices do not provide MRS service system information, customers are committing to attending an Orientation when they have no idea of what the Bureau provides. Historically, MRS has reported their frustration with customers who are no shows for Orientation and/or do not follow through with an appointment with their newly assigned counselor. The MRC believes that if the customer is provided a brief overview at the initial point of contact of what the VR process includes, an individual can make an educated decision about whether they want to engage the MRS system. One best practice for this initial contact was experienced by a Shopper at the MRS Waterford Office. This type of practice could easily be redesigned to fit the other MRS offices.
5. Provide Applications for Service in person during orientation.
Sending out Applications prior to the Orientation may be confusing at best for the typical customer. The MRC believes that the practice of completing Applications at Orientation would be more advantageous for both the applicant and the Bureau staff. In addition, there would be cost savings with postage and copying.
6. Schedule a customer for Orientation within 30 days of initial contact.
The federal mandates for the public VR system direct the expectation of timely scheduling of an applicant to Orientation. The MRC fully supports the implementation of the MRS Business Practice – Timely Customer Orientation that is to be held no later than 30 days from the time of the customer’s initial contact. If the 30 day timeframe cannot be met due to that office’s resources, this should be reported to the MRS management.
7. Create a best practice mechanism for timely customer and counselor contact.
Over time, the MRC has learned from a variety of sources (both customers, MRS Staff and Blended Staff), that scheduling customers for Orientation is the “easy” part of the VR process. One reported challenge is the lengthy time individuals wait to meet with their Counselor. The MSA findings reveal that there are a myriad of practices across the state as to when the Customer first meets with their Counselor. The MRC recommends that the MRS Executive Team establish a best practice which provides flexibility, yet assures shorter periods of time for waiting. Historically, when the MRC has asked for data relevant to this circumstance, the response was that it is a difficult situation to track, as most customers are not entered into the AWARE data system until they actually meet with their Counselor. The MRC strongly recommends that the Bureau determine a mechanism in which this information can be collected and interpreted. The MRC views the challenge to be the dichotomy between the significant amount of staffing resources being invested in the Orientation process and customers waiting long periods of time to engage in the VR process through their counselors. The MRC views this situation as a systems problem that should be remedied for the best use of staff resources and customer outcomes.
8. Consistency of timeframes for all Orientation styles.
Historically, data shows that Orientation for customers is provided in a variety of settings that meet applicant needs, such as: groups, individually for transition aged youth, individually at a MI Works! One Stop Office, and individually in rural settings. The MRC applauds the Bureau staff as they work to orient customers in this wide variety of venues. One of the service aspects revealed through the MSA was that group setting Orientations (with a predetermined schedule) were offered more immediately, while individual sessions had the propensity to be scheduled with a wide time frame (from 2 – 6 weeks). The MRC urges the Bureau assurance that consistency toward more immediate timeframes for all Orientation formats will be implemented.
9. MRS response to the Mystery Shopper Activity recommendations.
The MRC expects that the MRS Executive Team will review and respond to the MSA and its recommendations. The MRC asks that serious consideration be given to the establishment of an ad hoc statewide workgroup comprised of MRC and MRS members charged with determining strategies to implement these report recommendations.
X. SUMMARY
The MRC recognizes the unique paradigm of their role and responsibilities as mandated in the Rehabilitation Act as amended, in 1973. The MRC is expected to partner with MRS, while simultaneously insuring that their public vocational rehabilitation system is administered within the letter (and spirit) of the federal law and best practices. The MSA clearly fits into these mandates and the MRC Mission, “To Improve Vocational Rehabilitation Services in Michigan”.
Over the past several years, the MRC has found that there are a variety of hidden practices that exist in an effort to manage the customer’s initial point of contact with the Bureau. The MSA findings reinforce the broad spectrum of these practices. The MRC challenges the Bureau to flip the paradigm into creating opportunities for active dialogue about the resources that are truly needed to meet the needs of each office’s respective community. From this basis, it would be expected that practices could be designed and/or perhaps shared from other office’s success stories. The MRC recognizes that with the current economic crisis in our State and the increased demand for grossly under funded human services, the Bureau is forced into “teetering on the edge” of Order of Selection for services. It is evident that further discussion needs to take place between the MRC and MRS regarding the whole picture of this future threat.
Overall, the MSA results revealed that the initial point of contact for customers to a State of Michigan bureaucracy needs work. The MRC strongly encourages MRS and their Bureau’s Executive Team to seriously consider these findings and recommendations. The MRC intent is to assure the implementation of best practices of MRS services that customers should receive during their initial contact with the public vocational service system in Michigan. The MRC also believes that by redesigning some practices, both customers and MRS staff will realize benefits.
Mystery Shopper Activity – completed in May and June 2006
Mystery Shopper Report – finalized in March 2007
This report has been compiled and provided by:
The Michigan Rehabilitation Council
3490 Belle Chase Way, Suite 110
Lansing, MI 48911
517/887-9370
877/335-9370 – toll free
mrc at mrcouncil.org
This document will be made available in alternate formats upon request.
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list