[nfbmi-talk] mystery shopper and accountable mcb

joe harcz Comcast joeharcz at comcast.net
Thu Jan 19 19:26:00 UTC 2012


Dear MCB Commissioners,

 

This was the mystery shopper report Conducted at the behest of the MRC your sister organization. Note this goes to documenting failures to return phone calls, intake, and eligibility and so on and so forth. We know similar problems exist and have existed in MCB for quite some time.

 

We also know this goes to your most important charge and that is in ensuring that MCB follows the Rehabilitation Act and its state Plan in practice and in deed.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr

 

Cc: NFB MI

 

 

 

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