Go to content Go to menu

Outcomes Management Report OES 2002

  • Last Updated: 2006-11-03

SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIES, JANUARY – JUNE 2002

In the last six months, we overhauled and streamlined our Outcomes Management System. The system we previously used was cumbersome and did not accurately reflect our current concerns.

One major change was to separate the two components of our Employment Services: our Work Activity Program has its own Outcomes System which is identified as “Organizational Employment Services” (OES); and the Supported Employment Program has its own, identified as “Community Employment Services” (CES).

Each system is the result of hours of staff consideration and feedback from customers, funders, and persons served. We hope that this report will be helpful to you, a stakeholder, in understanding our services.

If you have any questions on this report, please contact Judy Senter at 310-532-6333, ext. 222, or email at arcsobay@lafn.org.

OUTCOMES MANAGEMENT REPORT

To measure our effectiveness as a program, we selected three objectives:

Effectiveness #1: Increase consumers’ work skills. This objective was measured by the percentage of newly enrolled consumers who learned five new tasks/skills in their first 60 days of enrollment.

Effectiveness #2: Increase consumers’ program attendance. This objective measures the percentage of days attended, much like the public schools “average daily attendance.”

Effectiveness #3: Increase enrollment of new consumers. This objective measures the number of new enrollments in the Work Activity Center during a six-month period.

One objective was devised for efficiency:

Efficiency #1: Maximize full utilization of service. This objective measures how efficient we are at filling up our program to capacity – full capacity being 135 enrollees. This is proving to be more and more difficult as consumers are drawn from the Work Activity Center into the Supported Employment Program.

Two objectives measure satisfaction of stakeholders.

Satisfaction #1: Aggregate Stakeholders. This objective measures the percentage of stakeholders who are satisfied with the program. The stakeholders surveyed were: parents and careproviders, fulfillment customers (workshop contracts), and funders/referrerers. Since each group had a different survey, an average of percentages was used to arrive at the final figure.

Satisfaction #2: Persons Served. This objective measures the percentage of persons served who are satisfied with the program. All consumers in the Work Activity Program filled out a detailed survey in a meeting with their counselor.

A chart on the following page portrays the outcomes for each objective, compared to our targeted performance.

COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS

  • Effectiveness #1 - This is the first time we have attempted this measure and I would refer to this as baseline data. Production staff plans to amend the reporting form to make it usable for consumers in other areas of the program, not just the newly enrolled consumers.
  • Effectiveness #2 – Attendance results are disappointing. We began implementing monthly (rather than annual) attendance incentives, in the hopes of increasing motivation for good attendance. Midstream, however, we had to suspend the incentives while the bookkeeper implemented a new, improved tracking system. Now that the new system is in place, we have renewed our monthly program, giving the awards at the end of the month to serve as a reminder.
  • Effectiveness #3 – Although we surpassed our goal on this objective, we must redouble our efforts, as the Community Employment Services department is drawing consumers from the workshop, thereby keeping the OES enrollment in flux. The Rehabilitation Manager is stepping up efforts to attract consumers from local schools as an additional means of obtaining referrals.
  • Efficiency #1 – See #3.
  • Satisfaction #1 - Parents/Careproviders provided a 98.3% degree of satisfaction; fulfillment customers, a 90.9%, and funders/referrers a conglomerate score of 64.3%. It appears that the lower score by the funders/referrers may be due to three responders who gave SWI low marks in “community integration.” Since this survey was done before our huge improvement in the community employment services, it very well could be that these people will be much more satisfied next time.
  • Satisfaction #2 – For the first time, we utilized a modified, more specific survey with the consumers. Most questions were “yes/no” but we did ask for suggestions and improvements. The most often suggested improvements related to seating, facility cleanliness and furniture additions. All of these issues have been addressed and at least partially solved. (New stools were purchased, a crew cleans the restrooms mid-day, and aging lunch tables were replaced with new ones.)

ACTIONS TAKEN SINCE LAST OUTCOMES REPORT

  • After the last Outcomes report, we realized that the system itself no longer suited our needs. It was an “inherited” system, which we did not find relevant.
  • The agency conducted a SWOT analysis with board, staff and production clients. The results were incorporated into the outcomes system.
  • A Quality Assurance Team was created, which, over the course of several months, developed the new outcomes system. Members of the Q.A.T. include: Executive Director, Director of Administrative Services, Production Mgr., Rehab Mgr. and Community Employment Services Mgr.
  • The most significant change we made was the creation of a new department: Community Employment Services. A counselor from our Rehabilitation Department was promoted to head of CES. Working under his supervision are a Job Developer and five job coaches. This arrangement has allowed our CES to grow at a phenomenal rate.
  • Our method of determining the satisfaction of “persons served” was updated and improved – from a two-question inquiry to an 11-question survey.
  • A new, more quantifiable system was developed for measuring increase in consumers’ work skills.

PLANNING IMPLICATIONS OF DATA

  • Keep enrollment up in the work activity center (OES)
  • Find new contracts or establish a proprietary product (OES)
  • Keep the job placements going (CES)
  • Fine-tune the training and performance of enclaves (CES)
  • Look into additional facility space for CES program if needed as program grows

OTHER ISSUES

  • In light of the State budget woes, funding is a major issue – it will be valuable to look at alternate programming or alternate means of funding in addition to the present arrangement.
  • Another issue is the aging of our consumers – where will they go and what kind of activity can they do?
  • Enrollment level is an ongoing issue – trying to maintain capacity in the work activity center while funneling consumers into the CES program.