75 Washington Avenue, Suite 206
Portland, Maine 04101
Phone: 207.767.6440 Fax: 207.767.8158
Email: research@marketdecisions.com
www.marketdecisions.com
Research Report
Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation
Quality Assurance Survey
Survey Report
Prepared by:
Brian Robertson, Ph.D.
Patrick Madden
April 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Survey Methodology..................................................................................................................1
II. Key Findings and Discussion ..................................................................................................8
III. Summary Report ..................................................................................................................36
Services Received by Clients ..........................................................................................37
Measures of Overall Satisfaction ....................................................................................42
Evaluation of Specific Aspects of the Agency and the Services Provided ..................70
Problems and Areas for Improvement ........................................................................136
Current Employment Status .........................................................................................149
Agency Specific Questions.............................................................................................159
Respondent Characteristics ..........................................................................................184
i
I. Survey Methodology
Introduction
Market Decisions conducted this project on behalf of the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation and the Vermont Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired. The Vocational
Rehabilitation Agencies Quality Assurance Survey is designed to allow clients the opportunity to
provide feedback about the agencies through which they are currently receiving services or had
received services in the past.
The Survey Questionnaire
The survey instrument used during the course of this research was developed for use during the
New England Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies Quality Assurance Survey that was conducted
in 2003. The same survey instrument was used during the administration of the 2006 Quality
Assurance Survey. The current survey instrument used the same set of core survey questions.
Each of the agencies participating in this 2011 research study was also allowed to include a set of
agency specific questions.
The main research methodology for data collection was the use of a telephone survey. However,
given that it was not possible to reach a percentage of the target population by telephone, a mail
version of the survey was also developed to supplement the telephone survey.
Sampling
The target population for this research consisted of clients from agency with case status codes
between 12 and 28. The sample included active cases, cases closed successfully, and cases
closed unsuccessfully. The sample included all cases that were active at any time during the year
prior to the initiation of data collection. That is, cases active at any time from January 2010
through January 2011.
The goal of this research was to provide an accurate assessment of the views of clients that could
be used to assess satisfaction with services at the agency level and to assess satisfaction at the
service region level. The research was also designed to allow comparisons between participating
agencies.
Based on these two conditions, the primary sampling units consisted of service region sampling
units for each of the participating VR agencies. The sampling frame for the Vermont Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation included seven sampling stratum defined by their seven
service regions.
The sampling frame for this research was developed from a client list provided by the agency in
electronic format. Once received, the sample was divided into seven separate strata files to
facilitate sampling for the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
1
Based upon the past administrations of the survey, it was anticipated that approximately one-
quarter to one-third of the telephone numbers included in the sampling frame would either be
non-working numbers or would be telephone numbers at which the client could not be reached.
In the first case, this included disconnected telephone numbers, non-working numbers, and those
out of service. In the second, they represent wrong telephone numbers, business telephone
numbers (at which the respondent did not work), and cases where the respondent could not be
reached at this telephone number.
In cases where a number was incorrect or non-working and in cases where a telephone number
was not provided, these sample records were identified and designated for inclusion in the mail
survey.
In Vermont, approximately 16% of records were identified as non-working, incorrect or were
cases where a telephone number was not provided in the sample record. These cases were sent a
mail copy of the survey questionnaire.
A total of 2,100 sample records were included in the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation sample.
Data Collection
All telephone interviews were conducted in a central interviewing facility using our Computer
Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) software. All interviewers were supervised and monitored
continuously. The telephone data collection phase was begun on February 14 and data collection was
completed by March 14, 2011 (including all telephone interviews and returned mail surveys). A total
of 730 clients of the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation were interviewed by telephone or
returned completed mail surveys.
Survey Response Rates
Among clients of the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, the survey response rate
was 54%. The AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research) Respondent
Cooperation Rate was 84%, while the AAPOR Respondent Refusal Rate was 7%.
Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation
Overall Response Rate 54%
AAPOR Respondent Cooperation Rate 84%
AAPOR Respondent Refusal Rate 7%
AAPOR Standard Formulas -AAPOR rates
AAPOR (the American Association for Public Opinion Research) has standardized formulas
used by researchers for the calculation of response, cooperation, and refusal rates. The formulas
allow other researchers to compare this research to other research projects, since the formulas
used in the calculation of the rates are the same. The formulas clearly identify what is used in
deriving the response rates based on rules that identify cases as eligible and ineligible. The
2
AAPOR rates provide a sense of how well the interviewing process works once a respondent is
contacted.
Cooperation rates – This represents the proportion of all cases interviewed out of all eligible
units ever contacted. That is, what percent of identified respondents ended up completing the
interview. This includes cases where a respondent refused to do the survey, began but did not
complete the survey, and cases where a respondent wished to complete the survey at another
time but did not end up completing the survey, respondents who did not speak English, and
respondents who were infirm.
Refusal rates – The refusal rates represent the proportion of all cases in which the respondent
refuses to be interviewed, or breaks off an interview, out of all respondents that were contacted
and spoken with.
Data Weighting
The data has been weighted to adjust for non-response and also to match client profiles based
upon sex, age, service region, disability type, case status (open/closed), and race/ethnicity.
Sampling Error
The percentages reported for the Vermont DVR sample are within plus or minus 3.4% that
would be found if all clients of the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation were
interviewed. For example, if our survey showed that 50% of the respondents were satisfied with
the services received, then the comparable figure for the population would be somewhere
between 46.6% and 53.4% with a confidence level of 95%. A breakdown of the sampling error
by service region is presented below, along with the number of surveys completed in each
region.
Number of Sampling Error
Surveys (+ or -)
Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 730 3.4%
Burlington/Middlebury 99 9.5%
St. Albans/Newport 106 9.0%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 117 8.5%
Barre/Morrisville 102 9.2%
Rutland/Bennington 99 9.5%
Springfield/Brattleboro 102 9.3%
Rural and Agricultural VR 105 7.4%
3
Presentation of Survey Results
This summary report allows you to compare results from your agency to results from the earlier
2003, 2006, and 2008 studies. This will allow you to determine if there are differences in the
level of satisfaction among your clients over the period from 2003 to 2011. The report provides
a comparison by year for the agency as a whole as well as by service region.
The summary report presents the data in several graphical forms along with a narrative
description:
A bar chart with the results presented for VT DVR as a whole. In this chart,
percentages for all response categories are provided. For example, very satisfied,
satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. The
graph includes results from the 2011 study.
A table that presents the results for the seven service regions. This table provides
data from the current 2011 study.
A line chart presenting survey results for VT DVR as a whole. This type of chart
provides trend results from 2003 to 2011.
A table providing trending results for by year of administration for VT DVR as a
whole (2003 to 2011) as well and trending for each of the seven regions for 2008
and 2011. The table will note cases where there are significant differences:
a) Comparing 2011 results from VT DVR and prior survey administrations
b) Comparing differences between the 2011 results for VT DVR as a whole
to each region, and
c) Comparing differences between the 2008 and 2011 scores for each region.
Note that in the charts, the percentages referenced will always be the percent of valid responses.
The tables do not include the percentage of respondents who indicated that the item was not
applicable, that were unsure of their answer or that refused to answer the survey question.
Comparing the Percentage of Respondents Indicating Satisfaction Across Groups
The tables and charts provided in this report are designed to allow you to compare your results.
There are three types of comparisons:
Comparisons of results year to year; trending results from 2003 – 2011. This will help
you identify any changes in the results across the years the survey had been administered.
Comparison of your current 2011 results by region. This will help you identify whether
there are differences between the 2011 results from each region and your overall agency
score.
Comparison of your current 2011 results by region to their 2008 results. This will help
you identify changes within each region since 2008.
A table is provided that compares the results of your agency as a whole as well as the results for
each region. The results are presented for all survey administrations.
4
Comparing Regional Results and Results Year to Year
To allow comparisons, a table is included that provides a summary of the results for each survey
administration. This table is designed to simplify comparing year to year results and to also
compare the results from each of your service regions to the overall agency score for 2011. Four
columns provide the results for 2003 to 2011 for VT DVR (under year of administration) as
whole and the 2008 and 2011 results by service region (under the heading region). The results
are the percent positive responses to the question, which for most is the percentage of
respondents indicating they are very satisfied or satisfied. The table includes two additional
columns labeled Sig Diff (2011) and Sig Diff (Trend). It is in these columns you will find the
results of analysis comparing regional results and year to year results. These comparisons are
based on comparing the 95% confidence intervals associated with each measure.
The table summarizes all comparisons, noting any significant differences in the last two
columns. The first of these columns, “Sig Diff (2011)”, summarizes significant differences
between each of your service regions and your agency’s overall score for the question. This
compares the results of the 2011 study. The column will either be blank or contain a plus sign
“+” or a minus sign “-” for each of your service regions:
A plus (+) indicates that the 2011 result for the specific region is statistically higher (at
95% confidence) than the overall VT DVR score in 2011.
A minus (-) indicates that the 2011 result for the specific region is statistically lower (at
95% confidence) than the overall VT DVR score in 2011.
Blank cells indicate no statistically significant difference.
The second of these columns, “Sig Diff (Trend)”, summarizes significant differences year to
year. This provides a comparison of your agency for the years 2003 to 2011. The column will
either be blank, contain a plus sign “+” a minus sign “-” or a “U” or “D” followed by a year:
The “U” indicates that the survey results are trending upward, that is, your 2011 score is
higher than similar results over a course of several years. The phrase “U2003” indicates
that the results to the specific measure have been trending upward since 2003.
The “D” indicates that the survey results are trending downward, that is, your 2011
score is higher than similar results over a course of several years. The phrase “D2003”
indicates that the results to the specific measure have been trending downward since
2003.
A plus (+) indicates that the 2011 result is statistically higher (at 95% confidence) than
similar results from 2008.
A minus (-) indicates that the 2011 result is statistically lower (at 95% confidence) than
similar results in 2008.
Blank cells indicate no statistically significant difference.
5
Example: Table of Regional and Year to Year Comparisons
Overall Satisfaction
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 84.3%
2006 85.4%
2008 88.2%
2011 90.5% U2003
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 87.3%
St. Albans/Newport 85.0%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 86.8%
Barre/Morrisville 91.3%
Rutland/Bennington 91.6%
Springfield/Brattleboro 85.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 90.6%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 90.6%
St. Albans/Newport 88.3%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 89.5%
Barre/Morrisville 86.3% -
Rutland/Bennington 94.5% + +
Springfield/Brattleboro 91.4%
Rural and Agricultural VR 91.0%
(% of respondents satisfied or very satisfied)
Legend
Sig Diff (Region) – a “+” indicates that the regional score is significantly higher than the agency score while a “-”
indicates that the regional score is significantly lower than the agency score
Sig Diff (Trend) – a “+” indicates that the 2011 score is significantly higher than the 2008 score while a “-”
indicates that the 2008 score is significantly lower than the 2008 score. The “U” followed by a year indicates that
the year to year results are trending upward from that year while the letter “D” followed by a year indicates that the
year to year results are trending downward from that year.
Note: The table is for illustrative purposes only and the differences may or may not actually
be significant.
6
In the column labeled “Sig Diff (2011)” you can see a minus sign “-” across from the
Barre/Morrisville region results (under their 2011 results) and a plus sign “+” across from the
Rutland/Bennington region. This indicates that:
The score for the Barre/Morrisville region is significantly lower than the overall score for
VT DVR in 2011.
The score the Rutland/Bennington region is significantly higher than the overall score for
VT DVR in 2011.
In the column labeled “Sig Diff (TREND)” you can see the “U2003” across from score for 2011
listed under year of administration as well as a “+” across from the Rutland/Bennington region
(2011 results). This indicates that:
The score for VT DVR is trending upward SINCE 2003.
The 2011 score the Rutland/Bennington region is significantly higher than other region’s
scores in 2008.
7
II. Key Findings and Discussion
Services Received by Clients
The most common services received are help in finding a job, financial
assistance, vocational or employment counseling, and counseling.
The largest percentage indicated that financial assistance and help in
finding a job were the most helpful services they received.
Measures of Overall Satisfaction
In 2011, 91% were very satisfied or satisfied with the Vermont Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation’s program.
In 2011, 87% of clients indicated that they were satisfied with the
services they received.
In 2011, 84% of clients indicated that the services provided met their
expectations.
In 2011, 82% of clients indicated that the services provided through the
Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation compared favorably to
the services offered through their ideal program.
Among all clients, the consumer satisfaction index was 77.0 in 2011.
In 2011, 95% percent of clients would tell their friends with similar
disabilities to go to the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
for help.
8
Evaluation of Specific Aspects of the Agency and the Services
Provided
In 2011, 91% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with their control
and involvement in the vocational rehabilitation experience.
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with their choice
of a vocational goal.
In 2011, 88% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the choice of
services available.
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the choice of
service providers.
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the
information they were given about the choices they had.
In 2011, 88% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the time it
took counselors to answer their questions or address their concerns.
In 2011, 93%, of clients found completing the application for vocational
rehabilitation services very or somewhat easy.
In 2011, 92% of clients indicated that the staff were very or somewhat
helpful in helping them to achieve their vocational rehabilitation goals.
In 2011, 89% of clients indicated that it was very or somewhat easy to
contact their vocational rehabilitation counselor.
In 2006, nearly all clients (99%) found the agency office very or
somewhat accessible to someone with their type of disability.
In 2011, 72% of clients indicated that the services they received helped
them become more financially independent.
In 2011, 97% of clients indicated that the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation staff treated them with dignity and respect.
9
In 2011, 72% of clients indicated that the agency helped them reach
their job goals.
Problems and Areas for Improvement
In 2011, 15% of clients indicated they had experienced problems with
the agency or the services provided by the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation.
Among those experiencing problems, 29% indicated that the agency
worked to resolve the problem.
In 2011, approximately four in ten clients offered suggestions for service
improvement.
Current Employment Status
Forty-nine percent of clients were working full or part time.
Among those clients who were working, 82% were very satisfied or
satisfied with their job in 2011.
The types of careers sought by clients were varied.
Agency Specific Question
In 2011, 71% of clients indicated that they were informed that they
could address problems with the Client Assistance Project.
In 2011, 77% of clients were able to receive needed services even when
their counselor was not available.
In 2011, 75% of clients were satisfied with job placement services.
10
In 2011, 98% of clients felt welcome when coming to vocational
rehabilitation for services.
In 2011, 34% of clients were able to access benefits counseling through
vocational rehabilitation, while 18% of clients were not able to access
benefits counseling.
Among those accessing benefits counseling services, 97% found these
services valuable.
In 2011, 94% of clients indicated it was easy to access vocational
rehabilitation services.
In 2011, 89% of clients indicated vocational rehabilitation services
coordinated job placement services with the VABIR representative well.
In 2011, 83% of clients feel they are receiving the support needed to be
successful in the long term.
In 2011, 33% of clients indicated that someone other than vocational
rehabilitation helped them find a job.
Nearly all clients (95%) would refer a friend or relative to vocational
rehabilitation.
11
Discussion
As we have found in our prior studies, the 2011 study reaffirms that the clients of the Vermont
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation are satisfied with the services they are provided and the
large majority has not experienced any problems or difficulties. The Division continues to be an
important resource to its clients. The Division is viewed by the large majority of clients as
providing the necessary assistance to help them achieve their goals
Based upon the views and attitudes of the large majority of clients, the survey results did not
identify any major systemic problems with the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation or
the services it provides. This was observed in our prior studies from 2003 to 2008. The Division
is providing the services needed by the vast majority of its clients in a manner that is effective,
appropriate and that clients appreciate.
As was stressed in prior studies, the results suggest there is no need for dramatic changes in what
the agency is currently doing to meet the needs of its clients. The Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation should continue to provide the high level of service that is reflected in
the responses of the vast majority of respondents. As with any quality assurance process, the
survey results identify areas where the Division is showing improvement, but it also identifies
some minor areas of concern which may represent areas of focus for quality improvement.
The 2011 results show that on many measures there has been an increase in the level of
satisfaction among its clients, while there has been a decline in a few measures. Across the
entire Division, scores have increased on 7 of the 22 measures, and 4 of those measures have
seen an upward trend since 2003. Scores have decreased on 4 of 22 measures, though the
declines are slight. There was a slight increase in the percentage of clients reporting they
experienced problems and a decline in the percentage that reported that VT DVR worked to
resolve their problems.
Regionally, all seven VT DVR regions reported high levels of satisfaction in 2011. Three
regions show an increase in a majority of the measures (12 or more of the 22):
Rutland/ Bennington
Springfield/ Brattleboro
Rural and Agricultural VR
Regions with the largest number of measures showing a decline in satisfaction are:
Barre/ Morrisville (19 of 22 measures show a decline)
St. Johnsbury/ White River Junction (12 of 22 measures show a decline)
St. Albans/ Newport (10 of 22 measures show a decline)
No region in particular lagged dramatically behind the others or the state as a whole in overall
satisfaction, an indication that the Division provides a consistent level of service across the state.
12
Some regions did have specific satisfaction measures that lagged the Division as a whole:
Burlington/Middlebury Region
Satisfaction with the choice of services that were available
Helping client reach job goals
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction Region
Satisfaction with how long it took your counselor to answer your questions or address
your concerns
Helping client reach job goals
Rutland/Bennington Region
Ease of completing an application for vocational rehabilitation services
Ease of contacting vocational rehabilitation counselor
While it is important to point out and understand differences between regions and to monitor
them over time, none of these regional differences are statistically significant and the overall
level of client satisfaction in these regions is comparable to that observed among clients in other
regions.
Conclusions and Areas of Focus
As noted, there is, in general, a high level of satisfaction among the clients of the Division. In
addition, the overall level of satisfaction as has been increasing since 2003.
The results suggest that many of the same issues brought up by clients during the prior studies in
2003 and 2006 are still present from the client perspective. This does not imply that client
satisfaction has declined or that these issues have become more problematic, rather they
represent the areas of concern that were also most frequently mentioned in 2006. The results do
identify areas where the Division can focus efforts to improve an already high level of
satisfaction.
First, some of the key positive highlights:
The level of overall satisfaction among all clients did show a statistically significant
increase.
This increase in overall satisfaction has trended upward since 2003.
Satisfaction with the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation is high in all
regions, meaning that the Division provides consistent service across the entire state.
13
In 4 regions, more than 90% of clients were satisfied overall; Burlington/Middlebury,
Rutland/Bennington, Springfield/Brattleboro, and Rural and Agricultural VR. In the
other regions overall satisfaction was slightly less than 90%.
Communication between clients and the Division has improved as reflected in increases
in satisfaction with how long it took your counselor to answer questions, concerns and
satisfaction with the kind and amount of information about the choices you had.
Clients are also seeing the benefits of the services provided as evidenced by an increase
in the percentage of clients indicating the services helped me become more financially
independent.
While clients raised a number of concerns or issues, for the most part they were minor
issues that had to do with communications issues, the need for additional help finding
employment, and getting more support in general.
The results do suggest that there are some areas on which the Division can focus to improve
client satisfaction:
The percentage of clients reporting problems which had been steadily declining since
2003 but saw a slight increase from 2008 to 2001. Further, among those indicating they
experienced problems, the percentage reporting the Division did work to resolve the
problem has also decreased since 2008.
The results suggest that some clients experience difficulties in getting employment and
there has also been a decline in the general level of satisfaction among employed clients
with their job. However, this may simply be a reflection of the current state of the
economy rather than factors unique to the Division.
While the large majority of clients were satisfied with the Division, there are some specific
concerns mentioned by clients. None of these were mentioned by a majority of clients, though
they represent the specific targets that the Division can focus on to improve client satisfaction.
In general terms, they concern issues of communication (the ability to reach counselors and other
Division staff), employment issues (the ability to find a job), concerns with the effectiveness of
the Division in providing services and meeting expectations, issues with staff (switching
counselors, getting help, understanding), and issues of support (the need for more guidance or
the perception that services are of little value). In general, these are the same types of issues and
concerns raised by clients in prior years. Specifically, some clients mentioned:
Difficulties in obtaining employment or that they could not find a job, the need for more
job search help and more job options.
They needed more support or guidance from the Division and their counselor.
14
That they felt, in some instances, services provided were of little help or that they
actually did not receive services.
Needing assistance in filling out applications and paperwork.
Difficulties in getting in touch with their counselor or other staff (did not return calls,
were not available, delays in communicating with clients, always reached voicemail).
Financial independence and the client achieving their job goals represent the factors about which
clients are the least satisfied.
These two measures had the lowest percentages of clients that responded in a positive manner
(agreeing that the services they received had helped them become more financially independent
or achieve their job goals). While a majority did evaluate the agency positively on this aspect,
only 72% felt the services received from The Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
helped them become more financially independent. When asked why they felt that the services
did not help them become more financially independent, the main reasons cited by clients were:
They did not find employment
No services were provided or were of little help
They did not get needed testing or assessments
One of the goals of the agency is to help clients become more financially independent, and in a
majority of cases clients do feel the agency is helping. In addition, the percentage responding
positively has been increasing since 2006.
Job Goals
Along with the assessment of the impact of services on financial independence, this measure
tended to have one of the lowest percentages of clients that responded in a positive manner
(agreeing the agency helped them reach their job goals). While a majority did evaluate the
agency positively on this aspect, only 72% felt the services received from The Vermont Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation helped them reach their job goals; a slight decline from 2008.
When asked why they felt that the service did not help them achieve their job goals, the majority
simply indicate they have not been able to find employment.
15
Differences in the Results from 2003 to 2011 Surveys
The 2011 survey relied on the same questions included in the 2003 - 2008 studies to allow a
comparison in the results (trending analysis). The goal was to determine whether there has been
an improvement in the services provided by the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
from the perspective of Division clients. The tables below provide a quick summary of the
changes observed in clients’ level of satisfaction with the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation from 2003 to 2011. The tables on pages 17, 19 and 21 are broken into four main
sections:
Overall Measures of Satisfaction
Specific Satisfaction Measures
Problems Experienced by Clients
Job Satisfaction
The tables provide a summary of 22 questions (including the Consumer Satisfaction Index,
which is calculated from three survey questions of improvement or decline in satisfaction). The
tables indicate whether there was a difference in the percentage of respondents with a positive
view of the Division on each specific question. In most cases this represents the percentage of
clients reporting they were satisfied or very satisfied with the specific measure. The tables use a
series of characters to denote trends observed in the results.
The letter u indicates an upward trend in positive response, specifically from 2003
(u2003).
The letter d indicates a downward trend in positive response, again specifically from
2003 (d2003).
A plus sign “+” indicates there was an increase in the percentage of respondents
offering a positive response from 2008 to 2011. There was not a trend extending
back to 2003.
A minus sign “-” indicates there was a decrease in the percentage of respondents
offering a positive response from 2008 to 2011. There was not a trend extending
back to 2003.
These tables are designed to quickly summarize trends and it is important to understand that the
summarized differences do not necessarily rise to the level of statistical significance. In fact,
most of the observed changes were only a few percentage points. Thus, they should be not be
viewed as meaning there has been a significant improvement or decline in the level of client
satisfaction, but viewed as more of a qualitative sense of the trend in client satisfaction. That is,
they should be read to determine if the perception of the Division and the services it provides
among clients is moving in a positive or negative direction. They can be thought of as
representing areas where the Division is viewed by clients as improving the services it offers or
areas where clients view that the Division may need to improve its level of service.
In all tables, results are provided for the Division as a whole as well as for each service region.
16
Beginning on page 26, there is a summary of the issues or concerns raised by clients that will
help clarify any specific areas for improvement.
In evaluating the four overall satisfaction measures found in the survey, there was an increase in
the percent positive response two of the four items with both (Consumer Satisfaction Index and
Overall Satisfaction) trending upward since 2003. The Springfield/ Brattleboro Region saw an
increase in all four measures while the Rutland/ Bennington and Rural and Agricultural VR
regions saw an increase in three of the four overall measures of satisfaction. The Barre/
Morrisville Region saw a decline in the four overall measures of satisfaction.
Summary of Changes in Satisfaction Measures from 2003 to 2008
(Overall Satisfaction)
St. Johnsbury/
Burlington/ St. Albans/ White River
VT DVR Middlebury Newport Junction
Overall Satisfaction Measures
Consumer Satisfaction Index - -
Overall Satisfaction U 2003 + + +
Satisfaction with services provided by
the agency U 2003 + +
Would you recommend that friends go
to agency for help - -
Rural and
Barre/ Rutland/ Springfield/ Agricultural
Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro VR
Overall Satisfaction Measures
Consumer Satisfaction Index - + +
Overall Satisfaction - + +
Satisfaction with services provided by
the agency - + + +
Would you recommend that friends go
to agency for help - + + +
Legend:
“U 2003” indicates an upward trend in positive response since 2003.
“D 2003” indicates a downward trend in positive response since 2003.
“+” indicates there was an increase in the percentage of respondents offering a positive response
from 2008 to 2011.
“-” indicates there was a decrease in the percentage of respondents offering a positive response
from 2008 to 20011.
17
In evaluating the fifteen specific satisfaction measures found in the survey, there were five
measures that increased since 2008 (a higher percentage satisfied) including 2 measures trending
upward since 2003. Only one measure has declined (lower percentage satisfied) for the Division
as a whole since 2008 and nine have not changes since 2008. By region, the Springfield/
Brattleboro had the greatest number of these fifteen specific satisfaction measures showing an
increase (12 of 15) while the Barre/ Morrisville Region had the greatest number showing a
decline (12 or 15).
In evaluating whether clients experienced problems with the Division or the services it provides
(page 22), the percentage of clients indicating they have not experienced problems decreased
slightly from 2008 (meaning there was an increase in the percentage of clients reporting
problems). Among those who experienced a problem, the percentage of clients who indicated
that the Division worked to resolve the problems decreased from the percentage observed in
2008.
Finally, in evaluating job satisfaction, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of employed
clients expressing satisfaction with their job, though there were increase in the St. Albans/
Newport and Rural and Agricultural VR regions.
The summary table on page 24 provides a more global view of client satisfaction. It provides a
summary of the total number of questions where the level of satisfaction increased and the total
number of questions where the level of satisfaction decreased. This table provides a global
perspective on the satisfaction and can be viewed as providing an overall assessment of client
satisfaction with the Division.
In reading the table, if a large number of items show an increase in satisfaction, either from 2008
or trending upward from 2003, this can be interpreted as an improvement in the level of
satisfaction among clients of the Division and the services it provides overall. Conversely, if a
large number of items show a decrease in satisfaction from 2008, or trend less positive since
2003, this can be interpreted as a decline in the level of satisfaction among clients of the Division
and the services it provides
Looking at results for the Division as a whole, 7 questions increased in the percentage satisfied
from 2008, compared to only four questions which decreased in satisfaction from 2008. The
general interpretation is that the overall level of satisfaction among clients for the Division has
improved (on an already high level of satisfaction) since 2008. Regionally, Rutland/
Bennington, Springfield/ Brattleboro, Rural and Agricultural VR show an increase in a majority
of the 22 measures while St. Johnsbury/ White River Junction and Barre/ Morrisville show a
decrease in a majority of the measures since 2008.
18
Summary of Changes in Satisfaction Measures from 2003-2008
(Specific areas of Satisfaction)
St. Johnsbury/
Burlington/ St. Albans/ White River
VT DVR Middlebury Newport Junction
Specific Satisfaction Measures
Satisfaction with control and
involvement in vocational rehabilitation
experience + + -
Satisfaction with your choice of a
vocational goal - - +
Satisfaction with the choice of services
that were available - -
Satisfaction with the choice of service
providers + - -
Satisfaction with the kind and amount
of information about the choices you
had U 2003 +
Satisfaction with how long it took your
counselor to answer questions, concerns + + + -
How easy was it for you to complete an
application + + + +
How helpful were the staff in helping
you achieve goals + -
How easy was it for you to contact your
vocational rehabilitation counselor + + -
How accessible was the office for
someone with your type of disability + + +
The services I received helped me
become more financially independent U 2003 - +
The staff treated me with dignity and
respect + - -
The agency helped me reach my job
goals - - + -
How well program met expectations - -
How well program matches your ideal
program - -
(Legend Presented Above)
19
Summary of Changes in Satisfaction Measures from 2003-2008 Continued
(Specific areas of Satisfaction)
Rural and
Barre/ Rutland/ Springfield/ Agricultural
Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro VR
Specific Satisfaction Measures
Satisfaction with control and
involvement in vocational rehabilitation
experience - + + -
Satisfaction with your choice of a
vocational goal + -
Satisfaction with the choice of services
that were available - + +
Satisfaction with the choice of service
providers - + +
Satisfaction with the kind and amount
of information about the choices you
had - + + +
Satisfaction with how long it took your
counselor to answer questions, concerns - - + +
How easy was it for you to complete an
application - + + -
How helpful were the staff in helping
you achieve goals - - + +
How easy was it for you to contact your
vocational rehabilitation counselor +
How accessible was the office for
someone with your type of disability - + + -
The services I received helped me
become more financially independent - +
The staff treated me with dignity and
respect - - + +
The agency helped me reach my job
goals - + + +
How well program met expectations - + +
How well program matches your ideal
program + + + -
20
Summary of the Number Specific Satisfaction Measures Showing an Increase or Decrease
in Satisfaction among Clients
(of 15 total)
St. Johnsbury/
Burlington/ St. Albans/ White River
VT DVR Middlebury Newport Junction
Number of measures with an increase in
positive response since 2008, but have 3 7 7 4
not trended upward since 2003
Number of measures with trending
upward since 2003 2
Number of measures with a decrease in
positive response since 2008, but have 1 4 7 8
not trended downward since 2003
Number of measures with trending
downward since 2003 0
Rural and
Barre/ Rutland/ Springfield/ Agricultural
Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro VR
Number of measures with an increase in
positive response since 2008, but have 1 9 12 9
not trended upward since 2003
Number of measures with trending
upward since 2003
Number of measures with a decrease in
positive response since 2008, but have 12 3 0 5
not trended downward since 2003
Number of measures with trending
downward since 2003
21
Summary of Changes in Satisfaction Measures from 2003-2008
(Problems Experienced by Clients and Job Satisfaction)
St. Johnsbury/
Burlington/ St. Albans/ White River
VT DVR Middlebury Newport Junction
Problems Experienced by Clients
Experience fewer problems - + -
Did agency work to resolve problems - - - -
Job Satisfaction
Satisfaction with job - - + -
Rural and
Barre/ Rutland/ Springfield/ Agricultural
Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro VR
Problems Experienced by Clients
Experience fewer problems - + -
Did agency work to resolve problems - - + +
Job Satisfaction
Satisfaction with job - - - +
(Legend Presented Above)
22
Summary of the Number of Questions Showing an Increase in Satisfaction among Clients
and Questions Showing a Decrease in Satisfaction among Clients
(of 22 total)
St. Johnsbury/
Burlington/ St. Albans/ White River
VT DVR Middlebury Newport Junction
Number of Questions with an Increase
in the Percentage of Clients who were 7 8 11 6
Satisfied
Number of Questions with a Decrease
in the Percentage of Clients who were 4 7 10 12
Satisfied
Number of Questions with No Change
in the Percentage of Clients who were 11 7 1 4
Satisfied
Rural and
Barre/ Rutland/ Springfield/ Agricultural
Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro VR
Number of Questions with an Increase
in the Percentage of Clients who were 1 12 17 14
Satisfied
Number of Questions with a Decrease
in the Percentage of Clients who were 19 5 2 5
Satisfied
Number of Questions with No Change
in the Percentage of Clients who were 2 5 3 3
Satisfied
23
Increase in the Degree of Satisfaction Among Satisfied Clients
Another positive finding from the 2011 study is that among satisfied clients, the level of
satisfaction has increased since 2008. This is summarized in the below. In comparing the
percentage of clients that gave the Division the highest rating on the scale (for example very
satisfied or strongly agree), there was an increase in thirteen measures since 2008 while only two
measures show a decrease in the top score. The two items showing a decrease were focused on
employment (helping the client reach their job goals and satisfaction with their current
employment).
Comparison of Top Score on Survey Satisfaction Measures (2008 and 2011)
Question Rating 2011 2008
Q01 Overall, how satisfied are you with the VT DVR
program?
% Very Satisfied 55% 48% +
Q04 How satisfied were you with your control and
involvement in your vocational rehabilitation experience?
% Very Satisfied 59% 49% +
Q05 How satisfied were you with your choice of a vocational
goal?
% Very Satisfied 52% 44% +
Q06 How satisfied were you with the choice of services that
were available?
% Very Satisfied 52% 43% +
Q07 How satisfied were you with the choice of service
providers?
% Very Satisfied 60% 52% +
Q08 How satisfied were you with the kind and amount of
information you were given about the choices you had?
% Very Satisfied 54% 43% +
Q09 How satisfied were you with how long it took your
counselor to answer your questions or address your concerns?
% Very Satisfied 58% 53% +
Q10 How easy was it for you to complete an application for
vocational rehabilitation services?
% Very Easy 76% 68% +
Q11 How helpful were the staff of VT DVR in helping you
achieve your vocational rehabilitation goals?
% Very Helpful 82% 80% +
Q12 How easy was it for you to contact your vocational
rehabilitation counselor?
% Very Easy 77% 73% +
Q13 How accessible was the VT DVR office for someone
with your type of disability?
% Very Accessible 95% 91% +
Q14 The vocational rehabilitation services I received helped
me become more financially independent.
% Strongly Agree 46% 42% +
Q15 The VT DVR staff treated me with dignity and respect. % Strongly Agree 88% 85% +
Q16 VT DVR helped me reach my job goals. % Strongly Agree 48% 49% -
Q26 Thinking about your current job, how satisfied are you
with what you are doing?
% Very Satisfied 49% 55% -
24
Specific Areas for Improvement Efforts
General Areas of Focus
The survey instrument used in this research not only allowed respondents to rate the services
they received through the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, but also provided the
opportunity to offer feedback when the client was not satisfied. The survey also allowed clients
to identify any problems they experienced and offer suggestions for service improvement. As
noted, the results do not suggest that significant problems exist in the agency or with the services
it provides. Rather, the results suggest areas of minor concern that can be addressed to improve
upon an already high level of satisfaction.
This section provides a summary of the verbatim responses provided by clients throughout the
survey. The first table classifies comments by main topic area. The table on page 29 categorizes
verbatim responses into main topic areas. The numbers in the table represent the TOTAL
number of times a comment was made that fell within the general area. Please note that:
386 of the 730 clients surveyed in this study offered verbatim comments about issues,
problems or concerns (including those who offered positive comments).
Each topic area contains a number of specific categorized comments (there were in fact
over 300 specific categories for comments) – that is, a general topic area may include a
number of responses from these 300 specific categories.
Each client had the opportunity to provide a comment to each survey question if they
were not satisfied (there are 22 items that evaluate client satisfaction).
The counts represent the total number of times a comment was mentioned (but duplicate
mentions of a specific comment by the same client were not counted). Again note that a
respondent could have mentioned several (different) comments that applied to a general area so
the numbers do not represent the NUMBER of respondents making a comment that pertains to a
general topic area. Rather, this is simply a count of how many times a comment was made
among all respondents.
These general topic areas represent the key areas where respondents have identified concerns or
problems. The table counts provide a way to evaluate the relative weight of each general topic
area in relation to one another. That is, how significant a general area was in the minds of all
respondents when expressing comments, concerns, or problems. The table can help to identify
the areas where efforts at quality improvement would serve to improve the level of satisfaction
among all your clients.
A key is provided beginning on page 30 that lists the specific types of comments that are
included in these general topic areas (the bold word or phrase corresponds to the appropriate
term in the key).
25
Overall, the main areas of concern among clients were (in descending order of the number
of comments mentioned for the general area) were:
1. Issues with communication with the Division and Division staff
2. Employment issues
3. Need for more support (more guidance from staff, more services to achieve goals)
4. Paperwork (forms difficult, needing help with paperwork)
5. Effectiveness of the Division in providing services and meeting expectations
6. Issues with staff (switching counselors, help, understanding)
By Region, the main areas of concern among clients were (again, in order of mention):
Burlington/Middlebury:
1. Issues with Communication with the Division and Division Staff
2. Employment Issues
3. Need for more Support (more guidance from staff, more services to achieve goals)
4. Issues with Staff (switching counselors, help, understanding)
5. Paperwork (forms difficult, needing help with paperwork)
6. Effectiveness of the Division in Providing Services and Meeting Expectations
St. Albans/Newport:
1. Issues with Communication with the Division and Division Staff
2. Employment Issues
3. Need for more Support (more guidance from staff, more services to achieve goals)
4. Issues with Staff (switching counselors, help, understanding)
5. Effectiveness of the Division in Providing Services and Meeting Expectations
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction:
1. Issues with Communication with the Division and Division Staff
2. Employment Issues
3. Need for more Support (more guidance from staff, more services to achieve goals)
4. Paperwork (forms difficult, needing help with paperwork)
5. Effectiveness of the Division in Providing Services and Meeting Expectations
6. Issues with Staff (switching counselors, help, understanding)
26
Barre/Morrisville:
Issues with Communication with the Division and Division Staff
Need for more Support (more guidance from staff, more services to achieve goals)
Employment Issues
Effectiveness of the Division in Providing Services and Meeting Expectations
General Dissatisfaction
Paperwork (forms difficult, needing help with paperwork)
Issues with Staff (switching counselors, help, understanding)
Rutland/Bennington:
1. Issues with Communication with the Division and Division Staff
2. Need for more Support (more guidance from staff, more services to achieve goals)
3. Employment Issues
4. Issues with Staff (switching counselors, help, understanding)
5. Effectiveness of the Division in Providing Services and Meeting Expectations
6. Paperwork (forms difficult, needing help with paperwork)
Springfield/Brattleboro:
1. Issues with Communication with the Division and Division Staff
2. Paperwork (forms difficult, needing help with paperwork)
3. Issues with Staff (switching counselors, help, understanding)
4. Need for more Support (more guidance from staff, more services to achieve goals)
5. Employment Issues
Rural and Agricultural VR:
1. Employment Issues
2. Issues with Communication with the Division and Division Staff
3. Need for more Support (more guidance from staff, more services to achieve goals)
4. Effectiveness of the Division in Providing Services and Meeting Expectations
5. Paperwork (forms difficult, needing help with paperwork)
The general areas for which clients made comments or expressed concern or problems fall
mainly into six categories:
Communications issues concern the ability of the client to contact their counselor or other staff.
This included comments that reflect the difficulty of the client to reach their counselor by
telephone, the lack of follow-up by their counselor and time lags between contact and getting
services or appointments.
Employment concerns reflect that clients did not find employment through the Division, that the
client felt the need for more assistance in finding a job, and that the client would like more
options when choosing a job.
27
Support reflects more general statements about the lack of needed services from the client
perspective or the belief that the Division did not provide needed assistance. Comments include
that the services provided were of little help because of the lack of continued support and that the
client simply needed more support or guidance.
Issues with forms or other paperwork reflect that clients felt that the forms they were required
to complete were either too complicated or that they needed assistance from Division staff to
complete them properly.
Effectiveness reflects mainly that the services provided by the Division did not necessarily meet
the expectations of clients. These are largely more general views about the Division and how it
provides assistance to clients. Client comments include that the program did not meet their
expectations, services were of little or no help, that the client had to fight to get services, or that
there was a general need to speed up the process of providing services to clients.
Comments about staff issues reflect concern over their ability to work with the staff. This
includes that staff dismissed or did not listen to their concerns or needs and that the staff needed
to be more understanding. Also included in this area are the feelings that staff were too busy and
overworked. Finally, many clients also indicated there were difficulties because of the turnover
in the counselor staff, that they had more than one counselor while receiving services.
Specific Issues for Focus of Quality Improvement Initiative
The discussion above outlines the general areas where clients have noted concerns or problems
and provides some insight to guide efforts to improve service to clients. These can be thought of
as the global areas of focus, the general areas where clients have noted difficulties.
The table below provides specific areas that represent targets where quality improvement efforts
can increase the level of satisfaction among your clients. In this table, the percentages reflect the
percentage of all clients that made a comment about a specific issue, concern or problem. That is,
the percentages reflect the percent of the total client population with a specific concern, issue, or
problem.
The table provides the percentages for the Division as a whole as well as for each of the seven
service regions. These percentages are tabulated across all of the satisfaction measures included
in the survey. That is, if a client mentioned the issue, concern, or problem at any time during the
survey.
28
General Topic Areas of Respondent Comments, Problems, and Concerns
Number of Comments, Issues, Problems or Concerns Mentioned by General Topic Area
St.
Johnsbury-
White Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- River Barre- Rutland- Springfield- Agricultural
VT DVR Middlebury Newport Junction Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro VR
Issues with Communication with the
162 24 25 31 21 24 23 14
Division and Division Staff
Employment Issues 122 21 23 19 16 15 10 18
Need for more Support (more
guidance from staff, more services to 117 19 18 18 21 17 11 13
achieve goals)
Paperwork (forms difficult, needing
84 11 6 16 11 10 19 11
help with paperwork)
Effectiveness of the Division in
Providing Services and Meeting 82 10 12 13 16 10 9 12
Expectations
Issues with Staff (switching
82 14 14 12 11 12 12 7
counselors, help, understanding)
Client Disabilities 51 9 6 10 6 10 4 6
General Dissatisfaction 43 6 4 7 12 5 3 6
General Satisfaction 42 4 7 6 8 5 6 6
Need for More Information, More
38 4 7 6 7 6 4 4
Detailed Information
Need to Expand Services or Funding
35 7 5 5 8 2 5 3
for the Division
Need more Testing or Assessment 21 2 5 5 1 2 2 4
Client Financial Issues (not meeting
20 3 3 3 4 2 2 3
financial needs)
Transportation Issues (lack of,
14 4 3 1 4 2
distance to offices)
Accessibility issues (access to offices) 13 1 1 4 1 2 2 2
Client Involvement in and Control of
11 3 1 3 1 1 1 1
Vocational Rehabilitation Process
Client Issues (client responsibility for
10 2 1 4 1 2
problems)
Location and Hours (need for more
locations, more convenient hours, 10 3 1 2 2 1 1
office locations change)
Other Comments 32 5 6 7 5 4 4 1
29
KEY
Area Definitions:
Communication - Difficulties in communicating with the staff, their counselor did not return calls or was not
available, their counselor did not follow-up, time lags in getting services and appointments
Employment - The client did not find employment and needed more assistance in finding a job, job search help or
more job options
Support - The client felt that no services were provided or that the services provided were of little help, the client
needed more support and guidance
Paperwork - Difficulty in filling out forms, forms are too long, forms are too complicated, need to simplify forms,
need help filling out forms
Effectiveness - Program did not meet expectations, no clear purpose or solutions offered, speed up the process of
getting services, had to fight to get services
Staff Issues - Their counselor would not listen dismissed concerns, did not understand needs or abilities, counselor
was too busy, the client was pushed aside, staff needed to be more understanding, counselor left, switched to another
counselor
Client Disabilities - Trouble reading, poor eyesight, difficulties understanding or comprehending, difficulties due to
disability
General Dissatisfaction - negative feedback, dissatisfied with program in general
General Satisfaction - positive feedback, satisfied with program, staff helpful, no complaints
Information - The client was unaware of available services, the client needed more information about available
services, and the client needed more information about employment choices
Expanded Services - Division needs more funding for services, need to offer more services, networking with other
agencies and businesses
Testing - need for more testing, less testing, need more assessment
Client Financial Issues - Did not receive financial assistance, not financially independent, client had to pay for
services, client did not receive assistance in paying for services
Transportation - Distance to offices or services, need transportation, parking, vehicle assistance
Accessibility - Mobility inside offices, difficulty getting into small offices, lighting, elevators and stairs, difficulty
with entries and exits, directions to offices
Client Involvement - More client involvement in process, client had no control over process, client was told what to
do, felt pushed into a job
Client Issues - Lack of success was fault of client, counselor and Division tried to help
Location and Hours - Need for more locations, more convenient hours, office locations change
30
Overall, the most commonly mentioned specific issues among clients were:
1. WORK- Did not receive employment, Could not find me a job
2. SUPPORT - Need more guidance, support
3. SUPPORT - No services provided, not much help
4. HELP - Someone else helped, counselor did paperwork
5. COMM - Counselor did not return calls, No follow up
6. COMM - Phone tag - leave a message and counselor called back
7. COMM - Leave multiple messages before getting a call back
8. COMM - Hard to reach staff
By Region, the main areas of concern among clients were (again, in order of mention):
Burlington/Middlebury:
1. WORK- Did not receive employment, Could not find me a job
2. SUPPORT - Need more guidance, support
3. COMM - Counselor did not return calls, No follow up
4. COMM - Hard to reach staff
5. HELP - Someone else helped, counselor did paperwork
6. COMM - Leave multiple messages before getting a call back
7. COMM - Calls, mail not returned for days, weeks, wait
8. COMM - Phone tag - leave a message and counselor called back
9. NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with services and counselor
10. EXPAND - more info needed, need to broaden programs
St. Albans/Newport:
1. WORK- Did not receive employment, Could not find me a job
2. SUPPORT - Need more guidance, support
3. COMM - Hard to reach staff
4. SUPPORT - No services provided, not much help
5. EFFECTIVE - Not meet expectations, help with goals
6. COMM - Counselor did not return calls, No follow up
7. COMM - Hard to reach counselor
8. COMM - Calls, mail not returned for days, weeks, wait
9. COMM - Phone tag - leave a message and counselor called back
10. TEST - Didn't receive needed, desired testing
31
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction:
1. WORK- Did not receive employment, Could not find me a job
2. COMM - Leave multiple messages before getting a call back
3. SUPPORT - No services provided, not much help
4. COMM - Counselor did not return calls, No follow up
5. SUPPORT - Need more guidance, support
6. HELP - Someone else helped, counselor did paperwork
7. COMM - Phone tag - leave a message and counselor called back
8. COMM - Hard to reach counselor
Barre/Morrisville:
SUPPORT - Need more guidance, support
WORK- Did not receive employment, Could not find me a job
SUPPORT - No services provided, not much help
NEGATIVE - Program did nothing or little to help
COMM - Counselor did not return calls, No follow up
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with services and counselor
EFFECTIVE - No help, very little help
COMM - Leave multiple messages before getting a call back
HELP - Someone else helped, counselor did paperwork
COMM - Phone tag - leave a message and counselor called back
WORK - Help client get a job, more job services, job options
COMM - Hard to reach staff
INFO - Not enough, unaware of available services
EFFECTIVE - agency was not very productive, effective
Rutland/Bennington:
1. SUPPORT - Need more guidance, support
2. COMM - Counselor did not return calls, No follow up
3. SUPPORT - No services provided, not much help
4. WORK- Did not receive employment, Could not find me a job
5. COMM - Leave multiple messages before getting a call back
6. COMM - Phone tag - leave a message and counselor called back
7. HELP - Trouble filling out forms, needed help
8. CONDITION - Trouble because of disability
32
Springfield/Brattleboro:
1. HELP - Someone else helped, counselor did paperwork
2. COMM - Phone tag - leave a message and counselor called back
3. COMM - Hard to reach staff
4. COMM - Leave multiple messages before getting a call back
5. SUPPORT - Need more guidance, support
6. SUPPORT - No services provided, not much help
7. WORK- Did not receive employment, Could not find me a job
Rural and Agricultural VR:
1. HELP - Someone else helped, counselor did paperwork
2. SUPPORT - No services provided, not much help
3. SUPPORT - Need more guidance, support
4. WORK- Did not receive employment, Could not find me a job
5. COMM - Counselor did not return calls, No follow up
6. COMM - Phone tag - leave a message and counselor called back
7. WORK - Help client get a job, more job services, job options
33
Specific Areas for Quality Improvement
(% of all clients mentioning issue, concern, or problem – most frequently mentioned)
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- White River Barre- Rutland- Springfield- Agricultural
Reasons VT DVR Middlebury Newport Junction Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro VR
WORK- Did not receive employment,
11% 17% 17% 11% 13% 8% 5% 9%
Could not find me a job
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
11% 15% 10% 8% 17% 13% 6% 9%
support
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
8% 3% 8% 9% 12% 9% 5% 10%
much help
HELP - Someone else helped,
7% 7% 4% 8% 6% 2% 15% 10%
counselor did paperwork
COMM - Counselor did not return
7% 8% 7% 9% 7% 10% 4% 6%
calls, No follow up
COMM - Phone tag - leave a message
6% 5% 5% 7% 6% 6% 9% 5%
and counselor called back
COMM - Leave multiple messages
6% 7% 3% 10% 6% 6% 7% 1%
before getting a call back
COMM - Hard to reach staff 5% 7% 8% 4% 5% 4% 8% 2%
NEGATIVE - Program did nothing or
4% 2% 2% 4% 10% 4% 1% 4%
little to help
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with
4% 5% 4% 3% 7% 4% 2% 3%
services and counselor
EFFECTIVE - No help, very little
4% 4% 3% 2% 7% 3% 4% 4%
help
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
3% 2% 4% 3% 5% 4% 2% 2%
available services
COMM - Calls, mail not returned for
3% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 3%
days, weeks, wait
EFFECTIVE - Not meet expectations,
3% 1% 8% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2%
help with goals
WORK - Help client get a job, more
3% 1% 4% 3% 6% 2% 5%
job services, job options
WORK -No job yet-still working on
3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4%
achieving goals
TEST - Didn't receive needed, desired
3% 2% 5% 4% 1% 2% 2% 4%
testing
EXPAND - more info needed, need to
3% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2%
broaden programs
COMM - Hard to reach counselor 3% 3% 6% 5% 2% 1% 2%
34
Specific Areas for Quality Improvement
(% of all clients mentioning issue, concern, or problem – most frequently mentioned)
(continued)
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- White River Barre- Rutland- Springfield- Agricultural
Reasons VT DVR Middlebury Newport Junction Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro VR
CONDITION - Trouble because of
3% 3% 4% 2% 1% 5% 1% 3%
disability
CONDITION - Trouble
understanding, terms, language, 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2%
confused
STAFF - Counselor would not listen,
2% 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2%
dismissed concerns
SUPPORT - Did not achieve goal,
2% 4% 4% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2%
working on, need guidance
STAFF - Changing counselors,
2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 3%
switching too much
HELP - Trouble filling out forms,
2% 2% 3% 2% 5% 1% 2%
needed help
STAFF - More counselors, staff,
2% 4% 2% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1%
counselors are overworked
WORK - No job, didn't receive much
2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3%
job search help
COMM -They are too busy, They
2% 4% 3% 3% 1% 2%
have large caseloads
CONDIITON - Trouble reading,
2% 4% 2% 1% 3% 3% 1%
writing, education
EFFECTIVE - agency was not very
2% 2% 3% 2% 5% 1%
productive, effective
EFFECTIVE - Broken promises, no
2% 2% 2% 4% 3% 1%
follow thru
EFFECTIVE - training did not match
2% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1%
with interest, ability
WORK - Dissatisfied with job, not
2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 4%
what they wanted
COMM - Better communication
2% 2% 3% 4% 2%
needed
HARD - Hard, Somewhat difficult,
2% 1% 2% 4% 2% 2%
complicated
SUPPORT - More services needed to
1% 4% 2% 2%
help with career goals
EFFECTIVE - Speed up process of
1% 1% 2% 4% 1%
obtaining services
COMM -Person never available
1% 4% 1% 1% 1%
(meetings, out of office)
35
III. Summary Report
36
Services Received by Clients
The most common services received are help in finding a job, financial
assistance, vocational or employment counseling, and counseling.
The largest percentage indicated that financial assistance and help in
finding a job were the most helpful services they received.
37
The most common services received are help in finding a job, financial
assistance, vocational or employment counseling, and counseling.
What services did you receive/are you receiving from the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation?
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Help in finding a job 52% 58% 63% 48% 47% 51% 52% 25%
Financial Assistance 48% 38% 44% 47% 59% 54% 45% 44%
Vocational or employment
41% 48% 42% 43% 41% 38% 42% 19%
counseling
Counseling 21% 26% 23% 17% 16% 17% 27% 17%
General information 19% 19% 22% 13% 18% 23% 18% 15%
Received information on services
13% 21% 14% 10% 9% 11% 16% 10%
offered
College education or training 13% 6% 12% 12% 13% 22% 12% 3%
Transportation 12% 14% 13% 9% 15% 9% 13% 6%
Testing or evaluations 9% 5% 10% 6% 5% 12% 13% 5%
Business or vocational training 8% 2% 11% 7% 11% 7% 10% 5%
Adaptive equipment 7% 5% 4% 7% 10% 4% 9% 23%
Other education and training 7% 7% 11% 7% 2% 6% 7% 6%
Situational Assessment or Job Trial 7% 5% 12% 5% 8% 5% 7% 3%
Medical treatment or services 6% 1% 5% 5% 5% 13% 6% 9%
Vehicle Modifications 5% 3% 8% 4% 9% 3% 3% 14%
Personal or living skills 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5%
Home based employment 2% 1% 4% 5% 4% 2%
Rehabilitation teaching or training 1% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 2%
38
What services did you receive/are you receiving from the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation? (continued)
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Low vision aids 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Social adjustment counseling 1% 3% 3% 1% 1%
Household/monthly bills 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%
Mobility instruction training 1% 1% 3% 2%
Homemaking skills 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Group support 0% 1% 1%
Help with personal
0% 1% 1% 1%
care/housekeeping/grocery shopping
Home modifications 0% 1% 0% 4%
Repairs to house/ equipment 0% 1%
Provided computer/software 0% 1%
Driving lessons/license 0% 1% 1%
Satisfied with Services/Counselor 0% 1%
Other 0% 1% 1% 1%
None 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2%
Don't Know 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Refused 0% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
Comments:
Fifty-two percent of clients indicated that they had received services to help them find a job,
48% received financial assistance, 41% of clients received vocational guidance or employment
counseling, and 21% of clients indicated that they received counseling.
39
The largest percentage indicated that financial assistance and help in finding a
job were the most helpful services they received.
What were the most helpful services provided to you by the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation program?
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Financial Assistance 34% 28% 29% 34% 42% 43% 25% 35%
Help in finding a job 32% 35% 35% 27% 33% 30% 34% 16%
Vocational or employment
26% 36% 22% 25% 22% 26% 28% 9%
counseling
Counseling 16% 21% 10% 9% 12% 14% 23% 15%
College education or training 7% 3% 4% 6% 5% 17% 4% 2%
Transportation 5% 9% 4% 7% 5% 5% 5% 2%
Adaptive equipment 5% 1% 1% 6% 8% 4% 6% 16%
Business or vocational training 4% 1% 5% 3% 5% 7% 5% 5%
General information 4% 4% 5% 2% 3% 6% 2% 5%
Vehicle Modifications 4% 3% 7% 4% 5% 1% 2% 11%
Received information on services
3% 4% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3% 2%
offered
Medical treatment or services 3% 1% 3% 1% 1% 6% 2% 5%
Other education and training 2% 1% 4% 5% 1% 1% 1% 2%
Testing or evaluations 2% 1% 1% 3% 4% 1%
Situational Assessment or Job Trial 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 0% 2%
Home based employment 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Personal or living skills 1% 3% 2% 2% 3%
Help with personal
1% 1% 1% 4%
care/housekeeping/grocery shopping
40
What were the most helpful services provided to you by the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation program? (continued)
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Household/monthly bills 1% 1% 3% 1%
Driving lessons/license 1% 1% 1% 3%
Rehabilitation teaching or training 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Low vision aids 1% 1% 2% 2% 1%
Social adjustment counseling 1% 1% 2% 0%
Group support 0% 1% 1% 1%
Provided computer/software 0% 2% 1%
Satisfied with Services/Counselor 0% 1% 1% 1%
Homemaking skills 0% 1% 1%
Home modifications 0% 0% 4%
Mobility instruction training 0% 1% 1%
Repairs to house/ equipment 0% 1%
Other 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%
None 5% 4% 5% 9% 4% 3% 4% 5%
Don't Know 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 1% 2%
Refused 0% 1% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
Comments:
When asked which of the services they received were the most helpful, 34% of clients indicated
that financial assistance was the most helpful service provided by the agency and 32% mentioned
help in finding a job. Twenty-six percent of clients mentioned vocational guidance and
employment counseling and 16% counseling in general.
41
Measures of Overall Satisfaction
In 2011, 91% were very satisfied or satisfied with the Vermont Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation’s program.
In 2011, 87% of clients indicated that they were satisfied with the
services they received.
In 2011, 84% of clients indicated that the services provided met their
expectations.
In 2011, 82% of clients indicated that the services provided through the
Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation compared favorably to
the services offered through their ideal program.
Among all clients, the consumer satisfaction index was 77.0 in 2011.
In 2011, 95% percent of clients would tell their friends with similar
disabilities to go to the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
for help.
42
In 2011, 91% were very satisfied or satisfied with the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation’s program.
Q01 Overall, how satisfied are you with the VT DVR program?
100%
80%
60% 55%
40% 36%
20%
3% 3% 3%
0%
Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very dissatisfied 3% 2% 5% 4% 4% 1% 2% 1%
Dissatisfied 3% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 5%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
3% 3% 4% 3% 6% 1% 4% 3%
Satisfied 36% 32% 40% 28% 38% 42% 34% 33%
Very satisfied 55% 58% 48% 61% 48% 52% 58% 58%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
43
Q01 Overall, how satisfied are you with the VT DVR program?
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
100.0%
90.5%
88.2%
84.3% 85.4%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
44
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation’s program?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 84.3%
2006 85.4%
2008 88.2%
2011 90.5% U2003
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 87.3%
St. Albans/Newport 85.0%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 86.8%
Barre/Morrisville 91.3%
Rutland/Bennington 91.6%
Springfield/Brattleboro 85.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 90.6%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 90.6%
St. Albans/Newport 88.3%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 89.5%
Barre/Morrisville 86.3%
Rutland/Bennington 94.5%
Springfield/Brattleboro 91.4%
Rural and Agricultural VR 91.0%
(% of respondents satisfied or very satisfied)
45
Comments:
Ninety-one percent of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation’s program. This percentage has trended upward significantly from
2003.
In 2011, 55% of clients indicated that they were very satisfied with the agency’s program, while
36% were satisfied. Three percent of clients indicated that they were neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied with the agency’s program, while only 6% indicated some level of dissatisfaction
(3% dissatisfied and 3% very dissatisfied).
Among the 9% of clients that were not satisfied in 2011:
32% indicated they could not find a job.
24% indicated no services were provided or the services were of little help.
14% indicated they needed more guidance or support.
13% indicated their counselor did not return calls or follow up.
46
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation’s
program?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
WORK- Did not receive employment,
32% 38% 36% 33% 44% 13% 19% 34%
Could not find me a job
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
24% 5% 10% 42% 41% 39% 7% 44%
much help
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
14% 8% 21% 13% 22% 9% 48%
support
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
13% 26% 13% 10% 11% 16% 15%
No follow up
EFFECTIVE - agency was not very
6% 3% 17% 13% 11%
productive, effective
COMM - Hard to reach staff 6% 10% 10% 13%
EDUCATION- Did not receive needed
4% 13% 9%
education, training
SERVICES - Services, jobs not
3% 14% 5%
accessible, available in area
STAFF - staff attitude, disrespect,
3% 7% 11%
unprofessional
COMM - Better communication needed 3% 11% 5%
FINANCE- Did not receive needed
3% 10% 6%
financial help
STAFF - Counselor, staff did not treat
3% 17%
me with respect, rude
STAFF - Poor client-counselor
3% 17%
relationship
EXPAND - more info needed, need to
3% 10% 7%
broaden programs
NEGATIVE - I've given up on services,
2% 12% 12%
program; a waste of time
EFFECTIVE - Speed up process of
2% 16%
obtaining services
POSITIVE - Positive (general) 2% 16%
FINANCE - Will not pay for needed
2% 10%
training, classes
47
Overall, how satisfied are you with the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation’s
program?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
(continued)
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
STAFF - Changing counselors,
2% 7% 11%
switching too much
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
1% 10%
available services
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied (general) 1% 10%
CONDITION - Asthma, smells
1% 10%
breathing, allergies
SUPPORT - Did not achieve goal,
0% 12%
working on, need guidance
STAFF - Maintain consistency with
0% 12%
staff throughout agency
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
48
In 2011, 87% of clients indicated that they were satisfied with the services
they received.
Q17 Please rate your satisfaction on a scale from one to ten where 1 is
very dissatisfied and 10 means you are very satisfied, how satisfied
would you say you are with the services provided by VT DVR?
100%
80%
60%
40% 35%
23%
20% 16%
10%
3% 6% 4%
1% 1% 1%
0%
Not at 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Very
all satisfied
satisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Not at all satisfied 3% 2% 3% 7% 3% 3% 4% 2%
2 1% 1% 1% 4% 3%
3 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4%
4 1% 1% 2% % 1% 2% 1%
5 6% 11% 3% 7% 3% 4% 6% 3%
6 4% 6% 4% 5% 3% 3% 1%
7 10% 10% 6% 12% 11% 10% 12% 9%
8 23% 18% 27% 13% 22% 25% 31% 21%
9 16% 13% 12% 19% 20% 12% 23% 14%
Very satisfied 35% 39% 40% 35% 31% 39% 22% 46%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
49
Q17 Please rate your satisfaction on a scale from one to ten where 1 is
very dissatisfied and 10 means you are very satisfied, how satisfied
would you say you are with the services provided by VT DVR?
(% rating 6 through 10 on 10 point scale)
100.0%
86.4% 85.8% 87.4%
84.1%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
50
How satisfied would you say you are with the services provided by the
Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 84.1%
2006 86.4%
2008 85.8%
2011 87.4%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 84.4%
St. Albans/Newport 87.5%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 83.2%
Barre/Morrisville 93.5%
Rutland/Bennington 87.3%
Springfield/Brattleboro 80.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 88.8%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 85.1%
St. Albans/Newport 88.6%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 84.9%
Barre/Morrisville 87.0%
Rutland/Bennington 89.0%
Springfield/Brattleboro 88.7%
Rural and Agricultural VR 90.6%
(% of respondents rating 6 to 10 on ten point satisfaction scale)
51
Comments:
Clients were asked to evaluate their satisfaction with the services provided by the Vermont
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. This evaluation was on a ten point scale where 1 is very
dissatisfied and 10 is very satisfied. Eighty-seven percent of clients were very satisfied or
satisfied with the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation’s program (indicating six to ten
on the ten point scale). This is comparable to the percentage observed in 2008.
Among all clients, the average score on this ten point scale was 8.1.
Satisfaction with the services provided by the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation
(average scores)
Average
VT DVR 8.1
Burlington-Middlebury 7.9
St. Albans-Newport 8.1
St. Johnsbury-White River Junction 8.2
Barre-Morrisville 8.2
Rutland-Bennington 8.0
Springfield-Brattleboro 7.9
Rural and Agricultural VR 8.5
Among the 12% of clients not satisfied in 2011 (giving a rating of one to five):
31% indicated they needed more support or guidance.
30% indicated they did not find a job.
20% indicated no services were provided or the services were of little help.
52
How satisfied would you say you are with the services provided by the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation?
Primary Reasons Not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
31% 52% 23% 18% 45% 25% 13% 46%
support
WORK- Did not receive employment,
30% 46% 24% 28% 34% 34% 9% 12%
Could not find me a job
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
20% 3% 22% 24% 26% 51% 9%
much help
EFFECTIVE - Not meet expectations,
16% 3% 34% 29% 12% 17% 10% 22%
help with goals
NEGATIVE - Program did nothing or
16% 6% 16% 53% 21% 41%
little to help
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
10% 9% 22% 20% 8% 14%
No follow up
COMM - Hard to reach staff 7% 9% 11% 5% 19% 14%
EFFECTIVE - Broken promises, no
7% 10% 4% 6% 9% 12%
follow thru
STAFF - Counselors make more effort,
6% 9% 21% 7%
client does work
EFFECTIVE - Tailor to individual
3% 6% 12%
needs- know each client
CLIENT - Unsuccessful but counselor,
3% 13%
agency did try to help
STAFF - If counselors not there, help
2% 14%
needs to be available
STAFF - Did not listen to my needs 2% 13%
STAFF - Poor client-counselor
2% 13%
relationship
SUPORT - Benefits counseling 2% 13%
WORK - Help client get a job, more job
2% 5% 5% 12%
services, job options
SERVICES - Services for hearing
2% 12%
impaired
53
How satisfied would you say you are with the services provided by the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation?
Primary Reasons Not Satisfied
(continued)
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
STAFF - More caring, understanding
2% 12%
and encouraging staff
EFFECTIVE - Fight to get services,
0% 12%
help is limited
EFFECTIVE - Services lessened
0% 12%
throughout time
EXPAND - Funding problems, No
0% 12%
money for services
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
54
In 2011, 84% of clients indicated that the services provided met their
expectations.
Q18 Considering all of the expectations you may have had about the services
provided by VT DVR to what extent have these services met your expectations?
100%
80%
60%
40% 34%
23%
20% 13%
7% 9%
4% 1% 3% 4%
1%
0%
Met none of 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Met
expectations expectations
completely
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Met none of expectations 4% 2% 5% 8% 5% 4% 3% 2%
2 1% 1% 1% 4% 1%
3 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% % % 3%
4 3% 4% 2% 1% 2% 4% 1% 3%
5 7% 14% 6% 9% 2% 4% 6% 8%
6 4% 3% 5% 3% 6% 3% 5% 3%
7 9% 7% 12% 10% 10% 9% 10% 6%
8 23% 24% 17% 14% 20% 27% 32% 20%
9 13% 10% 10% 16% 17% 12% 17% 11%
Met expectations
completely
34% 34% 40% 37% 32% 36% 24% 45%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
55
Q18 Considering all of the expectations you may have had about the
services provided by VT DVR to what extent have these services met
your expectations?
(Rated on a 10 point scale from 1 = met none of my expectations to 10 =
completely met expectations; %
100.0%
83.5% 84.3% 84.0%
78.1%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
56
Considering all of the expectations you may have had about the services provided by the
Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, to what extent
have these services met your expectations?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 78.1%
2006 83.5%
2008 84.3%
2011 84.0%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 81.2%
St. Albans/Newport 84.0%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 83.2%
Barre/Morrisville 88.5%
Rutland/Bennington 85.2%
Springfield/Brattleboro 84.6%
Rural and Agricultural VR 81.8%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 77.9%
St. Albans/Newport 84.2%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 79.8%
Barre/Morrisville 85.1%
Rutland/Bennington 87.3%
Springfield/Brattleboro 88.2%
Rural and Agricultural VR 84.1%
(% of respondents rating 6 to 10 on ten point satisfaction scale)
57
Comments:
Clients were asked to evaluate how well the services provided met their expectations. This
evaluation was on a ten point scale where 1 indicates that the services did not at all meet their
expectations and 10 indicates that the services met their expectations completely. Eighty-four
percent of clients indicated that the services provided by the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation met their expectations to some degree (indicating six to ten on the ten point scale).
This is comparable to the percentage in 2008.
Among all clients, the median score on this ten point scale was 7.9.
To what extent have these services met your expectations?
(average scores)
Average
VT DVR 7.9
Burlington-Middlebury 7.8
St. Albans-Newport 7.8
St. Johnsbury-White River Junction 7.9
Barre-Morrisville 8.1
Rutland-Bennington 7.9
Springfield-Brattleboro 7.8
Rural and Agricultural VR 8.2
Significant Differences by Group:
Clients aged 45 to 54 are significantly less likely to indicate program met expectations
than other VT DVR clients (74% rating as 6 through 10).
58
In 2011, 82% of clients indicated that the services provided through the
Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation compared favorably to the
services offered through their ideal program.
Q19 Now I want you to think of the ideal program for people in your
circumstances. How well do you think the services you received from VT
DVR compared to the services that would be offered by your IDEAL
program?
100%
80%
60%
40% 33%
23%
20% 14%
5% 8% 5% 8%
2% 1% 2%
0%
Not at all 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 Completely
ideal ideal
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Not at all ideal 5% 2% 6% 9% 9% 5% 2% 1%
2 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%
3 1% 1% 2% 1% 5%
4 2% 5% 3% 1% 2% 3% 2%
5 8% 9% 7% 9% 7% 11% 6% 3%
6 5% 9% 7% 4% 3% 2% 3% 3%
7 8% 2% 9% 8% 12% 6% 9% 9%
8 23% 25% 20% 12% 18% 24% 34% 16%
9 14% 13% 11% 17% 15% 17% 12% 14%
Completely ideal 33% 31% 36% 39% 32% 31% 30% 48%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
59
Q19 Now I want you to think of the ideal program for people in your
circumstances. How well do you think the services you received from
VT DVR compared to the services that would be offered by your
IDEAL program?
(Rated on a 10 point scale from 1 = not id
100.0%
82.6% 82.1%
78.1% 79.4%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
60
How well do you think the services you received from the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation compared to the services that would be offered by your IDEAL program?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 78.1%
2006 79.4%
2008 82.6%
2011 82.1%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 79.7%
St. Albans/Newport 84.7%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 84.6%
Barre/Morrisville 83.0%
Rutland/Bennington 80.8%
Springfield/Brattleboro 84.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 76.8%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 79.5%
St. Albans/Newport 82.1%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 80.1%
Barre/Morrisville 80.9%
Rutland/Bennington 80.4%
Springfield/Brattleboro 87.7%
Rural and Agricultural VR 89.1%
(% of respondents rating 6 to 10 on ten point satisfaction scale)
61
Comments:
Clients were asked to evaluate how well the services provided compared to the services that
would be offered through their ideal program. This evaluation was on a ten point scale where 1
indicates that the services were not at all ideal (did not compare favorably to their ideal program)
and 10 indicates that the services were completely ideal (compared very favorably to their ideal
program). In 2011, 82% of clients indicated that the services provided by the Vermont Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation compared favorably to their ideal program (indicating six to ten on
the ten point scale). This is comparable to the percentage in 2008.
Among all clients, the median score on this ten point scale was 7.9.
How well do you think the services you received compared to the services that would be
offered by your IDEAL program?
(average scores)
Average
VT DVR 7.8
Burlington-Middlebury 7.6
St. Albans-Newport 7.7
St. Johnsbury-White River Junction 7.8
Barre-Morrisville 7.8
Rutland-Bennington 8.1
Springfield-Brattleboro 7.8
Rural and Agricultural VR 8.4
62
Among all clients, the consumer satisfaction index was 77.0 in 2011.
Consumer Satisfaction Index
100.0
76.4 77.9 77.0
80.0 74.5
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
63
Consumer Satisfaction Index
Sig Diff Sig Diff
Mean 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 74.5
2006 76.4
2008 77.9
2011 77.0
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 77.1
St. Albans/Newport 78.7
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 78.6
Barre/Morrisville 79.3
Rutland/Bennington 78.2
Springfield/Brattleboro 76.6
Rural and Agricultural VR 78.5
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 76.5
St. Albans/Newport 76.9
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 75.4
Barre/Morrisville 74.8
Rutland/Bennington 78.1
Springfield/Brattleboro 77.7
Rural and Agricultural VR 84.7 +
(averages)
64
Comments:
The consumer satisfaction index provides an outcome measure of clients’ satisfaction with the
agency and the services the agency provides. The index is calculated using three survey
questions:
1. Q17. Please rate your satisfaction on a scale from one to ten where 1 is very dissatisfied
and 10 means you are very satisfied, how satisfied would you say you are with the
services provided by the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation?
2. Q18. Considering all of the expectations you may have had about the services provided
by the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, to what extent have these services
met your expectations?
3. Q19. Now I want you to think of the ideal program for people in your circumstances.
How well do you think the services you received from the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation compared to the services that would be offered by your IDEAL
program?
The index is calculated using the following formula:
CSI= (((Q17-1)/9)*100*.334) + (((Q18-1)/9)*100*.333) + (((Q19-1)/9)*100*.334).
This calculation results in an index score with values that can range from 0 to 100.
Among all clients, the consumer satisfaction index was 77.0. This is comparable to the
index score of 77.9 from 2008.
Significant Difference by Group:
Rural and Agricultural VR (CSI is significantly higher than for VT DVR as a whole)
65
In 2011, 95% percent of clients would tell their friends with similar disabilities
to go to the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation for help.
Q20 All things considered, would you tell your friends with disabilities
to go to VT DVR program for help?
95%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
5%
0%
Yes No
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 95% 95% 92% 93% 94% 95% 98% 97%
No 5% 5% 8% 7% 6% 5% 2% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
66
Q20 All things considered, would you tell your friends with
disabilities to go to VT DVR program for help?
(% yes)
100.0% 93.6% 93.2% 95.2% 94.8%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
67
All things considered, would you tell your friends with disabilities to go to the Vermont
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation program for help?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 93.6%
2006 93.2%
2008 95.2%
2011 94.8%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 97.3%
St. Albans/Newport 96.9%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 93.1%
Barre/Morrisville 98.3%
Rutland/Bennington 94.3%
Springfield/Brattleboro 92.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 94.2%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 94.7%
St. Albans/Newport 91.7%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 92.8%
Barre/Morrisville 93.7%
Rutland/Bennington 95.4%
Springfield/Brattleboro 98.5%
Rural and Agricultural VR 96.7%
(% of respondents indicating yes)
68
Comments:
In 2011, 95% of clients indicated that they would tell their friends with similar disabilities to go
to the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation for help. This is comparable to the
percentage in 2008.
69
Evaluation of Specific Aspects of the Agency and the Services
Provided
In 2011, 91% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with their control
and involvement in the vocational rehabilitation experience.
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with their choice
of a vocational goal.
In 2011, 88% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the choice of
services available.
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the choice of
service providers.
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the
information they were given about the choices they had.
In 2011, 88% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the time it
took counselors to answer their questions or address their concerns.
In 2011, 93%, of clients found completing the application for vocational
rehabilitation services very or somewhat easy.
In 2011, 92% of clients indicated that the staff were very or somewhat
helpful in helping them to achieve their vocational rehabilitation goals.
In 2011, 89% of clients indicated that it was very or somewhat easy to
contact their vocational rehabilitation counselor.
In 2006, nearly all clients (99%) found the agency office very or
somewhat accessible to someone with their type of disability.
In 2011, 72% of clients indicated that the services they received helped
them become more financially independent.
In 2011, 97% of clients indicated that the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation staff treated them with dignity and respect.
70
In 2011, 72% of clients indicated that the agency helped them reach
their job goals.
71
In 2011, 91% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with their control and
involvement in the vocational rehabilitation experience.
Q04 How satisfied were you with your control and involvement in your
vocational rehabilitation experience?
100%
80%
59%
60%
40%
32%
20%
2% 4% 3%
0%
Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very dissatisfied 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 3% 1%
Dissatisfied 4% 4% 2% 8% 3% 7% 1% 3%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
3% 3% 7% 3% 1% 5% 5%
Satisfied 32% 34% 34% 23% 37% 33% 29% 37%
Very satisfied 59% 59% 55% 66% 55% 58% 63% 54%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
72
Q04 How satisfied were you with your control and
involvement in your vocational rehabilitation experience?
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
100.0%
89.8% 88.7% 91.0%
86.6%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
73
How satisfied were you with your control and involvement in your
vocational rehabilitation experience?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 86.6%
2006 89.8%
2008 88.7%
2011 91.0%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 87.3%
St. Albans/Newport 90.6%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 89.3%
Barre/Morrisville 90.6%
Rutland/Bennington 85.4%
Springfield/Brattleboro 89.4%
Rural and Agricultural VR 93.7%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 92.6%
St. Albans/Newport 88.5%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 89.2%
Barre/Morrisville 92.1%
Rutland/Bennington 90.8%
Springfield/Brattleboro 91.7%
Rural and Agricultural VR 91.4%
(% of respondents indicating satisfied or very satisfied)
74
Comments:
In 2011, 91% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with their control and involvement in
their vocational rehabilitation experience. This is an increase from 2008, though not statistically
significant.
In 2011, 59% of clients indicated that they were very satisfied with their control and
involvement, while 32% were satisfied. Three percent of clients indicated that they were neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied with their control and involvement, while only 6% indicated some level
of dissatisfaction (4% dissatisfied and 2% very dissatisfied).
Significant Differences by Group:
Clients aged 25 to 34 are significantly more likely to be satisfied than other VT DVR
clients (96% very satisfied or satisfied).
Among the 9% of clients that were not satisfied with their control and involvement in the
vocational rehabilitation experience:
25% indicated no services were provided or the services were of little help.
25% indicated they needed more support or guidance.
15% indicated did not find employment.
75
How satisfied were you with your control and involvement in your vocational rehabilitation
experience?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
25% 21% 33% 48% 21% 21% 7% 28%
much help
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
25% 36% 27% 50% 17% 17% 63%
support
WORK- Did not receive employment,
15% 54% 6% 13% 19% 7% 14%
Could not find me a job
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
13% 4% 11% 51% 23%
No follow up
STAFF - Counselor would not listen,
9% 15% 14% 8% 12% 11%
dismissed concerns
COMM - Hard to reach staff 7% 19% 4% 17%
EXPAND - more info needed, need to
5% 18% 9% 8%
broaden programs
WAIT - Haven't received services yet 5% 30%
Case was dropped, stopped receiving
5% 28%
services
EFFECTIVE - Fight to get services,
5% 5% 4% 22% 12%
help is limited
CONTROL - No control over
4% 10% 8% 12%
experience, told me what to do
STAFF - Listen to client, understand
3% 21%
needs, wants, ability
STAFF - Need someone with me. 2% 12%
WORK - No job, didn't receive much
2% 12%
job search help
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
2% 15%
available services
STAFF - staff attitude, disrespect,
1% 10%
unprofessional
EFFECTIVE - Program did not meet
0% 14%
expectations
STAFF - Counselor was ok, helpful,
0% 14%
positive
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
76
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with their choice of a
vocational goal.
Q05 How satisfied were you with your choice of a vocational goal?
100%
80%
60%
52%
40% 38%
20%
3% 4% 3%
0%
Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very dissatisfied 3% 3% 3% 2% 7% 2% 2% 1%
Dissatisfied 4% 3% 5% 8% 5% 3% 3% 4%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
3% 7% 4% 2% 2% 4% 1% 7%
Satisfied 38% 33% 32% 33% 36% 45% 43% 40%
Very satisfied 52% 54% 57% 56% 50% 47% 52% 47%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
77
Q05 How satisfied were you with your choice of a vocational goal?
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
100.0%
90.1% 89.0% 89.6%
86.7%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
78
How satisfied were you with your choice of a vocational goal?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 86.7%
2006 90.1%
2008 89.0%
2011 89.6%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 93.4%
St. Albans/Newport 90.1%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 83.0%
Barre/Morrisville 87.3%
Rutland/Bennington 89.3%
Springfield/Brattleboro 88.4%
Rural and Agricultural VR 90.0%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 87.0%
St. Albans/Newport 88.8%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 88.1%
Barre/Morrisville 86.0%
Rutland/Bennington 91.7%
Springfield/Brattleboro 94.5%
Rural and Agricultural VR 87.8%
(% of respondents indicating satisfied or very satisfied)
79
Comments:
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with their choice of a vocational goal.
This is comparable to the percentage in 2008.
In 2011, 52% of clients indicated that they were very satisfied with the choice of a vocational
goal, while 38% were satisfied. Three percent of clients indicated that they were neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied with the choice of a vocational goal, while only 7% indicated some level of
dissatisfaction (4% dissatisfied and 3% very dissatisfied).
Among the 10% of clients that were not satisfied with their choice of a vocational goal:
26% indicated they could not find a job.
20% needed more guidance or support.
17% indicated no services were provided or were of little help.
80
How satisfied were you with your choice of a vocational goal?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
WORK- Did not receive employment,
26% 40% 36% 17% 35% 10% 12% 9%
Could not find me a job
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
20% 17% 15% 13% 22% 46% 21%
support
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
17% 4% 35% 43% 12% 11% 10%
much help
EFFECTIVE - training did not match
8% 6% 4% 18% 28% 10%
with interest, ability
SUPPORT - More services needed to
7% 23% 5% 13%
help with career goals
COMM - No follow up, should follow
5% 9% 21%
up more often
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with services
4% 16% 11%
and counselor
EFFECTIVE - No goal set 4% 19%
WORK - Lost job 3% 21%
EFFECTIVE - Didn't establish any job
3% 4% 14%
goals
EFFECTIVE - agency did not follow
3% 20%
through original plan
WORK -No job yet-still working on
3% 6% 13% 11%
achieving goals
NOT ELIGIBLE - Denied assistance 3% 28%
EFFECTIVE - Never received help 3% 18%
CONTROL - More control over VR
3% 11%
experience, services
EDUCATION- Did not receive needed
2% 6% 10%
education, training
EFFECTIVE - Speed up process of
2% 14%
obtaining services
WORK - No job, didn't receive much
2% 14%
job search help
EFFECTIVE - A lot of ideas, but no
2% 12%
action
WORK - Disability, health makes it
0% 11%
difficult to find work
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response. Blanks represent
cases where no client gave this response.
81
In 2011, 88% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the choice of
services available.
Q06 How satisfied were you with the choice of services that were
available?
100%
80%
60%
52%
40% 35%
20%
3% 5% 5%
0%
Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very dissatisfied 3% 2% 4% 3% 5% 2% 2% 1%
Dissatisfied 5% 9% 2% 5% 5% 3% 3% 7%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
5% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 3% 7%
Satisfied 35% 30% 41% 34% 35% 34% 39% 34%
Very satisfied 52% 53% 46% 54% 50% 56% 52% 51%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
82
Q06 How satisfied were you with the choice of services that were
available?
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
100.0%
88.1% 87.5%
83.8% 84.9%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
83
How satisfied were you with the choice of services that were available?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 83.8%
2006 84.9%
2008 88.1%
2011 87.5%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 84.9%
St. Albans/Newport 91.5%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 87.1%
Barre/Morrisville 86.0%
Rutland/Bennington 89.2%
Springfield/Brattleboro 89.2%
Rural and Agricultural VR 90.0%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 82.9%
St. Albans/Newport 87.9%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 88.0%
Barre/Morrisville 85.1%
Rutland/Bennington 90.1%
Springfield/Brattleboro 91.3%
Rural and Agricultural VR 84.9%
(% of respondents indicating satisfied or very satisfied)
84
Comments:
In 2011, 88% percent of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the choice of services
available. This is comparable to the percentage in 2008.
In 2006, 52% of clients indicated that they were very satisfied with the choice of services, while
35% were satisfied. Five percent of clients indicated that they were neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied with the choice of services available, while only 8% indicated some level of
dissatisfaction (5% dissatisfied and 3% very dissatisfied).
Among the 13% of clients that were not satisfied with the choice of services available:
17% indicated that no services were provided or were of little help.
17% indicated they needed more guidance and support.
13% were not aware of available services.
85
How satisfied were you with the choice of services that were available?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
17% 5% 14% 40% 21% 27% 7% 14%
much help
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
17% 17% 15% 24% 12% 35% 19%
support
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
13% 6% 5% 13% 27% 19% 7% 18%
available services
WORK- Did not receive employment,
12% 11% 31% 8% 5% 17% 7%
Could not find me a job
EXPAND - More services options,
9% 20% 3% 5% 21%
more programs
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with services
8% 10% 4% 18% 11% 6%
and counselor
EFFECTIVE - training did not match
8% 17% 24% 7%
with interest, ability
EFFECTIVE - agency was not very
8% 5% 10% 15% 18%
productive, effective
EXPAND - more info needed, need to
5% 11% 5% 11%
broaden programs
EXPAND - Denied, stopped services
4% 6% 8% 10% 7%
due to lack of funding
EFFECTIVE - No help, very little help 3% 10% 16%
EXPAND - More funds needed to
3% 8% 10%
expand and improve programs
CONTROL - Felt pushed to do job, not
2% 16%
what was wanted
WORK - Dissatisfied with job, not what
2% 16%
they wanted
EFFECTIVE - used own resources to
2% 17%
get job, training
STAFF - More caring, understanding
2% 17%
and encouraging staff
WORK - Had to find job, services on
2% 17%
own
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
2% 4% 14%
No follow up
EFFECTIVE - Did not receive much
1% 10%
help with goal
COMM - No follow through, get run
1% 11%
around, nothing done
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response. Blanks represent
cases where no client gave this response.
86
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the choice of
service providers.
Q07 How satisfied were you with the choice of service providers?
100%
80%
60%
60%
40%
30%
20%
5%
2% 2%
0%
Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very dissatisfied 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 1% 3%
Dissatisfied 5% 4% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 1%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 4% 1% 3%
Satisfied 30% 30% 34% 25% 31% 32% 30% 32%
Very satisfied 60% 63% 55% 62% 57% 58% 63% 62%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
87
Q07 How satisfied were you with the choice of service providers?
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
100.0%
88.4% 90.3% 90.3%
86.2%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
88
How satisfied were you with the choice of service providers?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 86.2%
2006 88.4%
2008 90.3%
2011 90.3%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 90.3%
St. Albans/Newport 90.4%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 89.3%
Barre/Morrisville 96.3%
Rutland/Bennington 85.1%
Springfield/Brattleboro 92.1%
Rural and Agricultural VR 91.1%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 93.0%
St. Albans/Newport 89.2%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 87.1%
Barre/Morrisville 88.5%
Rutland/Bennington 89.3%
Springfield/Brattleboro 92.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 93.1%
(% of respondents indicating satisfied or very satisfied)
89
Comments:
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the choice of providers. This is
comparable to the percentage in 2008.
In 2011, 60% of clients indicated that they were very satisfied with the choice of services, while
30% were satisfied. Two percent of clients indicated that they were neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied with the choice of services available, while only 7% indicated some level of
dissatisfaction (5% dissatisfied and 2% very dissatisfied).
Among the 9% of clients that were not satisfied with the choice of service providers:
25% needed more support or guidance.
23% indicated that no services were provided or were of little help.
17% indicated their counselor did not return calls or follow up.
15% were dissatisfied with the services and their counselor.
90
How satisfied were you with the choice of service providers?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
25% 27% 18% 19% 39% 28% 21% 14%
support
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
23% 23% 30% 33% 23% 23% 13%
much help
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
17% 10% 7% 18% 12% 32% 13% 21%
No follow up
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with services
15% 9% 4% 41% 15% 21% 13%
and counselor
STAFF - Counselor would not listen,
12% 45% 9% 16% 7% 30%
dismissed concerns
WORK- Did not receive employment,
10% 23% 21% 7% 7% 5%
Could not find me a job
STAFF - Changing counselors,
9% 17% 19% 17%
switching too much
STAFF - staff attitude, disrespect,
5% 10% 6% 7% 8%
unprofessional
EXPAND - More services options,
4% 16% 4% 8%
more programs
INFO - clear, detailed information about
4% 11% 9%
services offered
STAFF - Counselors make more effort,
3% 10% 7%
client does work
REFERRED - Referred to another
3% 21%
agency
WORK - completed testing, training but
3% 6% 10%
still no job
COMM -Person never available
3% 20%
(meetings, out of office)
STAFF - Poor client-counselor
2% 12%
relationship
EFFECTIVE - Program did not meet
2% 11%
expectations
WORK - Had to find job, services on
2% 10%
own
WORK - Unable or too difficult to work
2% 10%
due to disability
STAFF - Counselor too busy, pushed
0% 17%
aside
STAFF - More supervision of staff,
0% 11%
management of services
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
91
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the information
they were given about the choices they had.
Q08 How satisfied were you with the kind and amount of information
you were given about the choices you had?
100%
80%
60% 54%
40% 36%
20%
5% 3%
2%
0%
Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very dissatisfied 2% % 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2%
Dissatisfied 5% 6% 2% 9% 5% 5% 3% 3%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
3% 5% 2% 4% 2% 4% 3% 4%
Satisfied 36% 36% 38% 34% 38% 32% 37% 37%
Very satisfied 54% 53% 54% 52% 51% 57% 55% 54%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
92
Q08 How satisfied were you with the kind and amount of information you
were given about the choices you had?
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
100.0%
88.3% 89.5%
83.8% 85.2%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
93
How satisfied were you with the kind and amount of information you were given
about the choices you had?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 83.8%
2006 85.2%
2008 88.3%
2011 89.5% U2003
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 88.6%
St. Albans/Newport 86.7%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 85.6%
Barre/Morrisville 93.7%
Rutland/Bennington 87.9%
Springfield/Brattleboro 87.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 87.6%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 88.6%
St. Albans/Newport 92.7%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 85.7%
Barre/Morrisville 89.0%
Rutland/Bennington 88.4%
Springfield/Brattleboro 92.0%
Rural and Agricultural VR 90.9%
(% of respondents indicating satisfied or very satisfied)
94
Comments:
In 2011, 90% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the information they were provided
about their choices. This percentage has been trending higher since 2003.
In 2011, 54% of clients indicated that they were very satisfied with the information provided,
while 36% were satisfied. Three percent of clients indicated that they were neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied with the information provided, while only 8% indicated some level of dissatisfaction
(5% dissatisfied and 3% very dissatisfied).
Significant Differences by Group:
Clients under age 25 are significantly more likely to be satisfied than other VT DVR
clients (96% very satisfied or satisfied).
Among the 11% of clients that were not satisfied with the information they were provided
about their choices:
21% needed more support or guidance.
16% indicated they were unaware of available services.
16% indicated that no services were provided or services were of little help.
95
How satisfied were you with the kind and amount of information you were given
about the choices you had?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
21% 13% 19% 13% 30% 39% 6% 31%
support
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
16% 9% 18% 41% 20% 7% 15%
available services
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
16% 4% 38% 20% 17% 13% 14% 19%
much help
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with services
12% 8% 23% 13% 8% 10% 18% 12%
and counselor
EXPAND - more info needed, need to
11% 14% 14% 19% 18% 12%
broaden programs
EFFECTIVE - training did not match
8% 26% 9% 8% 12%
with interest, ability
WORK- Did not receive employment,
7% 4% 9% 14% 22%
Could not find me a job
STAFF - Listen to client, understand
7% 6% 8% 7% 24%
needs, wants, ability
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
7% 20% 15% 10%
employment choices
EFFECTIVE - counselor was holding
6% 4% 7% 7% 17%
out, not giving full options
INFO - Not enough information
5% 7% 7% 17%
provided
INFO - clear, detailed information about
3% 9% 14%
services offered
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
3% 6% 12%
No follow up
CONTROL - More control over VR
3% 18%
experience, services
STAFF - Honest counselors, clear about
2% 17%
what can be done
EFFECTIVE - used own resources to
2% 10%
get job, training
COMM - Better communication needed 2% 14%
EXPAND - Funding problems, No
0% 11%
money for services
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
96
In 2011, 88% of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with the time it took
counselors to answer their questions or address their concerns.
Q09 How satisfied were you with how long it took your counselor to
answer your questions or address your concerns?
100%
80%
60% 58%
40%
30%
20%
3% 5% 4%
0%
Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very dissatisfied 3% 2% 3% 3% 6% 4% 2% 1%
Dissatisfied 5% 5% 4% 10% 7% 5% 3% 2%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
4% 5% 3% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3%
Satisfied 30% 36% 31% 26% 26% 22% 39% 29%
Very satisfied 58% 54% 58% 55% 58% 66% 52% 65%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
97
Q09 How satisfied were you with how long it took your counselor to answer
your questions or address your concerns?
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
100.0%
88.3% 86.6% 87.7%
85.3%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
98
How satisfied were you with how long it took your counselor to answer your
questions or address your concerns?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 85.3%
2006 88.3%
2008 86.6%
2011 87.7%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 87.7%
St. Albans/Newport 83.6%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 90.8%
Barre/Morrisville 92.8%
Rutland/Bennington 83.8%
Springfield/Brattleboro 84.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 85.1%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 89.1%
St. Albans/Newport 89.5%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 80.7%
Barre/Morrisville 83.8%
Rutland/Bennington 88.0%
Springfield/Brattleboro 91.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 93.9%
(% of respondents indicating satisfied or very satisfied)
99
Comments:
In 2011, 88% percent of clients were very satisfied or satisfied with how long it took their
counselor to answer their questions or address their concerns. This is an increase from 2008,
though not statistically significant.
In 2011, 58% of clients indicated that they were very satisfied with how long it took their
counselor to answer questions or address concerns, while 30% were satisfied. Four percent of
clients indicated that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with how long it took their
counselor to answer questions or address concerns, while only 8% indicated some level of
dissatisfaction (5% dissatisfied and 3% very dissatisfied).
Among the 12% of clients that were not satisfied with how long it took their counselor to
answer their questions or address their concerns:
30% indicated their counselor did not return calls or follow-up.
24% indicated it was hard to reach staff.
100
How satisfied were you with how long it took your counselor to answer your
questions or address your concerns?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
30% 51% 15% 23% 14% 51% 19% 34%
No follow up
COMM - Hard to reach staff 24% 20% 24% 18% 13% 27% 53% 14%
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
12% 6% 18% 9% 25% 18% 16%
support
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with services
12% 15% 6% 5% 5% 28% 6% 53%
and counselor
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
10% 7% 21% 17% 7% 29%
much help
EFFECTIVE - Broken promises, no
7% 10% 6% 15% 11%
follow thru
COMM - Time lags to get services,
7% 8% 25% 7%
appointments
COMM - Return call wait, too long
6% 12% 10% 12%
returning calls
STAFF - Counselor would not listen,
6% 17% 6% 12% 19%
dismissed concerns
STAFF - Changing counselors,
5% 23% 7% 17%
switching too much
WORK- Did not receive employment,
5% 19% 5% 10%
Could not find me a job
STAFF - Counselor too busy, pushed
5% 4% 5% 5% 12% 19%
aside
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
4% 20% 9%
available services
EFFECTIVE - Speed up process of
4% 3% 6% 12%
obtaining services
STAFF - Office/counselor disorganized 2% 12%
STAFF - New counselor, location who
2% 10%
meets clients needs
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
101
In 2011, 93%, of clients found completing the application for vocational
rehabilitation services very or somewhat easy.
Q10 How easy was it for you to complete an application for vocational
rehabilitation services?
100%
80% 76%
60%
40%
20% 17%
5%
2%
0%
Very difficult Somewhat difficult Somewhat easy Very easy
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very difficult 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3%
Somewhat difficult 5% 4% 4% 6% 2% 9% 3% 3%
Somewhat easy 17% 20% 11% 23% 21% 9% 18% 18%
Very easy 76% 76% 82% 72% 74% 78% 76% 78%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
102
Q10 How easy was it for you to complete an application for vocational
rehabilitation services?
(% very or somewhat easy)
100.0% 93.2%
90.3% 89.8% 89.9%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
103
How easy was it for you to complete an application for vocational rehabilitation services?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 90.3%
2006 89.8%
2008 89.9%
2011 93.2%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 87.2%
St. Albans/Newport 87.9%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 88.8%
Barre/Morrisville 96.4%
Rutland/Bennington 94.1%
Springfield/Brattleboro 84.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 94.0%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 95.8%
St. Albans/Newport 93.6%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 94.2%
Barre/Morrisville 95.3%
Rutland/Bennington 87.3%
Springfield/Brattleboro 93.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 96.7%
(% of respondents indicating very or somewhat easy)
104
Comments:
In 2011, 93% of clients found the process of completing the application for vocational
rehabilitation services very or somewhat easy. This is an increase from 2008, though not
statistically significant.
In 2011, 76% of clients indicated that completing the application was very easy, while 17%
indicated it was somewhat easy. Only 7% indicated that completing the application for
vocational rehabilitation services was difficult (5% somewhat difficult and 2% very difficult).
Among the 7% of clients that indicated that completing the application for vocational
rehabilitation services was somewhat or very difficult:
29% required help or indicated their counselor completed paperwork.
13% had trouble filling out forms and needed help.
12% had trouble understanding terms.
How easy was it for you to complete an application for vocational rehabilitation services?
Primary Reasons not Easy
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
HELP - Someone else helped, counselor
29% 30% 21% 30% 24% 5% 58% 44%
did paperwork
HELP - Trouble filling out forms,
13% 10% 12% 12% 30% 8% 9%
needed help
CONDITION - Trouble understanding,
12% 18% 27% 13% 10% 15%
terms, language, confused
CONDITION - Trouble because of
11% 13% 23% 2% 23% 8%
disability
CONDIITON - Trouble reading,
10% 16% 7% 5% 17% 13% 5%
writing, education
HARD - Hard, Somewhat difficult,
7% 2% 9% 19% 5% 13%
complicated
HARD - Directions, questions could
6% 3% 4% 4% 9% 8% 9%
have been clearer
CONDITION - Some questions had to
3% 3% 14% 3%
be explained, complicated
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
105
In 2011, 92% of clients indicated that the staff were very or somewhat helpful
in helping them to achieve their vocational rehabilitation goals.
Q11 How helpful were the staff of VT DVR in helping you achieve your
vocational rehabilitation goals?
100%
82%
80%
60%
40%
20%
10%
5% 3%
0%
Not at all helpful Not very helpful Somewhat helpful Very helpful
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Not at all helpful 5% % 6% 10% 6% 3% 5% 3%
Not very helpful 3% 10% 3% 5% 2% 6%
Somewhat helpful 10% 8% 13% 9% 15% 9% 8% 9%
Very helpful 82% 81% 81% 78% 75% 86% 87% 82%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
106
Q11 How helpful were the staff of VT DVR in helping you achieve your
vocational rehabilitation goals?
(% very or somewhat helpful)
100.0% 92.8% 92.1% 91.7% 92.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
107
How helpful were the staff of the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in helping
you achieve your vocational rehabilitation goals?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 92.8%
2006 92.1%
2008 91.7%
2011 92.0%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 89.5%
St. Albans/Newport 90.9%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 88.7%
Barre/Morrisville 96.2%
Rutland/Bennington 90.9%
Springfield/Brattleboro 92.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 95.9%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 89.7%
St. Albans/Newport 93.9%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 86.9%
Barre/Morrisville 89.9%
Rutland/Bennington 94.9%
Springfield/Brattleboro 95.2%
Rural and Agricultural VR 90.7%
(% of respondents indicating very or somewhat helpful)
108
Comments:
In 2011, 92% of clients indicated that the staff were very or somewhat helpful in helping them
achieve their vocational rehabilitation goals. This is comparable to the percentage in 2008.
In 2011, 82% of clients indicated that the staff were very helpful; while 10% indicated that the
staff were somewhat helpful in help them achieve their goals. Only 8% indicated that the staff
were not helpful in helping them achieve their vocational rehabilitation goals (3% not very
helpful and 5% not at all helpful).
Significant Differences by Group:
Clients with cases closed unsuccessfully are significantly less likely to be satisfied than
other VT DVR clients (75% very satisfied or satisfied).
Among the 8% of clients that indicated that the staff were not helpful in helping them to
achieve their vocational rehabilitation goals:
26% needed more support or guidance.
19% indicated they did not find a job.
15% indicated the services provided were not very effective.
15% indicated no services were provided or the services were of little help.
109
How helpful were the staff of the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation in helping
you achieve your vocational rehabilitation goals?
Primary Reasons not Helpful
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
26% 35% 10% 18% 29% 40% 18% 21%
support
WORK- Did not receive employment,
19% 18% 30% 23% 13% 21% 13% 10%
Could not find me a job
EFFECTIVE - No help, very little help 15% 18% 7% 12% 20% 14% 20% 16%
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
15% 3% 14% 22% 19% 30% 25%
much help
SUPPORT - Did not achieve goal,
12% 16% 20% 9% 4% 6% 23% 7%
working on, need guidance
WORK - No job, didn't receive much
12% 29% 7% 17% 4% 5% 5% 17%
job search help
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
9% 4% 13% 15% 3% 24%
No follow up
POSITIVE - they tried to help, received
6% 8% 3% 6% 13% 13%
some help
INFO - Not enough information
4% 21% 3% 4%
provided
COMM - Better communication needed 3% 2% 7% 11%
EXPAND - Funding problems, No
3% 18% 13%
money for services
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
3% 13% 3%
available services
STAFF - Counselor too busy, pushed
2% 11%
aside
STAFF - Qualified staff, knowledge of
1% 11%
disabilities, services
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response. Blanks represent
cases where no client gave this response.
110
In 2011, 89% of clients indicated that it was very or somewhat easy to contact
their vocational rehabilitation counselor.
Q12 How easy was it for you to contact your vocational rehabilitation
counselor?
100%
80% 77%
60%
40%
20%
12%
7%
4%
0%
Very difficult Somewhat difficult Somewhat easy Very easy
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very difficult 4% 1% 5% 3% 3% 5% 6% 1%
Somewhat difficult 7% 4% 4% 12% 9% 10% 5%
Somewhat easy 12% 17% 11% 16% 10% 8% 11% 12%
Very easy 77% 78% 81% 70% 77% 76% 79% 87%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
111
Q12 How easy was it for you to contact your vocational rehabilitation
counselor?
(% very or somewhat easy)
100.0% 92.1%
88.6% 90.1% 89.3%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
112
How easy was it for you to contact your vocational rehabilitation counselor?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 88.6%
2006 92.1%
2008 90.1%
2011 89.3%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 91.7%
St. Albans/Newport 90.5%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 90.9%
Barre/Morrisville 92.8%
Rutland/Bennington 89.3%
Springfield/Brattleboro 86.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 92.0%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 94.9%
St. Albans/Newport 91.5%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 85.8%
Barre/Morrisville 87.6%
Rutland/Bennington 84.8%
Springfield/Brattleboro 89.5%
Rural and Agricultural VR 99.1% + +
(% of respondents indicating very or somewhat easy)
113
Comments:
In 2011, 89% of clients indicated that it was somewhat or very easy to contact their vocational
rehabilitation counselor. This is comparable to the percentage in 2008.
In 2011, 77% of clients indicated that it was very easy to contact their vocational rehabilitation
counselor, while 12% indicated that it was somewhat easy to contact their vocational
rehabilitation counselor. Only 11% indicated that it was difficult to contact their vocational
rehabilitation counselor (7% somewhat difficult and 4% very difficult).
Significant Differences by Group:
Rural and Agricultural VR (2011 score is significantly greater than the score for VT DVR
as a whole).
Rural and Agricultural VR (a significant increase from 2008 to 2011).
Among the 11% of clients that indicated that it was difficult to reach their vocational
rehabilitation counselor:
30% indicated they and their counselor made many calls before getting in touch.
28% indicated leaving multiple messages before receiving a call back.
16% indicated their counselor did not return calls or follow up.
114
How easy was it for you to contact your vocational rehabilitation counselor?
Primary Reasons not Easy
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
COMM - Leave multiple messages
30% 30% 17% 41% 29% 25% 36% 11%
before getting a call back
COMM - Phone tag - leave a message
28% 28% 20% 29% 33% 20% 36% 36%
and counselor called back
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
16% 3% 8% 5% 18% 42% 14% 19%
No follow up
COMM - Calls, mail not returned for
13% 17% 20% 10% 14% 11% 14%
days, weeks, wait
COMM - Hard to reach counselor 13% 12% 24% 19% 11% 3% 13%
COMM - Voicemail, leave message,
11% 14% 12% 8% 15% 11% 8% 6%
Never answer phone
COMM -They are too busy, They have
6% 15% 10% 10% 4% 7%
large caseloads
COMM -Person never available
3% 20% 4% 3%
(meetings, out of office)
POSITIVE - Easy able to reach
2% 7% 2% 13%
counselor with no problems
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response. Blanks represent
cases where no client gave this response.
115
In 2006, nearly all clients (99%) found the agency office very or somewhat
accessible to someone with their type of disability.
Q13 How accessible was the VT DVR office for someone with your type
of disability?
100% 95%
80%
60%
40%
20%
4%
0% 1%
0%
Not at all accessible Not very accessible Somewhat accessible Very accessible
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Not at all accessible 0% 1% 1%
Not very accessible 1% % 1% 1% 1% 2%
Somewhat accessible 4% 3% 1% 3% 9% 3% 3% 2%
Very accessible 95% 96% 97% 96% 91% 96% 96% 97%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
116
Q13 How accessible was the VT DVR office for someone with your type
of disability?
(% very or somewhat accessible)
98.7% 99.0% 98.1% 99.0%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
117
How accessible was the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation office for someone
with your type of disability?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 98.7%
2006 99.0%
2008 98.1%
2011 99.0%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 97.2%
St. Albans/Newport 95.8%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 97.4%
Barre/Morrisville 99.2%
Rutland/Bennington 99.5%
Springfield/Brattleboro 98.7%
Rural and Agricultural VR 96.7%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 99.7%
St. Albans/Newport 98.0%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 98.6%
Barre/Morrisville 100.0%
Rutland/Bennington 99.1%
Springfield/Brattleboro 98.4%
Rural and Agricultural VR 98.7%
(% of respondents indicating very or somewhat accessible)
118
Comments:
In 2011, 99% of clients indicated that the office was very or somewhat accessible to someone
with their type of disability. This is comparable to the percentage in 2008.
In 2011, 95% of clients indicated that the office was very accessible, while 4% indicated that it
was somewhat accessible. Only 1% indicated that the office was not very accessible to someone
with their type of disability.
Among the few clients that indicated that the office was not accessible:
17% indicated difficulty with parking and handicapped parking.
12% indicated office was not accessible at all.
11% indicated difficulties with elevators and stairs.
119
How accessible was the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation office for someone
with your type of disability?
Primary Reasons not Accessible
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
TRANS - Parking, handicap parking,
17% 40% 15% 54%
parking
NEGATIVE - Not accessible at all 12% 37% 39%
OFFICE - Elevators and stairs 11% 13% 34% 26% 34%
TRANS - Lots of walking 9% 13% 44% 16%
CONDITION - No materials, braille,
9% 20% 19%
interpreters, large print
STAFF - Did not listen to my needs 6% 35%
STAFF - More caring, understanding
6% 35%
and encouraging staff
STAFF - More supervision of staff,
5% 17%
management of services
STAFF - No cooperation, no help 5% 17%
STAFF - Some good, some bad
5% 17%
counselors
COMM - Better communication needed 5% 11% 13%
INFO - Not enough information
4% 16%
provided
POSITIVE - Fine, somewhat accessible 4% 16%
OFFICE - Mobility in building, small,
4% 8% 11%
hard getting around
TRANS - Traffic 4% 21%
ACCESS - Greater accessibility of the
4% 33%
VR office
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
4% 13%
much help
TRANS - Distance, bus routes, train
2% 19% 34%
station
TRANS - Transportation issue 2% 11%
TRANS - Transportation in general 1% 37%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response. Blanks represent
cases where no client gave this response.
120
In 2011, 72% of clients indicated that the services they received helped them
become more financially independent.
Q14 Next I am going to read a list of statements and I would like to
know how strongly you agree or disagree. The vocational rehabilitation
services I received helped me become more financially independent.
100%
80%
60%
46%
40%
26%
20%
9% 11%
8%
0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly agree
disagree disagree nor disagree agree
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Strongly disagree 9% 6% 9% 14% 15% 8% 5% 15%
Somewhat disagree 8% 5% 11% 9% 2% 13% 5% 8%
Neither agree nor
disagree
11% 18% 11% 4% 10% 5% 16% 8%
Somewhat agree 26% 23% 25% 27% 27% 23% 32% 23%
Strongly agree 46% 49% 43% 46% 46% 51% 42% 46%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
121
Q14 Next I am going to read a list of statements and I would like to
know how strongly you agree or disagree. The vocational rehabilitation
services I received helped me become more financially independent.
(% stronly or somewhat agree)
100.0%
80.0% 71.0% 72.3%
69.5%
66.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
122
The vocational rehabilitation services I received helped me become
more financially independent.
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 69.5%
2006 66.0%
2008 71.0%
2011 72.3%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 71.7%
St. Albans/Newport 69.5%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 65.7%
Barre/Morrisville 76.0%
Rutland/Bennington 69.1%
Springfield/Brattleboro 72.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 73.5%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 71.2%
St. Albans/Newport 68.4%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 73.1%
Barre/Morrisville 73.0%
Rutland/Bennington 73.8%
Springfield/Brattleboro 74.3%
Rural and Agricultural VR 69.3%
(% of respondents indicating strongly or somewhat agree)
123
Comments:
Clients were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement “The vocational
rehabilitation services I received helped me become more financially independent.”
In 2011, 72% of clients somewhat or strongly agreed that the services they received had helped
them become more financially independent. This is an increase from the percentage in 2008,
though not statistically significant.
In 2011, 46% strongly agreed with this statement while 26% somewhat agreed that the services
provided by vocational rehabilitation helped them to become more financially independent.
Eleven percent of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statements. Seventeen
percent of clients disagreed that the services provided by vocational rehabilitation helped them to
become more financially independent (with 9% strongly disagreeing and 8% somewhat
disagreeing with the statement).
Among the 28% of clients that did not agree that the services they received helped them
become more financially independent:
36% indicated they did not find employment.
22% indicated no services were provided or were of little help.
19% indicated they did not receive needed testing.
12% indicated they needed more guidance and support.
124
The vocational rehabilitation services I received helped me become
more financially independent.
Primary Reasons Disagree
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
WORK- Did not receive employment,
36% 65% 52% 29% 38% 21% 21% 35%
Could not find me a job
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
22% 17% 18% 20% 41% 31% 8%
much help
TEST - Didn't receive needed, desired
19% 15% 24% 28% 10% 11% 34% 28%
testing
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
17% 21% 8% 11% 28% 24% 29%
support
FINANCE - No change financially 10% 7% 7% 19% 3% 38% 14%
WORK - Cannot find better paying job,
7% 8% 12% 17% 7%
not earning much
FINANCE- Did not receive needed
6% 4% 14% 7% 3% 12% 8%
financial help
WORK - Unable or too difficult to work
6% 10% 7% 9% 22%
due to disability
EFFECTIVE - used own resources to
4% 11% 5% 13%
get job, training
STAFF - staff, counselor didn't listen 2% 19%
WORK - Had to find job, services on
2% 19%
own
EFFECTIVE - Agency closed case or
1% 11%
stopped services
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
125
In 2011, 97% of clients indicated that the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation staff treated them with dignity and respect.
Q15 Next I am going to read a list of statements and I would like to
know how strongly you agree or disagree. The VT DVR staff treated me
with dignity and respect.
100%
88%
80%
60%
40%
20%
9%
0% 2% 1%
0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly agree
disagree disagree nor disagree agree
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Strongly disagree 0% 1% 1% 1%
Somewhat disagree 2% 1% 4% 5% 3% 1%
Neither agree nor
disagree
1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2%
Somewhat agree 9% 8% 9% 10% 12% 9% 7% 4%
Strongly agree 88% 89% 86% 84% 82% 90% 91% 93%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
126
Q15 Next I am going to read a list of statements and I would like to
know how strongly you agree or disagree. The VT DVR staff treated me
with dignity and respect.
(% strongly or somewhat agree)
96.2% 97.2% 96.8% 96.5%
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
127
The Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation staff treated
me with dignity and respect.
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 96.2%
2006 97.2%
2008 96.8%
2011 96.5%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 92.9%
St. Albans/Newport 97.9%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 98.4%
Barre/Morrisville 99.4%
Rutland/Bennington 96.1%
Springfield/Brattleboro 97.8%
Rural and Agricultural VR 96.4%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 96.7%
St. Albans/Newport 94.9%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 93.8%
Barre/Morrisville 94.5%
Rutland/Bennington 98.9%
Springfield/Brattleboro 98.5%
Rural and Agricultural VR 97.3%
(% of respondents indicating strongly or somewhat agree)
128
Comments:
Clients were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement “The staff treated
me with dignity and respect.”
In 2011, 97% of clients somewhat or strongly agreed that staff had treated them with dignity and
respect. This is comparable to the percentage in 2008.
In 2011, 88% strongly of clients strongly agreed with this statement, while 9% somewhat agreed
that the staff of vocational rehabilitation treated them with dignity and respect. One percent of
clients neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement while 2% somewhat disagreed with the
statement.
Among the few clients that felt the staff had not treated them with dignity and respect:
30% indicated the counselor or other staff were rude and did not treat them with respect.
30% indicated their counselor did not return calls or follow up.
26% indicated the staff did not listen to their needs.
129
The Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation staff treated
me with dignity and respect.
Primary Reasons Disagree
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
STAFF - Counselor, staff did not treat
30% 100% 22% 51% 27%
me with respect, rude
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
30% 100% 22% 21% 21% 100%
No follow up
STAFF - Did not listen to my needs 26% 30% 28% 100%
STAFF - Some good, some bad
16% 18% 100%
counselors
STAFF - Counselor was not helpful,
14% 18% 100%
supportive
POSITIVE - they tried to help, received
11% 100%
some help
COMM - Hard to reach counselor 6% 22%
EFFECTIVE - Never received help 6% 22%
CLIENT - Will not accept client back
6% 27%
into program
COMM - Better communication needed 6% 27%
EFFECTIVE - Don't close cases, cut
6% 27%
clients off
COMM - Hard to reach staff 5% 100%
NEGATIVE - Negative (general) 5% 25%
FINANCE - Financial help 4% 17%
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
4% 21%
support
STAFF - staff attitude, disrespect,
4% 14%
unprofessional
WORK- Did not receive employment,
4% 14%
Could not find me a job
EFFECTIVE - Broken promises, no
3% 12%
follow thru
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
1% 100%
much help
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
130
In 2011, 72% of clients indicated that the agency helped them reach their job
goals.
Q16 Next I am going to read a list of statements and I would like to
know how strongly you agree or disagree. VT DVR helped me reach my
job goals.
100%
80%
60%
48%
40%
24%
20%
11% 12%
5%
0%
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly agree
disagree disagree nor disagree agree
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Strongly disagree 11% 7% 11% 19% 15% 8% 8% 11%
Somewhat disagree 5% 11% 11% 3% 1% 6% 5%
Neither agree nor
disagree
12% 19% 7% 11% 10% 14% 9% 5%
Somewhat agree 24% 18% 22% 26% 32% 17% 30% 20%
Strongly agree 48% 44% 49% 40% 41% 55% 53% 60%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
131
Q16 Next I am going to read a list of statements and I would like to
know how strongly you agree or disagree. VT DVR helped me reach my
job goals.
(% strongly or somewhat agree)
100.0%
80.0% 71.6% 71.2% 73.1% 71.9%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
132
The Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation helped me reach my job goals.
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 71.6%
2006 71.2%
2008 73.1%
2011 71.9%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 72.6%
St. Albans/Newport 68.6%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 72.5%
Barre/Morrisville 81.8%
Rutland/Bennington 73.4%
Springfield/Brattleboro 70.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 73.0%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 62.6%
St. Albans/Newport 71.1%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 66.5%
Barre/Morrisville 73.2%
Rutland/Bennington 72.0%
Springfield/Brattleboro 82.6%
Rural and Agricultural VR 80.0%
(% of respondents indicating strongly or somewhat agree)
133
Comments:
Clients were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement “The agency helped
me reach my job goals.”
In 2011, 72% of clients somewhat or strongly agreed that the agency helped them reach their job
goals. This is a decrease compared to the percentage in 2008, though not statistically significant.
In 2011, 48% strongly of clients strongly agreed with this statement, while 24% somewhat
agreed that the agency helped them reach their job goal. Twelve percent of clients neither agreed
nor disagreed with this statement. Sixteen percent of clients disagreed that that the agency
helped them reach their job goal (with 11% strongly disagreeing and 5% somewhat disagreeing).
Significant Differences by Group:
Clients with cases closed successfully are significantly more likely to agree than other
VT DVR clients (86% very or somewhat agree).
Among the 28% of clients that indicated that the agency did not help them reach their job
goals:
48% indicated they did not find employment.
16% indicated that while they did not have a job they were working on achieving goals.
15% needed more support or guidance.
14% indicated no services were provided or services were of little help.
134
The Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation helped me reach my job goals.
Primary Reasons Disagree
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
WORK- Did not receive employment,
48% 67% 55% 47% 51% 28% 31% 30%
Could not find me a job
WORK -No job yet-still working on
16% 14% 3% 23% 7% 24% 27% 30%
achieving goals
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
15% 7% 11% 11% 24% 20% 29% 10%
support
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
14% 10% 12% 16% 30% 7% 8% 29%
much help
NEGATIVE - Program did nothing or
13% 11% 5% 14% 24% 10% 20% 9%
little to help
WORK - Had to find job, services on
13% 8% 14% 11% 13% 16% 13% 29%
own
WORK - Dissatisfied with job, not what
10% 7% 3% 9% 6% 28% 29%
they wanted
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
7% 4% 15% 7% 14%
No follow up
WORK - Help client get a job, more job
5% 5% 4% 14% 31%
services, job options
EFFECTIVE - No help, very little help 2% 20% 9%
STAFF - Very helpful 2% 10%
STAFF - Changing counselors,
1% 3% 11%
switching too much
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
135
Problems and Areas for Improvement
In 2011, 15% of clients indicated they had experienced problems with
the agency or the services provided by the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation.
Among those experiencing problems, 29% indicated that the agency
worked to resolve the problem.
In 2011, approximately four in ten clients offered suggestions for service
improvement.
136
In 2011, 15% of clients indicated they had experienced problems with the
agency or the services provided by the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation.
Q22 Have you experienced any problems with VT DVR or the services
they have provided to you?
100%
85%
80%
60%
40%
20% 15%
0%
Yes No
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 15% 15% 11% 15% 20% 15% 14% 7%
No 85% 85% 89% 85% 80% 85% 86% 93%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
137
Q22 Have you experienced any problems with VT DVR or the services
they have provided to you?
(% experiencing problems)
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
18.5% 18.3%
20.0% 13.3% 14.6%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
138
Have you experienced any problems with the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation or the services they have provided to you?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 18.5%
2006 18.3%
2008 13.3%
2011 14.6%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 14.9%
St. Albans/Newport 16.2%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 11.1%
Barre/Morrisville 10.8%
Rutland/Bennington 17.5%
Springfield/Brattleboro 10.4%
Rural and Agricultural VR 6.0%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 14.6%
St. Albans/Newport 11.0%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 14.6%
Barre/Morrisville 20.1%
Rutland/Bennington 15.2%
Springfield/Brattleboro 14.2%
Rural and Agricultural VR 6.6% -
(% of respondents indicating yes)
139
Comments:
In 2011, 15% of clients indicated that they had experience problems with the Vermont Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation or the services that the agency provided. This is an increase
compared to the percentage in 2008, though not statistically significant.
Significant Differences by Group:
Rural and Agricultural VR (significantly smaller percentage in 2011 reported
experiencing problems compared to VT DVR as a whole).
Among the 15% of clients that had experienced problems:
17% indicated they needed more guidance or support.
16% indicated their counselor did not return calls or follow up.
16% indicated it was difficult to reach staff.
16% indicated they did not find employment.
12% indicated they did not receive services or the services were of little help.
12% indicated the need for additional counselors.
10% needed more help in getting a job, more job services and options.
140
Have you experienced any problems with the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation or the services they have provided to you?
Primary Problems Experienced
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
17% 18% 21% 16% 16% 19% 10% 33%
support
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
16% 16% 25% 17% 12% 27% 3% 20%
No follow up
COMM - Hard to reach staff 16% 19% 28% 15% 12% 6% 24%
WORK- Did not receive employment,
16% 26% 17% 19% 12% 7% 18%
Could not find me a job
SUPPORT - No services provided, not
12% 3% 18% 25% 7% 14% 11% 29%
much help
STAFF - More counselors, staff,
12% 19% 14% 3% 20% 5% 10% 16%
counselors are overworked
WORK - Help client get a job, more job
10% 15% 16% 25% 7% 29%
services, job options
NEGATIVE - Program did nothing or
5% 5% 16% 7%
little to help
STAFF - Changing counselors,
5% 5% 5% 9% 8%
switching too much
POSITIVE - Took care of problem 4% 6% 17%
EFFECTIVE - Better meet needs, work
4% 5% 17%
closely with client
STAFF - staff attitude, disrespect,
4% 5% 4% 4% 10%
unprofessional
SERVICES - Services for visually
3% 17%
impaired, low vision aids
COMM - More contact, more frequent
3% 9% 13%
contact, more support
EFFECTIVE - No help, very little help 3% 7% 10%
COMM - Time lags to get services,
3% 14%
appointments
INFO - Not enough, unaware of
3% 7% 4% 6% 20%
available services
141
Have you experienced any problems with the Vermont Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation or the services they have provided to you?
Primary Problems Experienced
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
NEGATIVE - Dissatisfied with services
2% 6% 10%
and counselor
EFFECTIVE - Client felt
2% 11%
misunderstood
COMM - No follow up, should follow
2% 13%
up more often
CONTROL - Felt pushed to do job, not
0% 17%
what was wanted
EXPAND - more info needed, need to
0% 17%
broaden programs
POSITIVE- Commendable efforts,
0% 17%
services provided
WORK - Dissatisfied with job, not what
0% 17%
they wanted
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
142
Among those experiencing problems, 29% indicated that the agency worked
to resolve the problem.
Q23 Did VT DVR work to resolve this problem?
(% among those experiencing problems)
100%
80%
71%
60%
40%
29%
20%
0%
Yes No
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 29% 21% 15% 38% 35% 48% 54%
No 71% 79% 85% 100% 62% 65% 52% 46%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
143
Q23 Did VT DVR work to resolve this problem?
(% indicating yes among those experiencing problems)
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%
40.5%
40.0% 36.3%
29.4% 29.2%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
144
Did the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
work to resolve this problem?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 36.3%
2006 29.4%
2008 40.5%
2011 29.2%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 31.5%
St. Albans/Newport 36.8%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 44.8%
Barre/Morrisville 60.0%
Rutland/Bennington 51.6%
Springfield/Brattleboro 30.2%
Rural and Agricultural VR
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 21.4%
St. Albans/Newport 15.1%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 0.0%
Barre/Morrisville 37.6%
Rutland/Bennington 34.7%
Springfield/Brattleboro 47.7%
Rural and Agricultural VR 53.8%
(% of respondents indicating yes)
Comments:
In 2011, among those clients that had experienced problems, 29% indicated that the agency had
worked to resolve the problem. This is a decrease in the percentage since 2008, though not
statistically significant.
145
In 2011, approximately four in ten clients offered suggestions for service
improvement.
Comments:
At the end of the survey, clients were asked what the agency could do to improve the services
offered to the client and to others. These are summarized in the table below. Fifty-three percent
of clients indicated that there was nothing else the agency could do and 8% were unsure of
anything the agency could do to improve it services.
Three percent wanted better communication with the Division. Two percent of clients
mentioned the need for more counselors. Other suggestions included the need to expand and
improve programs (2%), the need to work more closely with clients (2%), increasing awareness
of VT DVR to help more people (2%), returning calls more promptly (2%), and following up
with clients (2%), , among other suggestions.
146
What could the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation do to improve the services it
offers to you and others?
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White River Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Junction VR
COMM - Better communication
3% 2% 4% 1% 5% 3% 3%
needed
STAFF - More counselors, staff,
2% 5% 5% 4% 1% 1% 1%
counselors are overworked
EXPAND - More funds needed to
2% 1% 5% 1% 2% 2% 1% 6%
expand and improve programs
EFFECTIVE - Better meet needs,
2% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4% 1%
work closely with client
INFO - Increase awareness of
2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 7%
program to help more people
COMM - Return call wait, too long
2% 3% 2% 3% 2%
returning calls
COMM - No follow up, should
2% 1% 4% 2% 2% 1% 1%
follow up more often
STAFF - Listen to client, understand
1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%
needs, wants, ability
SUPPORT - More services needed
1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 1%
to help with career goals
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 3%
support
EDUCATION - Need more training
1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
available
STAFF - More caring,
1% 1% 1% 3% 1%
understanding and encouraging staff
COMM - Time lags to get services,
1% 1% 1% 4% 2%
appointments
EXPAND - More services options,
1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 4%
more programs
INFO - clear, detailed information
1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
about services offered
COMM -They are too busy, They
1% 3% 2% 1% 1%
have large caseloads
STAFF - Qualified staff, knowledge
1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
of disabilities, services
EXPAND - Stronger network,
1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
agencies, businesses, doctors
WORK - Not enough career, job
1% 2% 2% 1% 1%
choices
COMM -More frequent and, or
1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
productive appointments
147
What could the Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation do to improve the services it
offers to you and others? (continued)
St.
Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Johnsbury- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Agricultural
Middlebury Newport White River Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
VR
Junction
WORK - Help client get a job, more
1% 2% 1% 2%
job services, job options
EXPAND - More effort allotted to
1% 2% 3%
follow-up
COMM - Hard to reach, hard to get
1% 1% 1% 2%
a hold of
POSITIVE - Staff is great, very
1% 4% 1% 1%
helpful
EXPAND - Funding problems, No
1% 1% 2% 1% 1%
money for services
STAFF - Honest counselors, clear
1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
about what can be done
SERVICES - Services for hearing
1% 1% 3%
impaired
EFFECTIVE - Tailor to individual
1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2%
needs- know each client
TRANS - Transportation issue 1% 4%
WAIT - Took a long time to get
1% 1% 1% 2%
help
COMM - Should be answering
1% 2% 2%
phones, Want to speak to person
DEVICE - Computers, computer
1% 1% 1% 2% 1%
repairs, computer upgrade
EFFECTIVE - Services should be
1% 2% 2%
easier to access
COMM -Scheduling problems,
1% 1% 1% 1%
different schedules
TEST - Testing, assessment to
1% 0% 1% 2%
determine ability, interest
EFFECTIVE - More flexibility in
1% 3%
eligibility for services
None 53% 50% 48% 45% 53% 56% 62% 54%
DK-REF Unsure 8% 7% 4% 11% 8% 7% 10% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
148
Current Employment Status
Forty-nine percent of clients were working full or part time.
Among those clients who were working, 82% were very satisfied or
satisfied with their job in 2011.
The types of careers sought by clients were varied.
149
Forty-nine percent of clients were working full or part time.
These last few questions ask about what you are currently doing.
Are you currently…
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Working full time 15% 14% 21% 16% 12% 11% 14% 35%
Working part time 34% 35% 25% 33% 35% 39% 34% 26%
Currently looking for a job 27% 23% 33% 25% 33% 27% 27% 16%
In school or receiving job
15% 11% 15% 19% 20% 12% 19% 4%
training
Keeping house 4% 2% 6% 4% 5% 5% 4% 1%
Currently unable to work 12% 20% 11% 8% 10% 15% 4% 15%
Volunteering your time 5% 5% 5% 6% 4% 2% 7% 3%
Starting, have own business % 3% %
Laid Off / Not Looking for
1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 4%
Work
Other % 1%
None % 1% 1% 1%
DK % 1%
REF 1% 2% 1% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
Comments:
Overall, 15% of clients reported that they were currently working full time and 34% indicated
that they were working part time. Twenty-seven percent of clients were currently looking for a
job and another 15% were in school or receiving job training. Twelve percent of clients reported
that they were unable to work.
150
Among those clients who were working, 82% were very satisfied or satisfied
with their job in 2011.
Q26 Thinking about your current job, how satisfied are you with what
you are doing?
100%
80%
60%
49%
40% 33%
20%
7% 9%
2%
0%
Very Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very dissatisfied 2% 4% 3% 2% 5%
Dissatisfied 7% 10% 9% 4% 15% 3% 4% 5%
Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied
9% 14% 6% 10% 10% 6% 8% 3%
Satisfied 33% 27% 25% 38% 32% 39% 36% 37%
Very satisfied 49% 45% 58% 47% 43% 47% 52% 55%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
151
Q26 Thinking about your current job, how satisfied are you with what
you are doing?
(% very satisfied or satisfied)
100.0%
86.9% 86.7%
81.6% 81.9%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2003 2006 2008 2011
Year of Survey Administration
152
Thinking about your current job, how satisfied are you with what you are doing?
Sig Diff Sig Diff
% 2011 Trend
Year of Administration
2003 81.6%
2006 86.9%
2008 86.7%
2011 81.9%
Region
2008
Burlington/Middlebury 83.2%
St. Albans/Newport 80.2%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 87.4%
Barre/Morrisville 84.7%
Rutland/Bennington 90.3%
Springfield/Brattleboro 90.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 87.3%
2011
Burlington/Middlebury 71.9%
St. Albans/Newport 82.7%
St. Johnsbury/White River Junction 84.4%
Barre/Morrisville 74.7%
Rutland/Bennington 86.0%
Springfield/Brattleboro 87.9%
Rural and Agricultural VR 91.4%
(% of respondents indicating satisfied or very satisfied)
153
Comments:
In 2011, 82% were very satisfied or satisfied with their current job (among working clients).
This is a decrease in the percentage in 2008.
In 2011, 49% of employed clients indicated that they were very satisfied with their current job,
while 33% were satisfied. Nine percent of employed clients indicated that they were neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied with their current job, while only 9% indicated some level of
dissatisfaction (7% dissatisfied and 2% very dissatisfied).
Among the 16% of clients that were not satisfied with their current job:
27% indicated their pay does not meet their financial needs.
23% indicated they work too few hours.
17% indicated they are bored with their job.
12% indicated that they viewed their current job as temporary, not a career move.
154
Thinking about your current job, how satisfied are you with what you are doing?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
FINANCE - Low pay- does not meet
27% 20% 38% 41% 11% 57% 22%
financial needs
HOURS - Too few hours 23% 29% 26% 28% 23% 26%
JOB - Bored with job 17% 22% 37% 17% 22%
JOB - Not a career move, only
12% 34% 13% 22% 14% 18%
temporary
EXPECTATION - Needs a job aligned
10% 33% 11% 14%
with skills, training
EXPECTATION - Have another job,
9% 5% 5% 16% 22%
career, training in mind
EXPECTATION - Better than nothing,
8% 7% 19% 5% 9% 11%
employment limited
GROWTH - No challenges, few
7% 23% 8%
opportunities for growth
JOB - Looking for a new job 5% 9% 22%
DEMANDING - Stressful 5% 11% 9% 18%
DEMANDING - Physically demanding 2% 15%
EXPECTATION - Job is not what I
2% 14%
expected
ENVIRONMENT - Problems with
0% 22%
employer or co-workers
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
155
The types of careers sought by clients were varied.
Comments:
Clients, regardless of current work status, were asked the type of career they wanted. Their
responses are summarized in the tables below.
The types of careers sought by these clients were quite varied. These include, among others:
Health care, medical services
Human, social services, mental health
Education
Office work
Starting my own business
Food services
Animal care
156
What type of job or career do you think you want?
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Any job 12% 12% 13% 13% 8% 16% 12% 6%
Health care, medical services 9% 8% 9% 10% 9% 8% 11% 6%
Human, social services, mental health 9% 8% 12% 14% 8% 10% 4% 4%
Job options are limited due to disability 7% 7% 7% 2% 2% 13% 8% 6%
Education 5% 3% 6% 6% 6% 6% 7% 1%
Office work 5% 5% 9% 1% 8% 4% 2% 3%
Business- start own 4% 3% 6% 3% 3% 5% 5% 4%
Food service 4% 2% 6% 3% 3% 4% 2% 5%
Animal care 3% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 1%
Customer service 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4%
Gardening, landscaping 3% 1% 4% 2% 1% 5% 3% 2%
Computer work 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4%
Child care 3% 4% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3%
Media related field 2% 3% 2% 4% 4% 1% 2% 1%
Engineering 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 32%
Retired 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3%
Agricultural 2% % 1% 7% 3% 4%
Writer 2% 2% 4% 3% 3% 1% 1%
Retail, sales 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1%
157
What type of job or career do you think you want? (continued)
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Electrical, plumbing, heating, welding,
1% 1% 2% 5%
refrigeration
Coaching, sports director 1% 4% 2%
Financial- accountant, banker 1% 2% 1% 2% 2%
Research 1% 1% 2% 2% 1%
State, federal govt. job 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Architectural design, drafting 1% 3% 2%
Custodial, maintenance, cleaning 1% 1% 1% 1%
Science related field % % 1% 1%
Auto-repair, mechanics % 2%
Volunteer work % 1% 1%
Go back to school % 1% 1%
Driver % 1% 1%
Building, Construction % 1% 1%
Art, Photography, design % 1%
Music, theatre, performing arts % %
Other 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 1%
None, do not want job 3% 5% 3% 4% 5% 1% 1% 15%
Unsure 17% 21% 14% 19% 14% 16% 19% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response. Blanks represent
cases where no client gave this response.
158
Agency Specific Question
In 2011, 71% of clients indicated that they were informed that they
could address problems with the Client Assistance Project.
In 2011, 77% of clients were able to receive needed services even when
their counselor was not available.
In 2011, 75% of clients were satisfied with job placement services.
In 2011, 98% of clients felt welcome when coming to vocational
rehabilitation for services.
In 2011, 34% of clients were able to access benefits counseling through
vocational rehabilitation, while 18% of clients were not able to access
benefits counseling.
Among those accessing benefits counseling services, 97% found these
services valuable.
In 2011, 94% of clients indicated it was easy to access vocational
rehabilitation services.
In 2011, 89% of clients indicated vocational rehabilitation services
coordinated job placement services with the VABIR representative well.
In 2011, 83% of clients feel they are receiving the support needed to be
successful in the long term.
In 2011, 33% of clients indicated that someone other than vocational
rehabilitation helped them find a job.
Nearly all clients (95%) would refer a friend or relative to vocational
rehabilitation.
159
In 2011, 71% of clients indicated that they were informed that they could
address problems with the Client Assistance Project.
Q21 Were you informed that if you had a problem with VT DVR, you
could address it with the Client Assistance Program or Project?
100%
80%
71%
60%
40%
29%
20%
0%
Yes No
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 71% 70% 72% 65% 65% 74% 78% 85%
No 29% 30% 28% 35% 35% 26% 22% 15%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
160
Comments:
In 2011, 71% of clients indicated that they were informed that if they had a problem, they could
address this problem with the client assistance project. This is an increase compared to the
percentage in 2008, though not statistically significant. In 2011, 29% of clients indicated that
they were not informed.
By Region (In 2011)
In the Burlington/Middlebury Region, 70% of clients indicated that they were
informed they could address problems with the client assistance program.
In the St. Albans/Newport Region, 72% of clients indicated that they were informed
they could address problems with the client assistance program.
In the St. Johnsbury/White River Junction Region, 65% of clients indicated that they
were informed they could address problems with the client assistance program.
In the Barre/Morrisville Region, 65% of clients indicated that they were informed
they could address problems with the client assistance program.
In the Rutland/Bennington Region, 74% of clients indicated that they were informed
they could address problems with the client assistance program.
In the Springfield/Brattleboro Region, 78% of clients indicated that they were
informed they could address problems with the client assistance program.
In the Rural/Agricultural VR Region, 85% of clients indicated that they were
informed they could address problems with the client assistance program.
161
In 2011, 77% of clients were able to receive needed services even when their
counselor was not available.
VVR01 Were you able to receive needed services even when your
vocational rehabilitation counselor was not available?
100%
77%
80%
60%
40%
23%
20%
0%
Yes No
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 77% 73% 79% 78% 67% 81% 81% 92%
No 23% 27% 21% 22% 33% 19% 19% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
162
Comments:
In 2006, 77% of clients indicated they were able to receive needed services even when their
counselor was not available. This is a decrease compared to the percentage in 2008, though not
statistically significant.
163
In 2011, 75% of clients were satisfied with job placement services.
VVR02 How satisfied were you with the job placement services?
100%
80%
60%
45%
40%
30%
20%
10%
8% 7%
0%
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very
Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very Satisfied 45% 48% 46% 44% 46% 42% 49% 22%
Satisfied 30% 29% 24% 31% 32% 34% 27% 39%
Neither Satisfied
10% 13% 14% 3% 11% 9% 10% 17%
nor Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied 8% 8% 8% 7% 5% 9% 7% 17%
Very Dissatisfied 7% 2% 8% 15% 7% 6% 7% 6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
164
Comments:
In 2011, 75% of clients indicated they were satisfied with job placement services. This is an
increase compared to the percentage in 2008, though not statistically significant. Forty-five
percent of clients were very satisfied and 30% of clients indicated they were satisfied. Ten
percent of clients were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Fifteen percent of clients indicated they
were dissatisfied or very dissatisfaction with job placement services.
Among those that were not satisfied the main reasons were that the job placement services were
ineffective (37%), that the process was taking a long time (17%), that the job placement services
really didn’t help (12%), and issues with communication and follow-up (12%).
How satisfied were you with the job placement services?
Primary Reasons not Satisfied
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Ineffective - still no job 37% 30% 34% 58% 40% 32% 35% 38%
Still in process - taking a long time 17% 17% 26% 19% 27% 7% 11% 7%
Did not really help me, not much
12% 3% 13% 31% 10% 20% 6%
help
Communication problems, no
12% 19% 5% 10% 20% 10% 12% 6%
follow-up
Coach, counselor did nothing,
8% 9% 21% 13%
could have done more
Stopped going - a waste of time 4% 3% 3% 5% 10%
Got work on my own 4% 3% 7% 13%
Limited options available due to
4% 5% 6% 10% 16%
disability
All jobs I could have found on my
3% 3% 6% 11% 6%
own
Problems with coach, counselor -
3% 19%
poor match for me
Did not match interest, ability, goal 2% 4% 6% 14%
Varied experiences; some bad,
2% 10%
some good
Other 3% 12% 7% 7%
Unsure 9% 11% 5% 17% 16% 6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
165
In 2011, 98% of clients felt welcome when coming to vocational rehabilitation
for services.
VVR03 In thinking about the attitude of the staff and the office
environment, how welcome did you feel when coming to vocational
rehabilitation for services?
100%
81%
80%
60%
40%
20% 17%
2% %
0%
Very Welcome Welcome Not very Welcome Not at all Welcome
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very Welcome 81% 81% 83% 84% 69% 84% 83% 90%
Welcome 17% 19% 15% 14% 25% 16% 12% 9%
Not very Welcome 2% 2% 1% 5% 4% 1%
Not at all Welcome % 1% 1% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
166
Comments:
In 2011, 98% of clients indicated they felt welcome coming to vocational rehabilitation for
services. This comparable to the percentage in 2008. Eighty-one percent of clients felt very
welcome and another 17% felt welcome when coming to vocational rehabilitation for services.
Among those that indicated they did not feel welcome, the main reasons were that they felt
welcome until it was determined that they could not help the client (35%), that they felt “talked
down to” (19%), long wait times (16%), and that they did not feel welcome in general (16%).
How welcome did you feel when coming to vocational rehabilitation for services?
Primary Reasons not Welcome
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Welcome until determined
they could not would not be 35% 39% 31% 45% 34%
able to help me
Felt talked down to 19% 61% 15% 22%
Long wait times 16% 44%
Did not feel welcome 16% 100% 39% 17%
Depended on the day;
sometimes welcome, 8% 69%
sometimes not
Felt ignored - counselor
2% 100%
apathetic
Unsure 8% 23%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
167
In 2011, 34% of clients were able to access benefits counseling through
vocational rehabilitation, while 18% of clients were not able to access benefits
counseling.
VVR04 Were you able to access benefits counseling through vocational
rehabilitation?
100%
80%
60%
48%
40% 34%
20% 17%
0%
Yes No Did not need benefits
counseling
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 34% 34% 38% 28% 29% 45% 32% 20%
No 17% 13% 27% 21% 13% 9% 24% 18%
Did not need benefits
48% 53% 35% 51% 58% 46% 45% 62%
counseling
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
168
Comments:
In 2011, 34% of clients indicated they were able to access benefits counseling through vocational
rehabilitation. This is a decrease in the percentage since 2008, though not statistically significant.
Seventeen percent of clients were not able to access benefits counseling services (an increase
since 2008 though again not statistically significant), and 48% of clients did not require benefits
counseling services (comparable to 2008).
169
Among those accessing benefits counseling services, 97% found these services
valuable.
VVR05 How valuable did you find this benefits counseling?
100%
79%
80%
60%
40%
18%
20%
1% 1%
0%
Very Valuable Somewhat Valuable Not very Valuable Not at all Valuable
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very Valuable 79% 74% 82% 87% 84% 79% 71% 78%
Somewhat Valuable 18% 18% 17% 11% 13% 20% 29% 16%
Not very Valuable 1% 6% 1% 5%
Not at all Valuable 1% 2% 2% 3% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
170
Comments:
Among those accessing benefits counseling services in 2011, 97% of clients indicated they found
these services valuable. Seventy-nine percent of clients found these services very valuable and
another 18% found these services somewhat valuable.
Among those that indicated they did not find their benefits counseling valuable, the main reason
were that they were not eligible despite their condition (38%), that they received no assistance
(15%), difficulties with benefits program counselors (14%), and difficulty in understanding their
counselor (13%).
How valuable did you find this benefits counseling?
Primary Reasons not Valuable
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Was told not eligible despite
38% 73%
condition, circumstances
Received no assistance 15% 100%
Difficulty with programs,
14% 27%
benefits counselor attitude
Did not understand what
counselor was saying - needed 13% 100%
simple explanations
Did not learn anything new from
9% 100%
benefits counseling
Waiting to meet, meetings
7% 100%
rescheduled
Unsure 4% 100%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no
171
In 2011, 94% of clients indicated it was easy to access vocational rehabilitation
services.
VVR06 Overall, how easy was it for you to access vocational
rehabilitation services?
100%
80% 77%
60%
40%
20% 17%
3% 3%
0%
Very Easy Somewhat Easy Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very Easy 77% 75% 82% 78% 69% 78% 77% 82%
Somewhat Easy 17% 21% 11% 12% 23% 20% 17% 13%
Somewhat Difficult 3% 1% 5% 5% 6% 3% 5%
Very Difficult 3% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
172
Comments:
In 2011, 94% of clients indicated it was easy to access vocational rehabilitation services. This is
an increase compared to the percentage in 2008, though not statistically significant. Seventy-
seven percent of clients indicated it was very easy and another 17% found it somewhat easy to
access vocational rehabilitation services.
Among those that indicated it was not easy to access vocational rehabilitation services, the main
reason were that they had simply given up on receiving VR services (9%), that they felt their
counselor could have done more (9%), difficulties in reaching a counselor (7%), and difficulties
in getting their questions answered (6%).
173
Overall, how easy was it for you to access vocational rehabilitation services?
Primary Reasons not Difficult
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
NEGATIVE - I've given up on services,
9% 30% 14% 15%
program; a waste of time
EFFECTIVE - Felt counselor, agency
9% 30% 12% 11%
could have done more to help me
COMM - Hard to reach counselor 7% 9% 27%
COMM - Difficulty getting questions
6% 23% 9%
answered, passed around
EFFECTIVE - No help, very little help 6% 10% 5% 9% 31%
COMM - Calls, mail not returned for
5% 31%
days, weeks, wait
COMM - Voicemail, leave message,
5% 31%
Never answer phone
CLIENT - Uncertain about what is
5% 9% 22%
going on with their case
COMM - Better communication needed 5% 27%
COMM -More frequent and, or
5% 27%
productive appointments
COMM - Counselor never answered my
5% 19%
questions
COMM - Hard to reach staff 5% 19%
STAFF - Counselor was not helpful,
5% 19%
supportive
STAFF - staff, counselor didn't listen 4% 16%
ACCESS - Greater accessibility of the
4% 22%
VR office
NOT ELIGIBLE - Do not qualify for
4% 19%
services
FORMS - Paper work, difficulty with
4% 11% 7%
forms, etc.
EFFECTIVE - Counselor had different
4% 30%
goals, direction in mind
COMM - Time lags to get services,
3% 4% 12%
appointments
WAIT - Took a long time to get help 3% 4% 12%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
174
Overall, how easy was it for you to access vocational rehabilitation services?
Primary Reasons not Difficult
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
INFO - Not enough information
3% 14% 26%
provided
COMM - Counselor did not return calls,
3% 53%
No follow up
CLIENT - More parent, family
3% 12%
involvement
COMM - No follow through, get run
3% 12%
around, nothing done
NEGATIVE - Program did nothing or
3% 47%
little to help
TRANS - Transportation issue 3% 23%
DISCRIMINATION - Feels
3% 14%
discriminated against
POSITIVE - Good times, bad times
3% 15%
throughout program
COMM - Do not return calls, follow up,
2% 19%
hard to contact
EFFECTIVE - Fight to get services,
2% 19%
help is limited
REFERRED - Referred to another
2% 19%
agency
STAFF - Changing counselors,
2% 19%
switching too much
CONDITION - Trouble because of
2% 11%
disability
EFFECTIVE - A lot of ideas, but no
2% 11%
action
EFFECTIVE - Did not receive much
2% 11%
help with goal
ACCESS - Locations changed or
2% 11%
moved, Not easily accessible
EFFECTIVE - Better meet needs, work
2% 11%
closely with client
SUPPORT - More services needed to
1% 22%
help with career goals
EXPAND - Funding problems, No
1% 21%
money for services
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
175
In 2011, 89% of clients indicated vocational rehabilitation services
coordinated job placement services with the VABIR representative well.
VVR07 How well did Vocational Rehabilitation coordinate job
placement services with the VABIR representative?
100%
80%
71%
60%
40%
20% 17%
8%
3%
0%
Very Well Somewhat well Not very Well Not Well at all
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Very Well 71% 77% 75% 74% 59% 75% 64% 65%
Somewhat Well 17% 16% 15% 14% 28% 16% 16% 18%
Not very Well 3% 2% 3% 7% 1% 6% 9%
Not Well at all 8% 5% 6% 12% 5% 7% 14% 9%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
176
Comments:
In 2011, 89% of clients indicated vocational rehabilitation services coordinated job placement
services with the VABIR representative very or somewhat well. Seventy-one percent of clients
indicated services were coordinated very well and another 17% of clients indicated services were
coordinated somewhat well. Only eleven percent felt vocational rehabilitation services did not
coordinate well with the VABIR representative, with 3% indicating not very well and 8%
indicating not well at all.
177
In 2011, 83% of clients feel they are receiving the support needed to be
successful in the long term.
VVR08 Do you feel that you are getting the support needed to be
successful in the long term?
100%
83%
80%
60%
40%
20% 17%
0%
Yes No
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 83% 79% 82% 82% 81% 84% 90% 82%
No 17% 21% 18% 18% 19% 16% 10% 18%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
178
Comments:
In 2011, 83% of clients feel they are receiving the support needed to be successful in the long
term, comparable to 2008. Seventeen percent of clients feel they are not receiving the support
needed to be successful in the long term.
Among those that indicated they were not receiving the support they needed to be successful in
the long term, the main reason were that they there was no follow-up or they needed more
frequent follow-up (13%), that the services were or little or no help (11%), and that they needed
more guidance or support (9%).
179
Why do you feel you are not getting the needed support to be successful in the long term?
Primary Reasons
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
COMM - No follow up, should follow
13% 9% 12% 6% 9% 35% 8%
up more often
EFFECTIVE - No help, very little help 11% 19% 13% 5% 19% 21% 4%
SUPPORT - Need more guidance,
9% 15% 8% 21% 5% 5%
support
NEGATIVE - I've given up on services,
8% 21% 16% 6% 4%
program; a waste of time
WORK- Did not receive employment,
8% 12% 4% 9% 8% 14% 11%
Could not find me a job
EFFECTIVE - Felt counselor, agency
6% 17% 12% 5% 5%
could have done more to help me
SUPPORT - More services needed to
5% 2% 17% 14%
help with career goals
EDUCATION - Need more training
5% 8% 17% 4%
available
CONDITION - Trouble because of
4% 13% 4% 5%
disability
WORK - Had to find job, services on
3% 4% 20% 5%
own
STAFF - Changing counselors,
3% 4% 13%
switching too much
DISCRIMINATION - Feels
3% 7% 14%
discriminated against
POSITIVE - they tried to help, received
3% 10% 5%
some help
WORK - Disability, health makes it
3% 10% 5%
difficult to find work
EFFECTIVE - Agency closed case or
2% 5% 6% 11%
stopped services
EFFECTIVE - No clear purpose,
2% 11%
solutions, answers
SUPPORT - Need help, like to get back
2% 10%
into program
EFFECTIVE - used own resources to
2% 11%
get job, training
EFFECTIVE - Real solutions for long-
1% 12%
term advancement
COMM -Hard to remember, find phone
1% 12%
number, who to contact
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
180
In 2011, 33% of clients indicated that someone other than vocational
rehabilitation helped them find a job.
VVR09 Did someone other than Vocational Rehabilitation help you find
a job?
100%
80%
67%
60%
40%
33%
20%
0%
Yes No
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 33% 35% 32% 30% 45% 32% 31% 15%
No 67% 65% 68% 70% 55% 68% 69% 85%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
181
Comments:
Thirty-three percent of clients report that someone other than the Vermont Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation helped them find a job. Among these clients receiving help form
others, 25% indicated they themselves helped in finding a job, 16% a friend, 14% other Vermont
agencies, 12% and family member and 10% indicated that the VT Department of Labor helped
them find a job/
Who other than Vocational Rehabilitation helped you find a job?
St.
St. Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR Albans- White Agricultural
Middlebury Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
Newport River VR
Junction
Self 25% 25% 24% 21% 28% 25% 26% 47%
Friend 16% 15% 21% 18% 18% 14% 15%
HCRS, other VT agency 14% 10% 10% 19% 7% 13% 28%
Family member 12% 15% 8% 14% 6% 14% 14% 12%
Department of Labor 10% 4% 2% 11% 20% 10% 15% 7%
College or school, teachers 9% 3% 11% 7% 21% 6% 4%
Employment agency private 6% 12% 7% 6% 3% 3% 5%
Counselor, counseling services 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 7% 4%
Specific person 3% 8% 4% 2% 2%
VABIR 2% 6% 4% 4%
Vermont Associates 2% 1% 4% 2% 1% 15%
Other 3% 2% 5% 2% 5% 15%
Unsure 1% 1% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: columns listed as “0%” indicated instances where less than 0.5% gave this response.
Blanks represent cases where no client gave this response.
182
Nearly all clients (95%) would refer a friend or relative to vocational
rehabilitation.
VVR10 Would you refer a friend or relative to vocational
rehabilitation?
100% 95%
80%
60%
40%
20%
5%
0%
Yes No
St.
Johnsbury- Rural and
Burlington- St. Albans- Barre- Rutland- Springfield-
VT DVR White Agricultural
Middlebury Newport Morrisville Bennington Brattleboro
River VR
Junction
Yes 95% 95% 94% 92% 91% 96% 98% 97%
No 5% 5% 6% 8% 9% 4% 2% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Results by region for 2011
Comments:
Ninety-five percent of clients indicated they would refer a friend or relative to the Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation.
183
Respondent Characteristics
Gender
100%
80%
60%
53%
47%
40%
20%
0%
Male Female
184
Age
100%
80%
60%
40%
29%
19% 20%
20% 16%
12%
3%
0%
< 25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45- 54 55 - 64 65+
185
Race/Ethnicity
100% 96%
80%
60%
40%
20%
1% 1% 1% 1%
%
Asian Black Hispanic Native White
American
186
Case Status
100%
80%
66%
60%
40%
25%
20%
9%
0%
Active Closed Sucessfully Closed Unsuccessfully
187
Disability Category
Category %
Unspecified 1%
Deafness 1%
Hard of Hearing 4%
Neurological 3%
Orthopedic 3%
Medical 16%
Amputation, Absence of limbs 2%
Mental and Emotional Problems 42%
Substance Abuse 1%
Autism 1%
Mental Retardation 6%
Learning Disability 14%
Traumatic Brain Injury 6%
Total 100%
188