# Presentation: 215082

** **
**2005 NIH Child Care Survey**
**Summary Report**
- Joe Wolski
- Office of Quality Management, Office of Research Services
- and
- Janice Rouiller, Ph.D and Laura Stouffer
- SAIC
- 6 March 2006

## Table of Contents

- Survey Background...............................................................................3
- NIH Center Use....................................................................................7
- Respondent Classification.....................................................................15
- Waiting List........................................................................................26
- Satisfaction With NIH Centers................................................................32
- Importance Ratings of Child Care Service Aspects.....................................35
- NIH Sponsored Programs.....................................................................38
- Future Directions.................................................................................42
- Quality of Work Life.............................................................................46
- Summary..........................................................................................48
- Recommendations...............................................................................59

**Note:  Detailed slides for separate respondent groups and comments are presented in the detailed presentation**

## Survey Background

## Survey BackgroundPurpose

- Feedback sought from NIH community on various aspects of child care services
- Satisfaction with services (from current users)
- Importance of services (entire NIH population)
- Future directions (entire NIH population)
- Results will be used to evaluate current child care offerings and to inform and guide policy decisions affecting the scope and nature of NIH child care services in the future
- Where possible, results are compared to previous needs assessment completed in FY02

## Survey BackgroundMethodology

- Survey questions from FY02 NIH Child Care Survey were used, additional questions were developed, and a web-form was created.
- Surveys were distributed to all NIH employees who work within the Washington-Metropolitan area.
- Surveys distributed in electronic form in early December 2005
- Responses were submitted anonymously to OQM.
- Reponses collected through early-January 2006
- Responses analyzed by OQM and SAIC and report provided.

## Survey BackgroundDistribution

**FY05**
- 	Number of surveys distributed		29,552
- 	Number of respondents			  2,600
- 	Response rate				      9%
**FY02**
- 	Number of  surveys distributed		22,000
- 	Number of  respondents 			   1,441
- 	Response rate				    6.6%

- Response rate considered acceptable for both administrations

## NIH Center Use

## NIH Center UseRespondent Characterization

**Percent of Respondents**

- 	Yes

- 	No

- Children 13 years or younger?  (N = 2,600)

- Children requiring child care? (N = 1,643)

- Children enrolled in NIH sponsored child care center?  (N = 1,453)

**N = 1,643**
**     ****63%**

**N = 957**
**     ****37%**

**N = 1,453**
**     ****88%**

**N = 190**
**     ****12%**

**N = 1,200**
**     ****83%**

**N = 253**
**     ****17%**

**88% of respondents with children 13 years or younger require child care and of those respondents 17% are enrolled in NIH sponsored center**

## NIH Center UseRespondents Needing Child CareOverall, do you prefer to employ child care services? 

**Percent of Respondents**

**N = 49**

**N = 10**

**N = 190**

**N = 3**

**N = 458**

**N = 130**

**N = 513**

**N = 29**

**Note:  ****Most respondents with children NOT in NIH Center prefer to employ childcare services closer to their home,  their child’s school, or spouse’s work (55%).  ****75% of respondents with children in a NIH center prefer to employ child care services close to their place of work.**

## NIH Center UseRespondents Needing Child Care But Are Not in NIH CenterIf you do not use NIH sponsored child care, why not?

**Note:  Question asked of  those respondents with children not in NIH center, but requiring child care (N = 1,200).  Multiple responses allowed.**

**N = 1,943 responses**

**See next slide for details**

## NIH Center UseRespondents Needing Child Care But Are Not in NIH Center Other  (332 comments)

- Most comments (61%) reiterating reasons already listed as choices
- 131 unique comments (39%) include:
- Contractor’s/grandparent’s can’t use.  (N = 43)
- NIH Does not allow contractors to use the childcare facilities.
- I am a full-time psychologist in the NCI, but am unable to use NIH child care services because I work on a contract.
- My student daughter and her baby live with me but the child was rejected because he is my grandchild.
- No child care where I work.  (N = 38)
- There is none available on the Rocky Mountain Labs campus in Montana.
- My institute is located in Baltimore and there is no NIH-sponsored child care in this city.
- Inconvenience, I do not work on campus

## NIH Center UseRespondents Needing Child Care But Are Not in NIH Center Other  (332 comments) (cont.)

- Did not know NIH offered childcare, need more info.  (N = 37)
- I am unaware of any NIH-sponsored child care centers.
- I am a new employee and did not about child care.
- I have no idea what is available to me as an NIH employee and would like to know how to receive information.
- Need part time, school age, drop-off care.  (N = 9)
- NIH lacks child care for school age children.
- There is no after-school care for children in elementary school and higher.
- My need is infrequent--mostly about 4 times a year for 2 to 3 weeks.
- Issues with going through security.  (N = 4)
- The security on the main NIH campus is oppressive and we do not want to expose our son to that on a daily basis.
- My husband is not an NIH employee and would have difficulty getting access to the child care facilities.

## NIH Center UseRespondents Needing Child Care But Are Not in NIH Center (Counting Only Unique “Other”)If you do not use NIH sponsored child care, why not?

**Note:  Question asked of  those respondents with children not in NIH center, but requiring child care (N = 1,200).  Multiple responses allowed.**

**N = 1,742 responses**

## NIH Center UseRespondents Needing Child Care But Are Not in NIH Center (Comparison to FY02)If you do not use NIH sponsored child care, why not?

- Unable to make direct comparison since categories are different and raw data is not available.  However, the top 4 categories in FY02 are the same top categories in FY05
-  Wait list too long
-  Too expensive
-  Other arrangements already made by time contacted
-  Want children closer to home

## Respondent Classification

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Gender

**Percent of Respondents**

**Note:  Based on the 2000 census of the NIH population (42% male and 58% female), females over-represented (p < .01) in all groups except those respondents with child care age children that do NOT require child care.  The FY02 needs assessment results were aligned with the 2000 census.**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Age Range

**Percent of Respondents**

**Note:****  ****It’s not surprising that most respondents without child care age children fall into the first and last 3 categories ( 61%).****  Alternatively, most respondents with child care age children requiring child care fall into the 2****nd**** and 3****rd**** categories:  88% , and  86%).  ****Respondents with children NOT requiring child care represent a bit older age groups falling into the 3****rd**** and 4****th**** categories (82%).**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Age Range (cont.)

**Percent of Respondents**

**Respondents with children in NIH sponsored center disproportionately represented among age groups (compared with those NOT in NIH sponsored center).  A greater percentage of respondents aged 36-45 use NIH sponsored child care (59% versus 43%) ****and a greater percentage of respondents in younger age groups use other child care services (45% versus 29%)**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Current Work Site

**Percent of Respondents**

**Note:  Respondents differ slightly from the overall NIH population based on the 2000 census (and from the FY02 needs assessment results).  Most respondents are from the Bethesda campus (FY05 = 51%, FY02 = 62%) but the “Other” category has increased (FY05 = 14%, FY02 (3%)**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Employment Category

**Percent of Respondents**

**Note:  The overall percentages are similar to the 2000 census data.  It is interesting to note that contractors were under-represented in the FY02 needs assessment but appear to be fairly represented in FY05 (at least with respect to the 2000 census).**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Annual Household Pre-tax Income

**Percent of Respondents**

**Note:  Comparisons to census not available and comparisons to FY02 not relevant since classifications were changed.**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Annual Household Pre-tax Income(cont.)

**Percent of Respondents**

**Respondents with children  in NIH sponsored center disproportionately represented among income groups (compared with those NOT in NIH sponsored center).  A greater percentage of higher income respondents use NIH sponsored centers and vice versa.**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Location of ResidenceTop 6 Locations

**Percent of Respondents**

**Respondents With Children in NIH Center**
** ****Rockville (42)**
** ****Bethesda  (7)**
** ****Westlake (7)**
** ****Frederick (4)**
** ****Silver Spring (3)**
**  ****DC (2)**

**Respondents With Children NOT in NIH Center**
** ****Rockville (40)**
** ****Gaithersburg (20)**
** ****Germantown (16)**
** ****Bethesda (15)**
** ****Westlake (11)**
** ****Frederick (10)**

**Respondents With No Child Care Age Children**
** ****Rockville (64)**
** ****Bethesda (50)**
** ****Silver Spring (39)**
** ****DC (39)**
** ****Frederick (15) **
** ****Gaithersburg (15)**

**Note:  Most of the top residence locations are mentioned  by all respondents, regardless of category**

**Respondents With Children NOT Requiring Child Care**
** ****Rockville (7)**
** ****Frederick (3)**
** ****Germantown (3)**
** ****Olney (3)**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Children With Special Needs

**Percent of Respondents**

- Children enrolled in NIH sponsored child care center?  (N = 253)

- 	Yes

- 	No

**N = 244**
**   ****96%**

**N = 9 (4%)**

- Children NOT enrolled in NIH sponsored child care center?  (N = 1,390)

**N = 1,272**
**   ****92%**

**N = 117 (8%)**

**A larger percentage of respondents with children NOT enrolled in NIH sponsored child care center have special needs**

## Respondent ClassificationCharacteristics:  Children With Special NeedsCategories

**Percent of Respondents**

**Respondents With Children in NIH Center (N = 9 respondents)**
**Learning disabilities / ADD / ADHD  (7)**
**Speech problems (1)**
**Autism (1)**

**Respondents With Children NOT in NIH Center (N = 115 respondents)**
**Learning disabilities / ADD / ADHD****  (N = 66)**
**Miscellaneous  (N = 13)**
**Autism  (N = 8)**
**Speech, Occupational, Physical Therapy       (N = 7)**
**Hearing Impaired  (N = 6)**
**Food Allergies  (N = 4)**
**Developmental Disabilities  (N = 4)**
**Down’s Syndrome  (N = 3)**
**Asperger’s Syndrome   (N = 2)**
**Sensory Integration   (N = 2)**

**Note: ****Learning disabilities / ADD / ADHD account for the majority of special needs regardless of category**

## Waiting List

## Waiting ListMost Recent Wait List Experience (Time to Enroll)

**Percent of Respondents**

**Responses to these categories are fairly evenly divided.  46% of respondents were contacted for enrollment in 12 months or less.**

**Note:  Comparison to FY02 not available since question was not asked in FY02.**

## Waiting ListAre you currently on the waiting list? 

**Percent of Respondents**

- Children enrolled in NIH sponsored child care center?  (N = 253)

- 	Yes

- 	No

**N = 190**
**   ****75%**

**N = 63**
**   ****25%**

- Children requiring child care but NOT enrolled in NIH sponsored child care center?  (N = 1,200)

**N = 832**
**   ****73%**

**N = 312**
**   ****27%**

**No difference among groups**

## Waiting ListContacted by Wait List Staff?

**Percent of Respondents**

- Children enrolled in NIH sponsored child care center?  (N = 63)

- 	Yes

- 	No

**N = 16**
**   ****25%**

**N = 47**
**   ****75% **

- Children NOT enrolled in NIH sponsored child care center?  (N = 312)

**N = 111**
**   ****36%**

**N = 201**
**   ****64%**

**A greater percentage (p < .01) of respondents with children already enrolled in NIH center have been contacted by wait list staff regarding current wait.**

## Waiting List Contacted by Wait List Staff?Comparison to FY02 Needs Assessment

**Percent of Respondents**

- FY05 Respondents on Waiting List  (N = 375)

- 	Yes

- 	No

**N = 127**
**   ****34%**

**N = 248**
**   ****66% **

- FY02 Respondents on Waiting List (N = 548)

**N = 269**
**   ****49%**

**N = 279**
**   ****51%**

**A greater percentage of FY05 respondents on the waiting list (66%) have been contacted by the wait list staff than in FY02 (51%)**

## Waiting ListLength of Time on Waiting List

**Percent of Respondents**

**No difference among FY05 groups.  **

## Satisfaction With NIH Centers

## Satisfaction With NIH CentersRespondents with Children in NIH Center

**Mean Response**

- Unsatisfactory

- Outstanding

**N = 246**

**N = 245**

**N = 245**

**N = 247**

**N = 246**

**N = 246**

**N = 244**

**N = 245**

**N = 246**

**N = 248**

**Satisfaction Aspects**

**Note:  Question asked of all respondents with children in NIH center (N = 253).  All aspects well above the midpoint of scale, thus all aspects rated as at least somewhat satisfactory and most as very satisfactory.**

## Satisfaction Ratings of Child Care Service Aspects Respondents with Children in NIH Center Comparison to FY02

**Satisfaction Aspects**

**FY05 Satisfaction Order (N = 253)**
** ****Location**
** ****Warm and caring staff**
** ****Child health and safety**
** ****Hours of operation**
** ****Educational stimulation/curriculum**
** ****Physical space/facility**
** ****Staff professionalism**
** ****Value for the Price**
** ****Affordability**

**FY02 Satisfaction Order (N = 453)**
**Warm and caring staff**
**Child health and safety **
**Educational stimulation/curriculum **
**Location**
**Staff professionalism**
**Physical space/facility**
**Hours of operation**
** ****Value for the price**
** ****Affordability**

**Note:  Not all categories are the same in FY05.  Only similar categories used in this comparison**

**Categories shifted in order of satisfaction.  However, it is important to remember that ALL categories in FY05 received ratings well above the midpoint of the scale.  Thus, ALL categories are considered satisfactory by respondents.****  In FY02, Affordability was rated as less than satisfactory.**

## Importance Ratings of Child Care Service Aspects

## Importance Ratings of Child Care Service Aspects Respondents with Children Requiring Child Care

- Not At All Important

- Extremely Important

**** ****	****Groups significantly different (p < .01).  However, practically speaking, mean ratings for all groups are well above the midpoint of a 10-point scale as are all ratings.**

**Importance Aspects**

## Importance Ratings of Child Care Service Aspects Respondents with Children Requiring Child Care Comparison to FY02

**Importance Aspects**

**FY05 Importance Order (N = 1,200)**
** ****Child health and safety**
** ****Warm and caring staff**
** ****Staff professionalism**
** ****Educational stimulation/curriculum**
** ****Location**
** ****Hours of operation**
** ****Affordability**

**FY02 Importance Order (N = 1,441)**
**Child health and safety**
**Warm and caring staff **
**Educational stimulation/curriculum **
**Affordability**
**Hours of operation**
**Location**
**Staff professionalism**

**Note:  Not all categories are the same in FY05.  Only similar categories used in this comparison**

**Top 2 categories are the same.  Other categories shifted in order of importance.  However, it is important to remember that ALL categories received ratings well above the midpoint of a 10-point scale.  Thus, ALL categories are considered important by respondents.**

## NIH Sponsored Programs 

## NIH Sponsored Programs Providing AssistanceUsage 

**Note:  Multiple responses allowed, thus percentages within groups will not sum to 100%**

## NIH Sponsored Programs Providing AssistanceUsage Summary

**With Children in NIH Center**  		**439**
**	****	****	****WFLC Resource and Referral ****	****          ****50%**
**	****	****	****Flexible Spending Account                       ****47%**
**	****	****	****NIH Parent ListServ****	****                             ****35%**
**With Children NOT in NIH Center**  	**1,582**
**	****	****	****Not Applicable****	****                             ****39%**
**	****	****	****WFLC Resource and Referral ****	****          ****31%**
**	****	****	****Flexible Spending Account ****	****         **** ****22%**
**With Children Not Requiring Child Care**  	**219**
**	****	****	****Not Applicable ****	****         ****                    ****42%**
**	****	****	****Alternative Work Schedule ****	****         **** ****22%**
**	****	****	****Flexible Spending Account  and ****	****	****	****	****Telecommuting****	****	****          ****18%**
**With No Child Care Age Children**  	**977**
**	****	****	****Not Applicable ****	****                             ****82%**
**	****	****	****Alternative Work Schedule ****	****            ****8%**
**	****	****	****WFLC Resource and Referral                    ****6%**

**NIH Sponsored Programs Providing Assistance****Usage Summary**

## NIH Sponsored Programs Providing AssistanceComparison to FY02

**FY05 Usage Order (N = 2,600)**
**WFLC Resource and Referral (22%)**
**Alternative Work Schedules (13%)**
**Telecommuting (10%)**
**Part-Time Work Schedule (6%)**
**Classes, Work Shops, and Seminars (6%)**
**Job Sharing  (0%)**

**FY02 Helpfulness Order (N = 1,441)**
**WFLC Resource and Referral (34%)**
**Alternative Work Schedules (21%)**
**Telecommuting (10%)**
**Part-Time Work Schedule (9%)**
**Classes, Work Shops, and Seminars (7%)**
**Job Sharing  (0%)**

**Note:  Not all categories are the same in FY05.  Only similar categories used in this comparison.  **
**Wording of question is slightly different on surveys.  In FY05, respondents asked to indicate whether they have used the program.  In FY02, respondents asked to rate the degree to which they found the program helpful.  It is interesting to note that relative usage/helpfulness is the same in both surveys.**
**However, as noted on previous slide, usage varies by type of respondent.**

## Future Directions 

## Possible Future Directions

- Not at all Important

- Extremely Important

**Possible Future Directions**

**All categories show significant differences among groups (p < .01). **

## Possible Future DirectionsSummary

- Respondents with children requiring child care (whether in NIH center or not) rate the following as significantly more important than other respondents
- Increase child care capacity near NIH worksite
- Expanded tuition assistance
- Back up care
- Classes, workshops, seminars (However, all ratings on this are close to midpoint of scale, indicating only moderate importance)
- Community based playgroups (However, all ratings on this are close to midpoint of scale, indicating only moderate importance)
- Respondents with children requiring child care and NOT in NIH center rate the following as significantly more important than other respondents
-  Increase child care capacity near where they live
- Respondents with children NOT requiring child care are similar to respondents with no children

## Possible Future DirectionsComparison to FY02

**FY05 Importance Order (N = 1,200)**
**Increase child care capacity creating additional child care spaces near NIH work sites**** **
**Offer a program of summer/holiday child care for school-aged children**** **
**Expand child care tuition assistance subsidies **
**Increase child care capacity creating additional child care spaces near where NIH employees live**** **

**FY02 Importance Order (N = 1,441)**
**Increase child care capacity creating additional child care spaces near where NIH employees live**
**Increase child care capacity creating additional child care spaces near NIH work sites**** **
**Expand child care tuition assistance subsidies **
**Increase child care capacity creating additional child care spaces near NIH work sites**** **

**Note:  Not all categories are the same in FY05.  Only similar categories used in this comparison**

**Comparison available using “All Respondents” only.  Raw data not available for breakout by respondent type.  This is not very useful as previous 2 slides have shown that priorities vary among respondent type.  **

## 
Quality of Work Life

**Quality of Work Life**

## Quality of Work Life Ratings

- Strongly Disagree

- Strongly Agree

**Quality of Work Life  Aspect**

**All categories show significant differences among groups (p < .01).  However, all mean ratings are well above the midpoint of a 10-point scale. **

## Summary

## SummaryRespondent Characterization

- 2,600 individuals responded to the survey (9% response rate)
- 63% of respondents (N = 1,643) have (or are expecting) children 13 years or younger
- Of those with child care age children, 88% (N = 1,453) require child care
- Of those requiring child care, 17% (N = 253) are enrolled in a NIH sponsored child care center
- Females over-represented in FY05 when compared to 2000 census and FY02 needs assessment
- A greater percentage of respondents with children requiring child care but not in a NIH center have children with special needs (8% as opposed to 4%).
-  Learning disabilities are mentioned most often regardless of group.

## SummaryChild Care Location Preferences

- Respondents with children in a NIH center prefer to use child care close to where they work (75%)
- A slight majority of **respondents with children in other child care settings** prefer to use child care close to where they live, where their spouse works, or their children’s school (55%)
- However, the remaining 45% (N = 513) indicated that they would prefer child care close to where they work.  **This is a substantial number of potential customers.**

## SummaryReasons For Not Using NIH Child Care

- Reasons for respondents with children requiring child care NOT using NIH center, in order of importance
- Wait list too long
- Too expensive
- Other arrangements already made by time of contact
- Want children closer to home
**These are the same top 4 categories found in the FY02 needs assessment**

## SummaryRespondent Characteristics Related to NIH Center Use

- Age and income are related to NIH center use
- A greater percentage of respondents aged 36-45 use NIH sponsored child care and a greater percentage of respondents in younger age groups use other child care services
- A greater percentage of higher income respondents use NIH sponsored centers and a greater percentage of lower income respondents use other child care services
**A greater percentage of older respondents with higher incomes use NIH centers **

## SummaryWaiting List

- FY05 Waiting List
- About the same percentage of respondents with children already enrolled in a NIH center and those not enrolled are on the waiting list (75%)
**A greater percentage of respondents on the waiting list with children already enrolled in a NIH center have been contacted by the wait list staff  (75% compared to 64%)**
- There is no difference among the groups on length of time on waiting list
- Waiting List comparison to FY02
**A greater percentage (66%) of respondents on the waiting list are being contacted in FY05 than in FY02 (51%)**

## SummarySatisfaction Ratings

**In FY05 all aspects of service rated well above the midpoint of a 10-point scale.**  Affordability achieved the lowest mean rating (6.02) which is still above the midpoint.
- Categories shifted in order of satisfaction with respect to the FY02 ratings.  However, all but one service aspect were rated as at least somewhat satisfactory in FY02.
**Affordability was rated as less than satisfactory in FY02 but is rated as satisfactory in FY05.**

## SummaryImportance Ratings

**In FY05 all aspects of service rated well above the midpoint of a 10-point scale.**  Affordability achieved the lowest mean rating (7.86) which is still well above the midpoint.
- Top 2 importance categories same in FY05 as FY02
- Child health and safety
- Warm and caring staff
- Other categories shifted in importance order, but ALL categories rated well above the midpoint of a 10-point scale.

## SummaryNIH Sponsored Program Usage

**Usage varies by type of respondent**
**A majority of respondents that do not have children enrolled in a NIH Center chose “Not Applicable” **
**This may indicate that respondents with children requiring child care but not enrolled in a NIH center are not aware of these programs**
**Respondents with children requiring child care (whether or not enrolled in NIH center) chose WFLC Resource and Referral and Flexible Spending Accounts**** within top 3 programs used**
**Respondents with children NOT requiring child care and respondents without child care age children chose Alternative Work Schedules**** within top 3 programs used **

## SummaryFuture Directions

**Future Direction varies by type of respondent**
**Respondents with children requiring child care (whether in NIH center or not)** rate the following as significantly more important than other respondents
**Increase child care capacity near NIH worksite**
**Expanded tuition assistance**
**Back up care**
- Classes, workshops, seminars (However, all ratings on this are close to midpoint of scale, indicating only moderate importance)
- Community based playgroups (However, all ratings on this are close to midpoint of scale, indicating only moderate importance)
**Respondents with children requiring child care and NOT in NIH center** rate the following as significantly more important than other respondents
-  **Increase child care capacity near where they live**
- Respondents with children NOT requiring child care are similar to respondents with no children

## SummaryQuality of Work Life Ratings

**All respondents asked to rate the extent to which NIH child care services contributes to various quality of work life aspects (e.g., ****ability to recruit and retain qualified employees, positive impact on NIH workforce****)**
**Though ratings differ significantly by type of respondents, all ratings are well above the midpoint of a 10-point scale**

## Recommendations

## Recommendations

- Interpret survey results in terms of other PM data gathered** **
- Does the survey data, when compared to data in other perspectives, show potential relationships?
- Investigate following issues/areas
- Though child care capacity has increased since FY02 needs assessment, a substantial number of respondents with children desiring child care in NIH Centers could be served
- The length of the wait list is still the top reason as to why NIH Centers are not used
- Though affordability of NIH Center child care has improved since FY02 needs assessment (i.e., satisfaction ratings), expense of service is still listed as a top reason that NIH Centers are not used
- A majority of respondents with children requiring child care (but not in a NIH Center) are NOT aware of NIH sponsored programs

## Recommendations (cont.)

- Investigate following issues/areas (cont.)
- Top 3 future directions mentioned by respondents with children requiring child care (whether in NIH Center or not):
- Increase child care capacity near NIH worksite
- Expanded tuition assistance
- Back up care
- Top 3 future directions mentioned by respondents with children requiring child care but NOT in NIH Center:
- Increase child care capacity near where they live (Rockville, Gaithersburg, Germantown, Bethesda, Westlake, and Frederick)
- The majority of respondents in any category do not know that ORS DOES has an office for child care programs
- Consider holding a focus group to discuss above areas and brainstorm solutions if appropriate
- Review comments in detailed presentation for specific issues that can be tackled
- Take the time to read through all comments

## Recommendations (cont.)

- If appropriate, generate potential actions based on what you have learned from the data
- Can you make changes to address issues raised?
- How might you implement those actions?
- Communicate the survey results (and intended actions) to important stakeholder groups
- ORS Senior Management
- DOES staff
- Survey respondent pool
- Conduct follow-up survey in 2 years, and/or collect other data, to check on improvements