SATISFACTION SURVEY OF SERVICE REQUESTS IN THE CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS MOSQUITO CONTROL PROJECT SERVICE AREA – 2008

 

TIMOTHY D. DESCHAMPS, Executive Director

Central Mass. Mosquito Control Project

111 Otis Street Northborough, Massachusetts 01532

deschamps@cmmcp.org

 

ABSTRACT

 

Residents of our service area request service from the menu of services offered to them by CMMCP. Requests for adulticiding (spraying) and larval control are the most common forms of service requests we receive. We accepts request for service through a variety of means, primarily by telephone, but increasing more by the online service request form from the CMMCP website. Additional methods include personal visits to our office, phone calls on behalf of residents from town and/or state officials, and direct requests to our field staff. The CMMCP Commission requested a survey of resident who requested service in 2008 to determine if our staff was meeting acceptable levels of customer satisfaction. This is the same survey that was done in 2005 and 2007. After compiling these results, we find that a majority of residents in our service area were satisfied with our control efforts and methods, which mirrors our results from previous years.

 

 

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

 

In 2008 we received 10,650 requests for service, ranging from adulticiding to larval control. 5,088 adulticiding calls were filtered (multiples removed) and placed into a separate database. Service calls were sorted according to town, and each town was tabulated for total requests received in 2008. These towns were then graphed to show which towns had the most calls. Each town was assigned a percentage according to this data. This percentage would determine the number of postcards sent to each town from the overall total. The CMMCP Commission decided that 1,000 postcards would be a representative sample of the service calls received this year. The survey was designed to be as easy as possible for residents to access and complete. An online survey was created, and the postcards would include unique identifiers that the residents would use. The postcards contained a blind weblink to the survey so that unauthorized users would not be able to participate in the survey. Information such as how they contacted us, were the office and field staff helpful and informative, how long did they wait for service, was the service provided effective, and their overall satisfaction was measured. This study uses the same methodology as the two previous resident surveys.

 

SURVEY FINDINGS

 

From 1,000 postcards mailed, 224 responses were received (22.4%). The results are as follows:

 

1). In your most recent experience, how did you contact the Central Mass. Mosquito Control Project?

 

 

Number

Percent

Telephone

115

52%

Website

100

45.2%

In person

1

0.5%

Other*

5

2.3%

Total

221

100%

 

 

 

 

2). If by telephone or in person at the CMMCP office, were your questions or concerns answered to your satisfaction?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

113

96.6%

No

4

3.4%

Total

117

100%

 

 

 

 

 

3). If by telephone, did you experience difficulty reaching our staff?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

11

9.2%

No

109

90.8%

Total

120

100%

 

4). If through the website or e-mail, did you find the information you needed in a satisfactory manner?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

113

100%

No

0

0%

Total

113

100%

 

 

5). Please give the approximate time you waited for service from your initial request:

 

NOTE: 94.9% within a week or less

 

 

Number

Percent

1-3 days

100

45.2%

3-5 days

56

25.3%

1 week

54

24.4%

2 weeks+

11

5.1%

Total

221

100%

 

 

6). Did you find our response from your initial request to when you received service within a reasonable amount of time?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

213

96.4%

No

8

3.6%

Total

221

100%

 

 

7). When you received service, did our field representative appear knowledgeable and competent about his/her profession?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

204

95.8%

No

9

4.2%

Total

213

100%

 

 

8). Were your questions and concerns answered by the Technician to your satisfaction?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

199

94.8%

No

11

5.2%

Total

210

100%

 

 

9). Did you receive any written information (pamphlets, etc.) from our representative?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

112

51.9%

No

104

48.1%

Total

216

100%

 

 

10). Did you find this information useful?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

111

60%

No

2

1.1%

Did not receive

72

38.9%

Total

185

100%

 

 

11). Did you request service more than once in 2008?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

108

49.1%

No

112

50.9%

Total

220

100%

 

 

12). If you requested additional service in 2008, was it because the original application was insufficient to meet your needs, or for a later re-treatment or follow up?

 

 

Number

Percent

Re-treatment

101

81.5%

Insufficient

23

18.5%

Total

124

100%

 

 

13). Would you/did you recommend our service to others in the future?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

216

97.7%

No

5

2.3%

Total

221

100%

 

 

14). In your opinion, did our application made your area better, worse, or had no effect?

 

 

Number

Percent

Better

185

85.3%

Worse

0

0%

No Effect

32

14.7%

Total

217

100%

 

 

15). If you think your area improved, can you give an approximate length of time you experienced relief from mosquito annoyance?

 

 

Number

Percent

1-2 days

31

16.9%

3-5 days

29

15.8%

1 week

48

26.2%

2 weeks+

75

41%

Total

183

100%

 

NOTE: 67% experienced at least a week of relief, nearly 1/2 report more than 2 weeks of relief

 

16). On average, our services cost $2.00 – $4.00 per person each year (withheld from local aid rec’d from the State). In your opinion, is this amount too high, too low, or sufficient?

 

 

Number

Percent

Sufficient

179

83.3%

Too Low

35

16.3%

Too High

1

0.5%

Total

215

100%

 

 

17). In which month or months do you recall receiving service?

 

 

Number

Percent

June

58

26.7%

July

54

24.9%

August

37

17.1%

1+

68

31.3%

Total

217

100%

 

 

18). Overall, are you happy with the service provided this year by CMMCP?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

202

91.8%

No

18

8.2%

Total

220

100%

 

19). Do you plan on using our service again in the future?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

219

99.1%

No

2

0.9%

Total

221

100%

 

 

 

Please rate our performance for 2008 from 0 to 5, where 5 is the best rating, 0 is the worst rating:

 

QUESTION

POINTS

AVERAGE

The information you received over the phone was informative & helpful

682 points from 760

4.5 average from 5

The information on our website is easily available and helpful

849 points from 925

4.6 average from 5 

The response time for service is reasonable

1,001 points out of 1,080

4.6 average from 5

Our field staff that responded is knowledgeable and competent

968 points out of 1,035

4.7 average from 5

The service provided was effective

880 points out of 1,070

4.1 average from 5

This service is reasonable compared to the cost

986 points out of 1,055

4.7 average from 5

Please rate your overall satisfaction with the service received in 2008

969 points out of 1,065

4.5 average from 5

 

Total satisfaction rating: 6,335 points out of 6,990 possible – 4.53 average

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Overall satisfaction was 91.8%, and 99.1% would use our services again in the future. One weakness identified in this study is that only 51.8% of the residents polled recalled receiving our written information. The importance of public education and outreach will be stressed to all CMMCP personnel in 2009. We will also continue to explore options regarding our phone system, and push the website as a viable solution for sending and receiving service requests.

 

OVERALL SATISFACTION – WERE YOU HAPPY W/SERVICE?