SATISFACTION SURVEY OF SERVICE REQUESTS IN THE CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS MOSQUITO CONTROL PROJECT SERVICE AREA – 2010

 

TIMOTHY D. DESCHAMPS, Executive Director

Central Mass. Mosquito Control Project

111 Otis Street Northborough, Massachusetts 01532

(508) 393-3055 deschamps@cmmcp.org

 

ABSTRACT

 

Member residents request assistance 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 these requests 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 received service in 2010 to determine if our staff was meeting acceptable levels of customer satisfaction. This is the same survey that was done in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. 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 2010 we received 11,117 requests for service, ranging from adulticiding to larval control, a 22.5% decrease in service requests from 2009. 6,593 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 2010. 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 again that 1,500 postcards would be a representative sample of the service calls received this year (this is an increase of 500 over the first 3 surveys but the same as 2009). The survey was designed to be as easy as possible for residents to access and complete. An online survey was created through SurveyMonkey, 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 all previous resident surveys.

 

SURVEY FINDINGS

 

From 1,500 postcards mailed, 264 responses were received (18%). The results are as follows:

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Telephone

151

57.4%

Website

103

39.2%

In person

4

1.5%

Other

5

1.9%

Total

263

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

166

100%

No

0

0%

Total

166

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

18

11.3%

No

141

88.7%

Total

159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

136

95.1%

No

7

4.9%

Total

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

NOTE: 87.6% within a week or less

 

 

Number

Percent

1-3 days

89

34.2%

3-5 days

76

29.2%

1 week

63

24.2%

2 weeks+

32

12.3%

Total

260

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

247

93.9%

No

16

6.1%

Total

263

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

220

93.2%

No

16

6.8%

Total

236

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

215

93.5%

No

15

6.5%

Total

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

188

74.3%

No

65

25.7%

Total

253

 

 

 

10). Did you find this information useful?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

184

92%

No

16

5%

Total

200

 

 

 

11). Did you request service more than once in 2010?

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

111

43%

No

147

57%

Total

258

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12). If you requested additional service in 2010, was it because the original application was insufficient to meet your needs, or for a later re-treatment or follow up?

 

 

Number

Percent

Retreatment

103

79.8%

Insufficient

26

20.1%

Total

129

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

253

96.9%

No

8

3.1%

Total

261

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Better

235

89.7%

Worse

0

0%

No Effect

27

10.3%

Total

262

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

1-3 days

38

16.7%

3-5 days

36

15.8%

1 week

38

16.7%

2 weeks+

116

50.9%

Total

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: 2/3 experienced at least a week of relief, nearly 51% 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

199

79.3%

Too Low

45

17.9%

Too High

7

2.8%

Total

251

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

May

33

13%

June

70

27.6%

July

63

24.8%

August

15

5.9%

More than 1

73

28.7%

Total

254

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

245

94.2%

No

15

5.8%

Total

260

 

 

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

 

 

Number

Percent

Yes

258

98.9%

No

3

1.1%

Total

261

 

 

Please rate our performance for 2010 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

982 points from 1,215 (243 respondents)

4.04 average from 5

The information on our website is easily available and helpful

1,017 points from 1,240 (248 respondents)

4.1 average from 5

The response time for service is reasonable

1,073 points out of 1,305 (261 respondents)

4.11 average from 5

Our field staff that responded is knowledgeable and competent

1,134 points out of 1,295 (259 respondents)

4.38 average from 5

The service provided was effective

1,039 points out of 1,305 (261 respondents)

3.98 average from 5

This service is reasonable compared to the cost

1,074 points out of 1,285 (257 respondents)

4.18 average from 5

Please rate your overall satisfaction with the service received in 2009

1,104 points out of 1,305 (261 respondents)

4.23 average from 5

 

Total satisfaction rating: 7,423 points out of 8,950 possible – 4.15 average

1,790 total responses

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Overall satisfaction was 94.2%, and 98.9% would use our services again in the future. Answers to question #9 shows a marked increase over past years in regards to residents receiving public relations materials. This survey also documents the increase in website usage to register requests.

 

Overall this survey shows high satisfaction amongst the respondents, but some ratings were slightly lower than in past surveys. This may be due in part to a higher volume of service requests early in the season and warmer than average temperatures in May that hatched the spring populations 2+ weeks earlier than normal.