Skip to Content
 Close search
Print

National satisfaction survey of clients of disability services

Consultancy report

This consultancy report was released on 11 July 2000. Also released with this report is the supplementary material from which the report was prepared.

The survey was commissioned by the Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision and the National Disability Administrators in March 1999, and was funded from the Commonwealth/State Disability Agreement national research and development fund. E-QUAL and Donovan Research conducted the survey between March and November 1999. It is the final report from the consultants. Selected results were included in the Steering Committee's Report on Government Services 2000 (released in February 2000).

The survey compared the satisfaction of clients of disability services across jurisdictions and across services within jurisdictions for the purposes of:

  • enabling comparisons across jurisdictions to be reported in the Steering Committee's Report on Government Services
  • providing policy makers with information to improve their services.

The survey targeted clients of selected services for people with a disability and their families.

Download the report

  • Contents

Preliminaries
Cover, Copyright, Foreword, Contents, Abbreviations, Glossary

PART A INTRODUCTION

1 Background to the survey
1.1 Administrative structure
1.2 Report on Government Services
1.3 Review of research methods
1.4 Scope of the survey
1.5 Survey objectives
1.6 Structure of report

PART B METHOD

2 Overview of the method
2.1 Survey instruments
2.2 Sample specifications
2.3 Sampling procedure
2.4 Provider participation
2.5 Client survey
2.6 Implications of method on interpretation of results
2.7 Implications of method on interpretation of results

PART C RESULTS

3 Survey results — introduction
3.1 Presentation of the results
3.2 Overall satisfaction by service types
3.3 Reporting of statistically significant differences
3.4 The use of weighted data

4 Quality of life indicators
4.1 Life situation — home, community, and work
4.2 Relationships
4.3 Community inclusion
4.4 Choice/self determination

5 Service related indicators
5.1 Access to services
5.2 Independence
5.3 Service quality
5.4 Satisfaction with services

PART D SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6 Suggestions for improvements to the method
6.1 Improvements to the sampling method
6.2 Improvements to the survey tools

7 Key issues for service types and jurisdictions
7.1 Opportunities for service improvement across Australia
7.2 Key issues across service types
7.3 Comparisons across jurisdictions
7.4 Comparative performance across jurisdictions

8 Discussion and conclusion
8.1 Achievements of the survey project
8.2 Uses for the survey information
8.3 Uses for the survey instruments
8.4 Conclusion

PART E APPENDICES

A Survey method

B Survey instruments and fieldwork documents

C Survey indicator matrix and the Disability Services Standards

D Survey indicator matrix and the Disability Services Standards

E Data tables

References

Supplementary material

The National Satisfaction Survey of Clients of Disability Services report was prepared from tables extracted from the national survey data.

The services covered by the survey were accommodation services, employment services, respite services and service coordination. The survey was comprised of two instruments, one for face to face or telephone interviews with clients of these services, (the client survey) and one for family members of clients (the family survey).

This supplementary material is comprised of the national survey data, both weighted and unweighted.It was necessary to weight the data to ensure that the client and family samples in each jurisdiction reflected the mix of services provided. For example, there were two distinct subgroups in the client sample, those receiving accommodation services and those receiving employment services.

Without weighting, total client data within any individual jurisdiction are meaningless because they were not 'all clients', but a group receiving one or both types of service and thus may not have reflected those services proportional to each other. National data would also be meaning less without weighting. The same weighting issues are also true for the family survey except that it comprised 4 subgroups.

Download client survey data

Download family survey data

  • Family Accommodation Weighted (PDF - 389 Kb)
    Weighted data from the survey of family members of clients of accommodation services. This file provides weighted data relating to family members of clients who used accommodation services.
  • Family Employment Weighted (PDF - 392 Kb)
    Weighted data from the survey of family members of clients of employment services. This file provides weighted data relating to family members of clients who used employment services.
  • Family Respite Weighted (PDF - 427 Kb)
    Weighted data from the survey of family members of clients of respite services. This file provides weighted data relating to family members of clients who used respite services.
  • Family Service Weighted (PDF - 294 Kb)
    Weighted data from the survey of family members of clients of service coordination. This file provides weighted data relating to family members of clients who used service coordination.
  • Family Unweighted (PDF - 1286 Kb)
    Unweighted data from all family members of clients. This file provides unweighted data relating to all family members of clients.

Printed copies

This publication is only available online.

Publications feedback

We value your comments about this publication and encourage you to provide feedback.

Submit publications feedback