Prepared for: City of Los Angeles
Workforce Investment Board
Los Angeles Harbor
Customer Satisfaction
Survey
2012‐2013
Authors: Cristina Rubino, Ph.D. Richard W. Moore, Ph.D. Trent Cumming The College of Business Economics
TableofContents
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 3
METHOD .................................................................................................................................. 3
ParticipantsandResponseRate....................................................................................................................3
MethodologicalConstraints............................................................................................................................4
Questionnaire........................................................................................................................................................5
FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 6
OverallSatisfactionandRelatedMeasures..............................................................................................6
Figure1:OverallSatisfactionandRelatedMeasures..........................................................................6
OverallSatisfactionbyOtherFactors.........................................................................................................7
OverallSatisfactionbyChamber...................................................................................................................7
OverallsatisfactionandTypeofServicesReceived...............................................................................7
Table1:OverallsatisfactionandTypeofServicesReceived.............................................................7
OverallSatisfactionandActionIfDidNotReceiveServices..............................................................7
Table2:OverallSatisfactionandActionIfDidNotReceiveServices............................................8
OverallSatisfactionandDescriptivevariables.......................................................................................8
Table3:OverallSatisfactionandYearsinBusiness.............................................................................9
Table4:OverallSatisfactionandNumberofFace‐to‐faceMeetings............................................9
Table5:OverallSatisfactionandTypeofBusiness............................................................................10
Table6:OverallSatisfactionandFamily‐Owned................................................................................10
SatisfactionwithProcess(InteractionwithChamberandServiceProvided).......................10
Figure2:SatisfactionwithProcess...........................................................................................................11
AdditionalIndicatorsofPerformance.....................................................................................................11
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 12
MainFindings.....................................................................................................................................................12
Limitations...........................................................................................................................................................13
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................13
ComprehensiveEvaluation...........................................................................................................................13
ImprovedRecordKeeping.............................................................................................................................14
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 15
AppendixA:DispositionTable.....................................................................................................................15
AppendixB:Questionnaire...........................................................................................................................16
AppendixC:OverallSatisfactionCorrelations.....................................................................................21
ii
OVERVIEW TheCityofLosAngelesWorkforceInvestmentBoardcontractedwithCaliforniaState
UniversityNorthridgetoconductasurveyofbusinessesthatreceivedservicesthroughthe
HarborLay‐offAversionProgram.TheHarborLay‐offAversionProgramreachessmallat‐
riskbusinessestoprovidelayoffaversion/businessassistanceviain‐personconsultations
and/orworkshops.BusinessesareprovidedwithinformationregardingCityofLA
BusinessAssistanceServices,LAWIB,includingjobdevelopment,rapidresponse,on‐the‐
jobtraining(OJT)programs,loans,andlicensesandpermits.Theprogramcooperateswith
theGatewayLocalWorkforceInvestmentActareaandlocalchambersofcommerce(i.e.,
Wilmington,HarborCity,andSanPedro)toreachlocalbusinesses.AstheChambersserve
thebusinesses,theprogramservicesareintertwinedwiththeChamberactivities.
Todeterminehowsatisfiedbusinesseswerewiththeseservices,acustomersatisfaction
surveythatexaminedoverallsatisfaction,ifservicesmetexpectations,referralbehavior,
satisfactionwithprocess,serviceimpact,andbusinesscharacteristicswasdevelopedand
administered.Theresultsofthesurveyshowarelativelyhighlevelofaverageoverall
satisfactionof4.35ona5‐pointscale(seeFigure1below).Theoverallsatisfactionseems
toprimarilybedrivenbyservicesmeetingexpectations.
Inthisreportweprovideouranalysisofthedata.Lowresponserateslimitourabilityto
analyzethedataandmakegeneralizations.Wealsoprovideconclusionsandsuggestions
basedonconstraintsexperiencedwhendevelopingthemethodologyandtheresultsofdata
collection.
METHOD Participants and Response Rate Theprogramprovidedatotalsamplepoolof118clientbusinessesthatparticipatedinthe
HarborLayoffAversionprograminthe2012‐13programyear.DuringJuly2013we
attemptedtohaveeachofthe118clientscompletethesurvey,usingSurveyMonkeyasthe
onlinesurveyplatformanddatacollectiontool.
ClientswereinitiallysentanemailinvitationtotakethesurveyviaSurveyMonkey,onJuly
16,2013.Theintroductionemailswerecustomizedtoincludeeachrecipient’snameand
pertinentinformationregardingtheparticularChamberthatdeliveredtheservices.The
emailcontainedtwoembeddedlinksthatdirectedtheclienttothesurveywithoutanytype
oflog‐innecessary.Atotalofthreefollow‐upemailremindersweresentondays3,6and
10fromthedateoftheoriginalsurveyinvitation.Reminderemailswereonlysentto
clientswhohadnotyetresponded.Clientswhodidnotrespondafterthreereminders
(overthecourseof10days)wereclassifiedasnon‐responsive.
3
About7%(9)ofclientemails“bounced”andweresentbackasinvalidemailaddresses.
About6.7%(8)weremissingemailaddresses.About18%(21)ofclientsdidrespondby
thelastdayofthesurvey.About68%(80)ofclientsdidnotrespondbytheclosingdayof
thesurvey.Thismaybeduetoavarietyofreasonsincludingrefusal,emailmessages
filteredinto“junk”mailboxandneverviewedbyrecipient,andlackoftimeforclientsto
spendcompletinganonlinesurvey.Thedispositiontablereportingthesizeoftheinitial
clientlistandcompletedsamplesizeareprovidedinAppendixA.
Ofthe118clientsforwhichwewereprovideddata,70containedemailaddressesonly,40
containedbusinessnames,addressesofbusinesses,contactnamesandemailaddresses,
and8containedbusinessname,addressofbusinessandcontactname,butnoemail
address.Noneofthedataprovidedcontainedinformationregardingthetypeofservices
theclienthadreceived.Thelackofrichclientdataresultedinthegatheringoflesscomplex
surveydatathanwehadoriginallyhopedtoreceive,regardingsatisfactionwithspecific
services.
Methodological Constraints Database issues. Salesforce data were provided to the consulting team. The database was created
during the course of our project, to track program participants and the services they received. As
mentioned above, data on businesses served was often incomplete, particularly data about
services received, which does not appear to be recorded. There does not appear to be a standard
data collection effort. Data appear to have been collected through the Chambers that cooperate
with the program, but a formal process does not seem to exist, whereby local businesses become
“ a client” of the Layoff Aversion program. Rather local businesses participate in Chamber
activities, and at some point are entered into the database. The database did not include email
addresses. We had to get these separately from the Chambers. The email addresses did not link to
the database so were unable to use the database in our analysis.
Of the 300 businesses listed in the Salesforce database, about 27% (82) of clients listed what
types of services their businesses needed. As noted, the respondents did not differentiate the
services provided through the program from chamber services. We noted this limitation after the
focus group conducted in December 2012. As a result, we worded the survey questions with the
Chamber as the referent.
Low response rate. The low number of respondents has many implications for the findings
presented in this technical report. First, the small sample size limited the analyses that could be
conducted. We were unable to determine whether certain factors predicted overall satisfaction,
since we lacked a sufficient number of cases to apply more sophisticated statistical techniques
such as regression analysis. Also, it is important to note that significance, which indicates that
relationships between variables is not due to sampling error, is largely dependent on sample size.
Unless the relationship is strong, it will not be of significance; with such a small sample size. We
do not know if with more respondents low correlations would become significant. Second,
another big concern is that our sample is not representative of the entire population of businesses
served, rendering comparisons by chamber impossible. As this was not a representative sample,
we do not know whether non-respondents may answer questions differently. In other words, non4
respondents may be more satisfied or dissatisfied than the respondents. Questionnaire Theconsultingteamdevelopedthequestionnairebyconductingafocusgroupwith
programstaffandchamberrepresentativestolearnaboutkeyprogramcomponentsthese
expertsthoughtwereimportanttocustomersatisfaction.Next,weintegratedvarious
validatedcustomersatisfactionscalesaswellasscalesonfactorsthatimpactoverall
satisfaction(e.g.,promptservice).Thebusinesseswerefirstaskedtoratetheirsatisfaction
withservices.Fouritemsassessediftheirneedsweremet,whethertheserviceshelped
theirbusiness,andwhattheywouldhavedoneiftheyhadnotreceivedtheseservices.The
secondportionincludednineitemsthattappedintotheirsatisfactionwiththeprocess.We
wereinterestedindetermininghowclientsperceivedtheirinteractionwiththeChamber
memberworkingfortheproject.Specifically,weaskedbusinesseswhetherthe
representativewasknowledgeable,courteous,prompt,responsive,easytounderstand,and
enjoyable,aswellaswhethertheservicesrecommendedwereuseful,relevant,andeasyto
use.Asrecommendingaservicetoothersisoneindicationofsatisfaction,thenexttwo
questionsgaugedwhetherparticipatingorganizationsspokefavorablyorunfavorably
abouttheservicesprovidedtoothers.
Thelastsectionofthesatisfactionsurveyquestionsusesanoverallsatisfactionitem,two
relatedsatisfactionquestionsfromtheAmericanCustomerSatisfactionIndex(ASCI)
(www.theacsi.org),andtwoquestionsthattapintowhethertheyweresatisfiedenoughto
(a)usethisserviceifotheroptionswereavailableand(b)recommendittootherpeople.
BasedontheASCI,theoverallclientsatisfactionwasmeasuredusingasinglequestionwith
“5”representing“verysatisfied”and“1”being“verydissatisfied.”TheothertwoASCI
questionswere:
 Theextentwhichtheservicesmetexpectations
o “1”being“fallsshort”and“5”being“exceedsall”
 Acomparisonofservicesreceivedcomparedtotheideal
o “1”being“notveryclose”and“5”being“veryclose”
Thesubsequentsectioncomprisedofquestionsregardingdescriptiveinformation
including:
 Areascompanyfacedthemostproblems
 Servicesprovided
 Thesizeofthecompanyintermsofnumbersofemployees
 Whetherthecompanyisfamilyowned
 Typeofbusiness(e.g.,franchise)
 NumberoftimestheclientmetwiththeChamberrepresentative
Lastly,participantswereprovidedspacetoincludetheirowncommentsorsuggestions.
ThequestionnaireforthestudyisincludedinAppendixB.
5
FINDINGS Overall Satisfaction and Related Measures Threesatisfactionmeasuresweregatheredusing5‐pointscales(seeFigure1below).
Organizationsreportedfairlyhighlevelsofsatisfactiononallthreemeasures.Theaverage
responsefor“overallsatisfaction”wasahigh4.35(with5being“verysatisfied”).Weasked
twoadditionalsatisfactionquestionsfromtheAmericanCustomerSatisfactionIndex
(www.theacsi.org)aboutexpectationsandideals.Whenaskedtowhatextenttheservices
metexpectations,theaverageresponsewashighat4.35(with5being“exceedsallofmy
expectations”).Finally,whenaskedhowclosetheservicesreceivedweretothebusiness'
idealsetofservices,theaverageresponsewas4.50(with5being“veryclosetomyideal”).
Expectationsandidealsaremoderatelyrelatedtooverallsatisfactionwithacorrelationof
.55and.66,respectively(seeAppendixC).
Twoothermeasuresofsatisfactionincludewhetherbusinesseswouldrecommendthe
servicesprovidedandwhethertheywouldberepeatcustomersifotheroptionswere
available.Theaverageresponsewas4.65and4.55,respectively.Theseitemswerenot
significantlyrelatedtooverallsatisfaction,withcorrelationsof.22and.30.Thesetwo
factorswerehighlycorrelatedwiththeothertwosatisfactionmeasures:metexpectations
(.64and.72,respectively)andcomparedtotheideal(.70and.82,respectively).
Figure 1: Overall Satisfaction and Related Measures Overall
4.35
ComparedtoExpectations
4.35
ComparedtoIdeal
4.50
Recommendthisservice
4.65
Repeatcustomer
4.55
1
2
3
6
4
5
Overall Satisfaction by Other Factors Overall Satisfaction by Chamber AverageoverallsatisfactionwascalculatedforeachChamber,sincebusinessesappearto
havereceivedservicesthroughtheChambers.TheHarborChamberhadanaverageof4.23
(13respondents),SanPedroChamberanaverageof5.00(2respondents),andWilmington
anaverageof4.40(5respondents).Allaveragessuggestthatoverallparticipantsare
satisfiedwithservicesprovided.AlthoughtheHarborChamberofCommercehadaslightly
loweraverage,thelownumberofrespondentsfortheothertwochambersmakes
comparisonsproblematic.Furtheranalysisindicatedthatdifferencesintheaverages
betweenthechambersarenotstatisticallysignificant.
Overall satisfaction and Type of Services Received Thebusinessesalsoreportedwhichservicestheyreceived.Themostcommonservicewas
attendingaworkshop,followedbyhelpwithlicensesandpermits,marketing,andloans.
Few(1‐3businesses)receivedhelpwithhiring,referrals,orotherservices.Nineofthe18
respondingbusinesses(threedidnotrespond)reportedreceivingmorethanoneservice.
Theoverallsatisfactionbyservicesprovidedwasthenexamined.Averageoverall
satisfactionwascalculatedforeachserviceprovided.Theaverageoverallsatisfactionscore
byserviceprovidedisincludedbelow(Table1).Thefindingssuggestthatorganizations
thatreportreceivinghelpwithhiringandotheraretheleastsatisfied(average=4.00).As
mostorganizationsreceivedmorethanoneservice,thereisoverlapintheaverages
includedbelow.Therefore,wecannotdeterminewhetherthesedifferencesarestatistically
significant.
Table1:OverallSatisfactionandTypeofServicesReceived Average Number of Services Provided Satisfaction respondents Hiring 4.00 2 Marketing 4.57 7 Workshop 4.58 11 Information on Licenses and Permits 4.75 8 Information on Loans 4.67 6 Referrals to VITA 5.00 1 Other 4.00 3 Overall Satisfaction and Action If Did Not Receive Services Whenaskedwhatthebusinesswouldhavedoneiftheserviceswerenotavailable,seven
businessessaidtheywouldgethelpelsewhereandfivestatedthattheywouldnotexpand
theirbusinesses.Onlyonebusinesssaiditwouldhavereducedthesizeofitsbusiness.
Wethenexaminedwhetheroverallsatisfactionwasrelatedtowhatthebusinesseswould
havedonehadtheynotreceivedservicesprovided.Theresultsaresummarizedbelow
(Table2).Thethreeorganizationsthatindicatedtheywoulddonothingreportedthe
7
lowestlevelofoverallsatisfaction(average=4.33).Businessesthatstatedtheywouldnot
expandtheirbusiness(n=5organizations;average=4.60)andreducetheirbusiness(n=
1organization;average=5.00)reportedhighlevelsofsatisfaction.Onebusinessthat
answeredthatitwouldnothaveexpandeditsbusinessskippedtheoverallsatisfaction
question.
Table 2: Overall Satisfaction and Action If Did Not Receive Services If you had not received these services, Average Number of what would you have done? Satisfaction respondents Got services elsewhere 4.57 7 Not expand my business 4.60 5 Reduced my business 5.00 1 Nothing 4.33 3 Non‐response 4.67 3 Overall Satisfaction and Descriptive variables Lengthoftimeinbusiness
Belowwesummarizethefindingsexaminingoverallsatisfactionwithrespecttonumberof
yearstheorganizationwasinbusiness.Wehadthreenon‐respondents.Ingeneral,it
appearsthatorganizationsthathavebeeninbusinessforalongerperiodoftimereported
higheroverallsatisfaction.Again,duetothelownumberofrespondents,weareunableto
determineifthisrelationshipisstatisticallysignificantalthoughthecorrelationbetween
lengthoftimeandoverallsatisfactionisofmoderatesize(.41).
8
Table 3: Overall Satisfaction and Years in Business Average Number of Years in Business Satisfaction respondents 0 3.00 1 0.5 5.00 1 0.8 4.00 1 1 4.67 3 3 4.00 2 5 4.33 3 6 5.00 1 9 5.00 1 11 5.00 1 13 5.00 1 15 5.00 1 20 5.00 1 31 5.00 1 Total 18 NumberofFace‐to‐faceMeetings
Wethenexploredwhetherthenumberofface‐to‐facemeetingswiththeChamber
representativeimpactedoverallsatisfaction.Respondentsansweredeither1‐2times(7
organizations),3‐5times(5organizations),6‐10times(0organizations),andmorethan10
times(6organizations).Asindicatedbelow,theoverallsatisfactionincreasedslightlyas
thenumberofvisitsincreased.Again,duetothelownumberofrespondents,weareunable
todetermineifthisrelationshipisstatisticallysignificantalthoughthecorrelationbetween
lengthoftimeandoverallsatisfactionismoderatelyhigh(.58).
Table 4: Overall Satisfaction and Number of Face‐to‐face Meetings Number of face‐to‐face Average Number of meetings Satisfaction respondents 1‐2 4.43
7
3‐5 4.60
5
More than 10 4.67
6
Total 18
TypeofBusiness
Inexaminingtheoverallsatisfactionwiththetypeofbusiness,itappearsthatmostofthe
businesseswereindependentandnoneofthebusinesseswerefranchises(seeTable5).Of
thosethatresponded,businessesthatwerebranchesoflargerorganizationsreportedthe
lowestlevelofsatisfaction(4.33).Thecorrelationbetweentypeofbusinessandoverall
satisfactionislow(.20).
9
Table 5: Overall Satisfaction and Type of Business Average Number of Type of Business Satisfaction respondents Franchise ‐ 0 Branch 4.33 3 Independent 4.57 14 Nonprofit 5.00 1 Total 18 Thetypeofbusinesswasalsoinvestigatedbycomparingfamily‐owedbusinessestothose
thatwerenotfamily‐owed.AsTable6indicates,mostofthebusinesses(n=11)were
family‐owedandreportedhigherlevelsofoverallsatisfactionthanthosethatwerenot
family‐owned.T‐testcomparisonofmeansanalysisfoundthattheaveragemeansare
significantlydifferentfromeachother(F=9.92,p<.01),suggestingthatfamily‐owned
businessesweremoresatisfiedwiththeservicesprovided.
Table 6: Overall Satisfaction and Family‐Owned Is your company family Average Number of owned? Satisfaction respondents Yes 4.73 11
No 4.29 7
Total 18
Satisfaction with Process (Interaction with Chamber and Service Provided) WeaskedninequestionsthatassessedtheinteractionwiththeChamberrepresentative
(e.g.,promptness)andthequalityoftheserviceprovided(e.g.,useful).Theaverage
responsesforeachitemaredepictedbelow(Figure2).Althoughallitemsareratedhighly,
thehighestrateditemwas“TheChamberofCommercerepresentativewascourteous”and
thelowestratedwas“TheinformationandreferralsprovidedbytheChamberof
Commercerepresentativewereusefulandrelevant.”Wethenexploredwhetherthese
itemsarerelatedtooverallsatisfaction.Interestingly,despitehighscoresonallofthe
items,onlytwoitemswererelatedtooverallsatisfaction:“MyChamberofCommerce
representativedemonstratedacomprehensiveknowledgeofmycompany’sbusiness
needs”(.52)and“Theservicewasdeliveredinareasonabletime”(.46).Theotheritems
werenotsignificantlyrelatedtooverallsatisfaction,includingwhetherornotthe
representativewascourteous.
10
Figure 2: Satisfaction with Process Wealsoexploredwhetherdifferencesexistbetweensatisfactionwiththeinteractionand
satisfactionwiththeservicesprovided.ThefirstfiveitemsinFigure2wereaveragedto
createasatisfactionwithinteractionscore(average=4.64)andthelastfouritemswere
usedtocreateasatisfactionwithservicesprovided(average=4.53).Neithersatisfaction
withinteractionnorsatisfactionwithservicesprovidedweresignificantlyrelatedto
overallsatisfaction(correlation=.43and.27,respectively).Bothfactors,however,were
highlyrelatedtometexpectationswithcorrelationsof.78withsatisfactionwith
interactionand.67withsatisfactionwithserviceprovided.
Additional Indicators of Performance ReferralBehavior
Organizationswereaskedwhethertheyspokefavorablyorunfavorablywithothersabout
theservicesprovided.Bothitemswereratedona5‐pointscale(“1”=stronglydisagreeto
“5”=stronglyagree).Organizationsgenerallyindicatedthattheyspokepositivelyaboutthe
serviceswithanaverageof4.55(n=20)anddidnotsayunfavorablethingsaboutthe
serviceswithanaverageof1.50(n=20).Wereversecodedthequestionaboutunfavorable
commentsinordertocombinethesetwoitemstogetanoverallmeasureofreferral
behavior.Totalreferralbehaviorwassignificantlyrelatedtooverallsatisfactionwitha
moderatecorrelationof.55.
PerceptionsofHelpfulnessofServices
Weaskedrespondentstwoquestionsregardingwhethertheservicesprovidedwere
helpfulornothelpful.Wereversecodedthequestionaskingwhetherserviceswereoflittle
helpinordertocombinethesetwoquestionstocomeupwithanoverallindicatorofhelp
received.Overall,organizationsfeltthattheserviceswerehelpfulwithanaveragescoreof
4.40.Perceptionsofwhethertheserviceswerehelpfulwerehighlycorrelatedwithoverall
satisfaction(.78).
11
CONCLUSION Main Findings Basedontheanalysesabove,wehighlightkeyfindingsbelow.Thesefindingshave
implicationsfortheHarborLay‐offAversionProgram.Again,wewouldliketonotethese
findingsshouldbeinterpretedwithsomemeasureofcautionastheresponseratelimited
thetypeofanalysesperformedandgeneralizabilityofresults.
 Theprogramreceivedhighscoresonsatisfactionmeasures(i.e.,overallsatisfaction,
comparisontoideal,metexpectations,recommendservice,andrepeatcustomer).
Scoresrangedfrom4.35–4.65.Thesefindingssuggestthatoverall,respondentsare
satisfiedwiththeservicesprovidedbytheprogram.
 Althoughthisprogramisinplacetohelpat‐riskbusinesses,onlyonerespondent
outof19saiditwould“reduceitsbusiness”ifithadnotreceivedservices.Instead,
theotherparticipantsstatedthattheywouldhavegottenserviceselsewhere,not
expandedthebusiness,ordonenothing.Thisimpliesthateithertheprogramisnot
reachingat‐riskbusinessesorrespondentstendtobefromorganizationsthatare
notat‐risk.
 Thelongertheorganizationsareinbusiness,themoresatisfiedtheyarewiththe
servicesprovidedbytheChambers.Thissuggeststhattheprogramservicesare
betterreceivedbyolderbusinesses,orperhapsbusinessesthathavelong
relationshipswiththelocalchambers..
 Ageneraltrendbetweenthenumberofface‐to‐faceinteractionsbetweenthe
businessandtheChamberrepresentativeandoverallsatisfactionexists.Although
thisrelationshipwasnotsignificant,itwasofmoderatesize.Thissuggeststhat
interactionwithbusinessesisakeyfactorthatimpactssatisfaction.
 Family‐ownedbusinessesweresignificantlymoresatisfiedwithservicesthannon‐
familyownedbusinesses.Thissuggeststhatfamily‐ownedbusinessesmayperceive
theservicesprovidedasmorebeneficial.
 FactorspertainingtotheinteractionwiththeChamberrepresentativeorthe
servicesprovidedappeartobemorerelatedtometexpectationsandnotoverall
satisfaction.Thissuggeststhatbusinesseshaveexpectationsregardinginteractions
(e.g.,promptness,knowledgeable)andservices(e.g.,useful,easytouse),butthat
theseexperiencesalonedonotinfluenceoverallsatisfaction.Instead,overall
satisfactionmaybeimpactedifexpectationsregardinginteractionandservicesare
notmet.
 Businessesthatreportedhighlevelsofoverallsatisfactiontendedtoperceivethat
theservicesprovidedwerehelpfulandtheyspokefavorablyabouttheservicesto
others.
12
Limitations Aswesummarizedkeyfindings,itisalsoimportanttohighlightkeylimitations.Someof
thesearementionedintheMethodologicalConstraintssectionofthereport.
 TheprogramservicesarenotdistinguishedfromtheChamberactivities.Thisis
evidentbythestructureofthequestionsincludedinthesurvey.Thebusinesses
wereaskedspecificallyabouttheirinteractionandsatisfactionwiththeChamber,
nottheHarborLay‐offAversionProgram.
 Fromthebusinesses’perspective,programservicesarenotseparatefromChamber
activities.Therefore,itisimpossibletomeasuresatisfactionwiththeprogram.We
areunabletodeterminewhethertherespondentsaresatisfiedwiththeprogramor
theChamber.Forexample,oneparticipantcommented,“TheHCHGChamberisa
modelforwhatChambersofCommerceshouldbeandmanyarenot.Their
knowledgeofEnterpriseZones,PermitRequirementsandtheopportunitiesto
networkwithChambermembersandotherbusinesseshavehelpedmybusinessto
growmuchfasterthanexpected.”
 ThereisnocleardelineationofwhichbusinessesarecustomersoftheLay‐off
AversionprogramandwhicharesimplyattendingChamberactivitiesandreceiving
chamberservices,makingitdifficulttoidentifyprogramparticipants.
 Wewereunabletosurveybusinessesuponcompletionofservices.Instead,dueto
lackofcontactinformation,wesurveyedrespondentsattimesmonthsafterthe
serviceswereprovided.
 Clearrecordsforeachbusinessserveddonotexist.Althoughthesalesforce
databasewasavailable,itdoesnotprovideinformationregardingwhatservices
businessesreceived.Further,thefactorsincludedinthedatabasehadalotof
missingdata,andthedatabasealsodoesnotincludeemailaddresses..
 Thesurveyresponseratewasverylowwhichlimitstheimplicationsand
generalizationsofourfindings.Despiteeffortstocollectdatafromageneralizable
sampleofprogramparticipants,wedonothaveacomprehensiveviewofwhether
customersoftheHarborLay‐offAversionProgramaresatisfied.
Recommendations Comprehensive Evaluation Thepurposeofthisprojectwastosimplymeasurecustomersatisfactionwithservices
received.Inconductingthissatisfactionanalysisweuncoveredpossibleissues,which
suggestthatacomprehensiveevaluationoftheprograminrelationtoitslargergoalsmay
beinorder.Specifically,acomprehensiveevaluationisneededtodeterminetheextentto
whichthisprogramisimpactingat‐riskbusinesses.Currently,thereseemstobelittle
evidencethatat‐riskbusinessesareservicedbythisprogram,asonlyonerespondent
reportedthatitwouldhavehadtoreduceitsbusinesshadservicesnotbeenprovided.Our
sampleisnotrepresentativeoftheparticipatingbusinesses,however,whichfurther
suggeststhatamorein‐depthevaluationisneeded.Thisevaluationwouldbeconducted
immediatelyaftertheservicesareprovided.
13
Acomprehensiveevaluationwouldaimtoanswerthefollowingquestions:
 Doesthisprogrampreventlayoffs?
 Doestheprogramprovideservicesthatwouldnototherwisebeavailableto
businesses?
 Howdocompaniesbenefitfromtheservicestheyreceive?
 Doesoverallsatisfactionvarybasedonvariousfactors(e.g.,typeofbusiness,
servicesprovided,interactionwiththerepresentative)?
o Thoughthiswasexaminedinthistechnicalreport,weareunabletodraw
conclusionsbasedonthelowresponserate.
Improved Record Keeping Thechambersshouldimplementanimprovedrecordkeepingsystem.Therepresentatives
shouldbeexpectedtoinputallcontactinformation,businessneeds,servicesprovided,
informationaboutthebusiness(e.g.,family‐owned,size),andnumberofinteractionsinto
thedatabase.Althoughsomeofthisinformationiscurrentlyrecorded,theredoesnot
appeartobecomplianceasthereisasubstantialamountofmissingdata.Betterrecord
keepingfromtheChamberswouldhelptodeterminewhetherservicesprovidedactually
impactbusinesses.
14
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Disposition Table Chamber of Commerce Harbor City/Harbor Gateway San Pedro Wilmington Total Total Sample Pool 48
47
23
118
Email E‐mail bounced address No back missing Response Responded
8
25
13
2 0
38
3
6 0
17
5
1 8
80
21
9 15
AppendixB:Questionnaire
16
17
18
19
20
AppendixC:OverallSatisfactionCorrelations
Met Your Expectations Compared to Ideal Pearson Correlation 0.55* .66** Sample Size 20 20 Overall Satisfaction Satisfaction with Representative Interaction Satisfaction with Product or Service Pearson Correlation .43 .27 Sample Size 20 20 Overall Satisfaction Note. * Significance of p < .05; ** Significance of p < .01. 21