ECKAN Needs Assessment 2003 Survey of Clients

Abstract

The East Central Kansas Economic Opportunity Corporation (ECKAN) contracted with the Policy Research Institute (PRI) at the University of Kansas in 2003 to assist with a needs assessment survey of clients. The Survey Research Center (SRC) at PRI worked with ECKAN to develop the surveys administered to ECKAN’s clients in their service area.

The ECKAN survey was mailed to all of the 1,628 ECKAN client households in eight Kansas counties (Anderson, Coffey, Douglas, Franklin, Johnson, Lyon, Miami, and Osage). After fourteen days, a second mailing was sent to a random sample of 300 client households that had not responded to the initial mailing. In addition, about two weeks following the second mailing, households not responding to the mail survey were selected at random and contacted via the telephone to complete the survey. The two mailings were performed during the month of July 2003 and phone calls were made to 1,044 non-respondents on August 21, 22, and 25 – 29, 2003.

Of the 1,628 surveys mailed, the SRC received 381 responses, providing a mailing response rate of 23 percent. Of the 1,044 clients contacted by telephone 195 individuals agreed to complete the survey and 92 individuals refused, providing a telephone cooperation rate of 68%, and a telephone response rate of 19 percent. Thus, the total number of completed surveys was 576. As such, the total response rate from the survey is 36 percent. Given the number of completed surveys and question response distribution, the margin of error for the survey is ± 3.7 percent.

The Kansas Center for Community Economic Development (KCCED) with PRI became involved in this process in September 2003 with the generation of tables for the Client surveys using SPSS. County-level tables for the Client Survey were also developed.

The findings are divided along the same sections as the Client Survey: I) Housing, II) Employment, III) Other Services and IV) Family Profile. Sections I – III include an analysis of the provision of the services and the clients’ views on whether or not the service is needed. A breakdown of the clients’ responses by county is also reported. Tables for the county-level responses can be found in Appendix A. Therefore, following analysis provides an overview of the need for services and the services provided as well as differences among the counties served.