My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Finance Highlights 2008 0729
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Finance Committee
>
Finance Highlights 2008 0729
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/29/2008 10:13:54 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:13:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
7/29/2008
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2008 0902
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2008\Packet 2008 0902
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
137
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5) Lisa Nichols made contact by phone with each person on the peer agency, funding <br />organization, and Board of Directors lists, asking for permission to send the survey <br />via email. She sent the surveys via email and continually followed up on getting <br />responses, sometimes taking interviews by phone. <br />6) The staff survey was sent out by Rose Padilla-Johnson in order to ensure a good <br />response. It was sent out in English and Spanish, where needed. Results were <br />returned directly to Lisa Nichols (to preserve anonymity). Provisions were made for <br />those who did not have email (a hard copy version with stamped return envelope was <br />provided). A reminder message was sent at the deadline period in order to encourage <br />more responses. <br />7) An outside contractor was engaged to translate Spanish responses. <br />8) All of the responses to the surveys were compiled into reports by type of respondent. <br />9) Some of the survey summaries in this report may also reflect comments gathered in <br />personal phone interviews. <br />Agencies <br />Peer Agencies -Survey Results: Summary <br />There is an implied, significant benefit in maintaining positive communication channels <br />with peer agencies. In addition to providing client referrals, key personnel within <br />community peer agencies can share resources and broadly promote each other's <br />reputations -directly and indirectly. Because of this, we wanted to survey a few peer <br />agencies to see if they had an accurate understanding of DSFRC's services and then poll <br />them on their opinions of the Center. Our assumption was that this would provide an <br />accurate reflection of DSFRC's reputation in the non-profit community. <br />We surveyed 6 peer agencies (6 were originally invited, a116 responded). You can see <br />their exact comments in Appendix D: Summary of Peer Agencies' Feedback. The <br />agencies that participated included: <br />1) Kidango <br />2) Eden Information & Referral <br />3) Building Futures for Women & Children <br />4) Private Physician -medical office <br />5) Alameda County Office of Education <br />6) Freemont Family Resource Center <br />Four key questions were asked. Each question is given below followed by a brief <br />summary of the responses. <br />How would you describe DSFRC's mission and the services they offer? <br />Five out of the 6 surveyed agencies were complete and correct in describing the <br />services offered by DSFRC. The 6`l' agency offers services similar to DSFRC in <br />one specific area and was only aware of the Center's services in that arena. This <br />result would be expected since the agencies surveyed were chosen by DSFRC, but <br />Sustainability Study: Davis Street Family Resource Center - 4/08 Page 19 of 96 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.