1. 2016 Client Satisfaction
Survey Results A Report By:
Emmanuel Lemire,
Jordyn Hanne,
Joshika Kumari,
& Stacy Huynh
Advised By
Anoshua Chaudhuri, Ph.D
Source: 2016 Hospitality House
1

2. Introduction
The purpose of this project was to analyze the responses from a survey which
Hospitality House distributed among their clients.
As part of the survey clients answered questions about their satisfaction with
programs and staff, relayed information about their identities, and reported
positive outcomes which they achieved as a result of participation.
Survey responses were categorized using Qualtrics software and then analyzed
using Stata statistical software.
This project was done as a Community Service Learning project on behalf of
San Francisco State University’s Health Economics class.
2

3. Presentation Content
Survey Distribution (4-5)
Client Demographics (6-7)
Response Rates (8-9)
Average Satisfaction Ratings (10)
Satisfaction Ratings By Program (12-17)
Positive Outcomes (18-19)
Conclusion (20)
3

4. January 2016 Annual Participation Satisfaction Survey (Front)
Note: The image represents a blank refused survey
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016
4

5. January 2016 Annual Participation Satisfaction Survey (Back)
Note: The image represents a blank refused survey
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016
5
Note: The image represents a blank refused survey
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016

6. 6
Hospitality House Programs
1. Sixth Street Self-Help Center
2. Tenderloin Self Help Center
3. Shelter Program
4. Employment Resource Center
5. Community Arts Center
6. Community Building Program
Source: 2016 Hospitality House

7. 7
Figure 1: Share of Surveys Administered Within Each Program
Survey Methodology
● In total 519 Surveys were
administered by the HH
Staff
● Surveys were administered
1.25.16 through 1.29.16 for
all of the programs
including SSHC, TSHC, SP,
ERC, and CBP
● Surveys were administered
2.29.16 through 3.4.16 for
the CA program
● The surveys were
administered within regular
working hours, community
meetings & support groups

8. Client Demographics
• Most respondents were male (53%) and identified as Black (34%).
• About half of all clients were between the ages of 50 and 59.
• Most surveys were written in English (71%), but about a quarter of
responses were written in Cantonese and the rest in Spanish (6%).
• About a third of clients said they had stable housing, and the rest
either said they did not or did not respond.
• Only a small minority of clients reported veteran status (6%).
• More than a third of clients have been in their respective programs for
five years or less (42%).
8

9. 9
Figure 2: Respondents Identification to a Specific Ethnic Category
Core Demographics Continued

10. Response Rates
• In total 519 surveys were distributed and 479 were completed and
returned.
• Of all the clients who were present at the time in which the surveys
were distributed more than half completed a survey (58%).
• About half of all survey respondents chose not to mark their ages
(51%).
• About a third of respondents also chose not to answer whether they
had stable housing or not (32%).
• About a quarter of all clients did not report a positive outcome (24%).
10

11. 11
Figure 3: Rate of Response to Positive Outcome Achievement Survey Questions
Response Rates Continued

12. Average Satisfaction Rates
• Clients are very satisfied with the staff (93%) and the physical
program space (83%).
• Most clients say they feel safe at Hospitality House (88%) and believe
that their input is valued (84%).
• As a result of participating at HH clients agree that they are now
more able to meet their daily needs (85%) and that they plan to
continue their involvement (90%).
• Most clients say that HH has had a positive impact on their lives
(88%) and that they now feel more a part of their community (84%).
12

13. Satisfaction Ratings By Program
13
Figure 4: Sixth Street Self Help Center Client Satisfaction Ratings
N = 66
Note: Clients in the Sixth Street program were most satisfied with the staff (94%) and their future involvement with HH.
The lowest satisfaction was ‘I like the physical space’ at 70%.
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016

14. N = 284
Note: Clients were asked to rank their satisfaction with the TSHC; for every question there was above 80% satisfaction, with staff
satisfaction being the highest area of satisfaction at 92%.
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016 14
Figure 5: Tenderloin Self Help Center Client Satisfaction Ratings
Satisfaction Ratings By Program

15. N = 24
Note: Among the clients surveyed in the SP 100% of respondents were satisfied with the staff, the positive impacts HH had on
their lives, and with their confined involvement with HH. The physical space had lowest satisfaction.
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016
15
Figure 6: Shelter Program Client Satisfaction Ratings
Satisfaction Ratings By Program

16. N = 29
Note: Clients in the ERC had the highest satisfaction ratings of all programs .Among all programs, ERC clients had the highest
percentage of clients who felt safe in their program.
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016
Figure 7: Employment Resource Center Client Satisfaction Ratings
16
Satisfaction Ratings By Program

17. N = 50
Note: 96% of Clients in the Community Arts Program agreed that HH had a positive impact on their life and that they would continue to
use the programs services. Almost all participants agreed to feeling safe at the CAP studio and that people from all walks of life were
welcomed and respected there.
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016 17
Figure 8: Community Arts Center Client Satisfaction Ratings
Satisfaction Ratings By Program

18. N = 34
Note: 91% of CBP clients were satisfied with the staff, their safety in the program, HH efforts to welcome and treat all individuals with
respect, and with the impact HH services had on their lives. 97% of those surveyed plan to continue their involvement with HH.
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016 18
Figure 9: Community Building Program Client Satisfaction Ratings
Satisfaction Ratings By Program

19. 19
Positive Outcomes
• More than half of all clients (65%) achieved at least one positive
outcome.
• Many clients achieved a positive outcome with respect to housing
(16%) and/or substance abuse/mental health (11%).
• Benefits (SSI or Food Stamps) was another popular positive outcome
(11%).
• Almost all of the clients within the Community Building program
reported achieving a positive outcome (97%) but only half of those
who participated in the Tenderloin center did so too (53%).

20. 20
Positive Outcomes By Program
Note: Clients were asked whether they had received a positive outcome in housing,
employment/income, substance use/ mental health/ medical care, artwork sales, volunteer experience,
benefits obtained, or new skills obtained during the previous year.
Source: Hospitality House Client Satisfaction Survey 2016
Figure 10: Positive Outcome Achievement By Program

21. Conclusion
• HH clients are mostly male, Black, and between the ages of 50-59.
• The Self-Help Centers (Tenderloin & Sixth Street) are the most
utilized programs provided by HH.
• Regardless of program most clients are satisfied with the services and
facilities that HH offers.
• Many clients have achieved a positive outcome with respect to
housing, substance abuse, and mental health.
• The low-cost amenities which HH provides are very important in
helping the homeless/needy maintain their health and well being.
21

22. Thank you!
22