Employee Satisfaction Survey. Office of Institutional Research & Assessment

Employee Satisfaction Survey Office of Institutional Research & Assessment December, 2011

Table of Contents Page Executive Summary... 1 Appendices: Appendix A: Summary Data Figure 1: Average Importance Rating of Campus Culture & Polices 9 Figure 2: Average Importance Ratings of Campus Culture & Polices by Employment Category... 10 Figure 3: Average Satisfaction Rating of Campus Culture & Polices.. 11 Figure 4: Average Satisfaction Ratings of Campus Culture & Polices by Employment Category... 12 Table 1: Percent of TUC Respondents Rating Satisfied/Very Satisfied and Not Satisfied/Not Satisfied at all on Campus Culture & Polices... 13 Figure 5: Average Importance Ratings of Work Environment... 14 Figure 6: Average Importance Ratings of Work Environment by Employment Category... 15 Figure 7: Average Satisfaction Ratings of Work Environment.. 16 Figure 8: Average Satisfaction Ratings of Work Environment by Employment Category..... 17 Table 2: Percent of TUC respondents rating Satisfied/Very Satisfied and Not Satisfied/Not Satisfied at all on Work Environment.. 18 Table 3: Mean and Gap Score comparison between TUC and Comparison Group on Campus Culture & Policies AND Work Environment.. 19 Figure 9: Average Ratings on Importance of Institutional Goals.. 20 Table 4: Importance Mean comparison between TUC and Comparison Group on Institutional Priority Goals........ 20 Figure 10: Number of Respondents Rating Institution s Priority Goals... 21 Figure 11: Percent Rating Stakeholder s Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making... 22 Appendix B: Comparison Group School List... 23 Appendix C: Touro University Employee Satisfaction Survey 2011... 24

Executive Summary Methodology Touro University engaged with Noel-Levitz to conduct an employee satisfaction survey in spring semester, 2011. The survey (referred as CESS in this report) included about one hundred items, with original items from Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey TM and 18 Institution-specific items. On March 7 th, 2011, the first email was sent to the campus employee listserv, explaining the intent of the survey. The initial survey invitation with the survey link was sent out on March 14, 2011 to the same listserv. Three reminders followed in March and April. The survey was closed on May 2 nd, 2011. At the time of survey deployment, 334 individual email addresses were included in the employee listserv (data from TUC Information Technology Department). A total of 113 TUC employees (98 full-time employees) responded to the survey for a response rate of 34% (113/334). Future response rates might be increased by promotion of the survey through effective communication to employees of actions taken to address issues identified by the survey and offering incentives for participation. Employment Classification Years of Employment at TUC Faculty Staff Administrator No Response Total Less than 1 year 7 5 1 13 1 to 5 years 29 20 5 1 55 6 to 10 years 17 11 1 29 11 to 20 years 4 2 3 9 No Response 3 4 7 Total 60 38 9 6 113 Employment Classification Employment Type Faculty Staff Administrator No Response Total Full-time 49 34 9 6 98 Part-time (0.5-0.9 FTE) 7 4 11 Part-time (less than 0.5 FTE) 4 4 Total 60 38 9 6 113 Table 1: Demographics of Survey Respondents The CESS focuses on Campus Culture & Policies, Institutional Goals, Involvement in Planning & Decision- Making, and Work Environment. On two sections (Campus Culture & Policies and Work Environment), the survey measures employees satisfaction on a given item as well as the importance of that item. On the section of Institutional Goals, respondents are asked to rate the importance of nine listed goals and list the top three institutional priority goals. The Involvement in Planning & Decision-Making session measures stakeholders involvement. Except for the rank order method in the Institutional Goals section, a Likert Scale of 1-5 is used throughout the survey. Table 2 below summarizes the relationship the scale anchors in each section to the Likert Scale (The complete survey instrument may be viewed in Appendix C). Page 1

Value Scale Importance Satisfaction Involvement 5 Very important Very satisfied Not enough involvement 4 Important Satisfied Not quite enough involvement 3 Somewhat important Somewhat satisfied Just the right involvement 2 Not very important Not very satisfied More than enough involvement 1 Not important at all Not satisfied at all Too much involvement Table 2: Likert Scale Matching Values For comparison, Noel-Levitz provided average-rating scores from 17 other participating four-year schools for all items except the 18 institutional-specific items (See Appendix B for the list of the schools). Comparison group data were included for reference when appropriate. Findings Overall Satisfaction The majority of TUC respondents (52.8%) answered Satisfied or Very satisfied to Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here thus far, with an average rating of 3.40 (comparison group M=3.83). Administrative respondents were more likely to feel satisfied (M=4.11, SD=0.60) than staff (M=3.46, SD=1.10) and faculty respondents (M=3.26, SD=1.10). Campus Culture & Policies AND Work Environment In these two sections, respondents rated the level of importance and their level of satisfaction on 40 aspects of TUC campus culture and policies, and 29 aspects on work environment (See Importance/Satisfaction Scales in Table 2 above). In the area of campus culture and policies, the average importance ratings ranged between Important and Very Important (4.23 to 4.69), and the average satisfaction ratings ranged between Not Satisfied At All and Somewhat Satisfied (1.96 to 3.84). In the area of work environment, the average importance ratings ranged between Somewhat Important and Very Important (3.94 to 4.64), and the average satisfaction ratings were between Not Very Satisfied and Somewhat Satisfied (2.11 and 3.84). The results from both sections showed a gap between what respondents found to be of Importance and their Satisfaction with the same items. TUC respondents were most satisfied with: Adequate library resources and services (M=3.84) Faculty involvement in developing curriculum (M=3.84) Personal -rewarding daily work (M=3.79) Supervisors attention to what employee says (M=3.79) Faculty pride in their work (M=3.72) Supervisors appreciation on what employee does (M=3.72) (Detail summary data for these two sections are attached in Appendix A) Page 2

Twenty-seven of the 69 items from the two categories of Campus Culture & Policies and Work Environment were identified for further attention and discussion based on the following criteria: An average importance score greater than 4.00 An average satisfaction score less than 3.00 A difference between average importance rating and satisfaction rating (Gap Score) equal to or greater than 1.50 (suggesting at least one and half rating interval of difference between how important respondents review the item and how satisfied they are with the item) A standard deviation for the satisfaction score equal to or greater than 1.00 (suggesting responses to the item are spread out) Once these twenty-seven items were identified, they were grouped thematically into seven categories: Resources (9 items), Policy & Procedure (5 items), Communication (3 items), Compensation (3 items), Planning (3 items), Unity Around Shared Objective (2 items) and Technology (2 items). Resources Nine items (seven items were original items from Noel-Levitz and 2 items were Touro specific) regarding staffing, budget and information technology needs were grouped into the resources category. Four of the seven original items received an average satisfaction score below 3.00 from the comparison group (Total of 8 items received an average satisfaction score below 3.00 in CESS from the comparison group). These 4 items were 1). department budgetary need to do its job well ; 2). department staff need to do its job well ; 3). sufficient budgetary resource available for institutions to achieve important objectives and 4). sufficient staff resources available for institutions to achieve important objectives Faculty (M=2.20, SD=1.29) and administrators (M=3.38, SD=0.74) responded notably different on the item concerning the sufficient support for research and scholarly activities. The item concerning the degree of autonomy in resource prioritization and application from Touro College received the lowest overall mean rating (M=1.96, SD=1.07) and the highest gap score (2.52) on the CESS. Responses from faculty (M=1.82, SD=1.10), staff (M=2.18, SD=1.03) and administrators (M=2.00, SD=1.12) were consistent. Item Importance Satisfaction (S.D*) Gap * Sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 4.61 2.13 (1.10) 2.48 My department has the staff needed to do its job well 4.60 2.45 (1.20) 2.15 Fiscal operations of the institution are conducted in a timely manner 4.60 2.53 (1.08) 2.07 My department has the budget needed to do its job well 4.58 2.41(1.12) 2.17 Sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives 4.50 2.42 (1.11) 2.08 Meeting the needs of staff 4.48 2.53 (1.13) 1.95 Meeting the needs of faculty 4.48 2.69 (1.11) 1.79 High degree of autonomy in resource prioritization and application from Touro College 4.48 1.96 (1.07) 2.52 Research and scholarly activities are sufficiently supported 4.41 2.58 (1.20) 1.82 *Gap: the difference between the aggregate mean score on the Importance scale and the aggregate mean score on the Satisfaction scale * S.D: Standard Deviation Table 3: Aggregated Scores for the Nine Identified Resources Items Page 3

Policy & Procedure Five items were grouped into the category of policy and procedure for further discussion. These items included institution following clear processes to hire, orient and train new employees, and to recognize employee achievements; institution defining employee responsibilities, and systematically reviewing and updating policies. Generally, the difference across employee classification in this category was not as notable as in other categories. Except for administrators rating on follows clear processes for selecting new employees (M=3.44, SD=1.01), all other employee classification disaggregated ratings in this category were below 3.00. Another observation was that administrators rated the lowest (M=2.00, SD=0.76) on follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees. This score was among the lowest satisfaction mean scores in CESS. Faculty respondents were more satisfied on systematically review and updates policies & procedures and written procedures define who is responsible for each operation and service than administrators and staff. However, the difference between the highest mean among employee classifications (faculty, M=2.95, SD=1.05 and M=2.80, SD=1.03 respectively) and the lowest mean (staff, M=2.40, SD=0.91 and M=2.59, SD=1.01 respectively) was smaller than the items in other categories. Administrators (M=2.89, SD=1.27) were slightly more satisfied with follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements than faculty and staff respondents (M=2.25, SD=0.94). Item Importance Satisfaction (S.D) Gap Follows clear processes for selecting new employees 4.44 2.85 (1.13) 1.59 Follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees 4.32 2.50 (1.11) 1.82 Written procedures defines who is responsible for each operation and service 4.31 2.72 (1.03) 1.60 Systematically reviews and updates its policies and procedures 4.24 2.70 (1.03) 1.54 Follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements 4.23 2.51 (1.10) 1.72 Table 4: Aggregated Scores for the Five Identified Policy & Procedures Items Communication Three items of information access, communication between departments and communications between administrators, faculty and staff were grouped into the communication category. In general, administrators were more satisfied than faculty and staff. The item effective lines of communication between departments received a slightly more than one full rating interval mean difference between the highest (administrators, M=3.75, SD=0.97) and the lowest (faculty, M=2.74, SD=0.97). This item also received the lowest satisfaction score of 2.73 and the highest gap score between importance and satisfaction of 1.71 from the comparison group. This suggested a common concern of effective cross-department communications in other participating 4-year schools. Item Importance Satisfaction (S.D) Gap Effective lines of communication between departments 4.44 2.79 (1.01) 1.65 It is easy for me to get information 4.44 2.84 (1.10) 1.60 Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 4.42 2.90 (1.21) 1.52 Table 5: Aggregated Scores for the Three Identified Communication Items Page 4

Compensation Three items of salary, benefits and opportunities for advancement were selected in the compensation category for discussion. The item I am paid fairly for the work I do was one of the eight items with average satisfaction score below 3.00 from the comparison group, suggesting that the salary issue was common in the other 4-year schools that participated in the Noel-Levitz CESS survey in 2011. Administrative respondents were more likely to feel paid fairly and had adequate opportunities for advancement compared to faculty and staff respondents. The difference between the highest mean (administrators, M=3.38, SD=1.27 and M=3.44, SD=1.01 respectively) and the lowest mean (staff, M=2.71, SD=1.13 and M=2.51, SD=1.14 respectively) was notable. Staff (M=3.07, SD=1.22) and administrative respondents (M=3.06, SD=1.00) were more likely to feel that the available employee benefits were valuable than faculty respondents (M=2.75, SD=1.30). Item Importance Satisfaction (S.D) Gap The employee benefits available to me are valuable 4.63 2.50 (1.25) 2.13 I am paid fairly for the work I do 4.61 2.55 (1.19) 2.06 I have adequate opportunities for advancement 4.30 2.63 (1.21) 1.67 Table 6: Aggregated Scores for Three Identified Compensation Items Planning Three items were selected into the planning category for discussion. The item Employee suggestions are used to improve the institution was one of the eight items in the comparison group receiving an average satisfaction score below 3.00. In general, TUC administrative respondents were more satisfied on these three items compared to faculty and staff. The difference between the highest mean and the lowest mean on the institution plans carefully (administrators, M=3.33, SD=1.00 and faculty, M=2.34, SD=1.28) and the institution involves its employees in planning for the future (administrators, M=3.22, SD=0.97 and staff, M=2.26, SD=0.92) was nearly one interval scale. Item Importance Satisfaction (S.D) Gap The institution plans carefully 4.53 2.43 (1.14) 2.10 Involves its employees in planning for the future 4.39 2.47 (1.10) 1.92 Employee suggestions are used to improve the institution 4.26 2.57 (1.07) 1.69 Table 7: Aggregated Scores for Three Identified Planning Items Unity Two items of academic mission and teamwork spirit were grouped into this unity category. The item of academic mission is supported by senior leadership of Touro College received a tied highest importance rating in CESS. The satisfaction ratings on this item across employee classification were consistently lower than 3.00, with the highest rating group of staff (M=2.80, SD=1.42) and the lowest rating group of administrators (M=2.56, SD=1.16). Administrators (M=3.00, SD=1.22) rated the highest on spirit of teamwork and cooperation, while staff (M=2.27, SD=0.96) rated the lowest. This item was highly related to one of TUC priorities employee morale discussed later in this report. Page 5

Item Importance Satisfaction (S.D) Gap Academic mission is supported by senior leadership of Touro College 4.64 2.67 (1.26) 1.96 Spirit of teamwork and cooperation 4.62 2.74 (1.22) 1.88 Table 8: Aggregated Scores for the Two Identified Unity Items Technology It might not be a big surprise that employees were not satisfied with TUC current website. The institution is well aware of the concern and actions have been already taken. A new website will be launched in January, 2012. A much higher score could be expected when the new website is fully functional. The item of adequate information technology resources and services was another item receiving highest importance rating in CESS. The satisfaction rating was slightly below 3:00. Item Importance Satisfaction (S.D) Gap Information technology resources and services are adequate 4.64 2.98 (1.14) 1.66 The institution's web site is adequately updated to maintain the accuracy of information 4.47 2.11 (1.15) 2.36 Table 9: Aggregated Scores for the Two Identified Technology Items Institutional Goals Respondents rated the importance of nine institutional goals. The most important institutional goals were Employee morale improvement The quality of existing program (Over 95% of respondents rated these two goals as Important or Very important ) The appearance of campus buildings and grounds. These three goals were also rated by a majority of respondents as the institution s first three priority goals. The mean difference for each item was small among administrative, faculty and staff respondents, suggesting a great amount of agreement on what the top priorities of TUC should be. It was notable that while two of the three TUC priority goals, increasing employee morale and improving the existing program quality also received high scores from the comparison group, the appearance of campus buildings and grounds did not. This result explained itself well considering the uniqueness of our school history and the unique needs of improving appearance of campus buildings and grounds at TUC. Page 6

5.00 4.50 TUC Mean Comparison Group Mean 4.73 4.71 4.46 4.48 4.44 4.00 3.61 3.50 3.00 Improve employee morale Improve the quality of existing academic programs Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds Chart 1: Mean comparison on TUC Top Three Institutional Priority Goals Involvement in Planning and Decision-making In this section, respondents rated the involvement of stakeholders in institutional planning and decisionmaking. Executive council (56%) and students (50%) were the groups rated by most respondents as just the right involvement. Alumni (72%) and staff (59%) were rated high as Not enough involvement or Not quite enough involvement. Executive Council Trustees Senior administrators (VP, Provost level or above) Deans or directors of administrative units Deans or chairs of academic units 15% 17% 20% 21% 23% Students Faculty 40% 44% Staff 59% Alumni 72% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Chart 2: Percentage of respondents rating each group as Not Enough Involvement or Not quite enough involvement Page 7

Recommended Actions Examine the academic mission support TUC would need from Touro College; Share the results with Touro College administrators, seeking ways to address the concerns of academic mission support and higher degree of autonomy in resource prioritization and application if possible. (Resources, Unity) Review the procedures for hiring, orienting and training new employees, and procedures for employee responsibility and achievement recognition at TUC, and systematically update the policy. (Policy & Procedure) Seek specific ways to encourage and increase spirit of teamwork and cooperation; Convene groups with appropriate representation to discuss ways to increase employee morale. (Unity, Institutional Priority Goal #1) Convene group with appropriate representation to discuss ways to improve the quality of existing academic programs. (Institutional Priority Goal #2) Convene group with appropriate representation and have conversation with Tour College to discuss ways to improve the appearance of TUC campus buildings and grounds. (Institutional Priority Goal #3) Look for opportunities to immediately increase the involvement of the following groups (as appropriate) in campus planning and decision-making: alumni, faculty, staff and students; Use their suggestions for institution improvement; Communicate this involvement as well as results broadly. (Planning, Involvement in Planning and Decision-making) Explore the nature of the lines of communication that can be improved, the types of information that can be shared more effectively (and what effectively means) as well as the points where communication flow is disrupted and examples of effective communication flow across the institution. (Communication) Analyze faculty and staff salary and benefits with bay-area and national benchmarking data; Examine the specific objectives of faculty and staff with regard to concerns of fair pay for their work, employee benefits and opportunities for advancement. (Compensation) Examine the specific faculty and staff needs that are as yet unmet (research space, budgetary, less teaching and community service time, or staffing), if and how these needs are being communicated to those who are in a position to respond, and how these needs might vary. Find out ways to support research and scholarly activities. An analysis of faculty workload may be helpful in supporting faculty research time. (Resources) Keep working on TUC new website and adequately update and maintain the information accurately and timely. (Technology) Examine the needs in information technology resources and services (needs related to office daily work vs. needs related to classroom teaching); Explore ways to address these specific needs. (Technology) Page 8

Appendix A: Summary Data Summary Data: Campus Culture & Policies Figure 1: Average Importance Ratings of Campus Culture & Policies Page 9

Summary Data: Campus Culture & Policies (cont d) Figure 2: Average Importance Ratings of Campus Culture & Policies by Employment Category Page 10

Summary Data: Campus Culture & Policies (cont d) Figure 3: Average Satisfaction Ratings of Campus Culture & Policies Page 11

Summary Data: Campus Culture & Policies (cont d) Figure 4: Average Satisfaction Ratings of Campus Culture & Policies by Employment Category Page 12

Summary Data: Campus Culture & Policies (cont d) Campus Culture & Policies "Satisfied"/ Very satisfied" Not satisfied / Not satisfied at all Faculty are involved in developing curriculum 72% 7% Faculty take pride in their work 66% 12% Promotes excellent employee-student relationships 63% 15% Staff take pride in their work 62% 15% Treats students as its top priority 57% 22% Administrators take pride in their work 56% 19% Faculty have the opportunity to demonstrate effective academic leadership 56% 15% Utilizes critical data as indicators of its educational effectiveness 55% 13% Academic program department leadership utilizes accreditation review for program improvement 51% 20% Most employees are supportive of the mission, purpose, and values 46% 17% Meeting the needs of students 44% 27% Mission, purpose, and values are well understood by employees 41% 23% The institution is well-respected in the community 40% 28% Stated commitment to academic freedom for all campus stakeholders 39% 22% Reputation continues to improve 39% 22% Good communication between staff and the administration 37% 29% The leadership has a clear sense of purpose 35% 34% Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 34% 38% Meeting the needs of administrators 32% 27% The goals and objectives are consistent with its mission and values 32% 25% Academic mission is supported by senior leadership of Touro College 30% 44% Spirit of teamwork and cooperation 29% 42% Follows clear processes for selecting new employees 29% 34% Good communication between the faculty and the administration 29% 30% Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 28% 29% Effective lines of communication between departments 26% 39% Research and scholarly activities are sufficiently supported 25% 44% Meeting the needs of its faculty 25% 43% Written procedures defines who is responsible for each operation & service 25% 42% Follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements 23% 54% Employee suggestions are used to improve the institution 22% 50% Systematically reviews and updates its policies and procedures 22% 43% Meeting the needs of staff 21% 48% Follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees 20% 47% Involves its employees in planning for the future 19% 54% Sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives 18% 53% The institution plans carefully 16% 55% Sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 14% 66% Operates using a clearly understood system of known policies and procedures 13% 51% High degree of autonomy in resource prioritization and application from Touro College 12% 71% Table 1: Percent of TUC respondents rating Satisfied/Very Satisfied and Not Satisfied/Not Satisfied at all on Campus Culture & Policies Page 13

Summary Data: Work Environment Figure 5: Average Importance Ratings of Work Environment Page 14

Summary Data: Work Environment (cont d) Figure 6: Average Importance Ratings of Work Environment by Employment Category Page 15

Summary Data: Work Environment (cont d) Figure 7: Average Satisfaction Ratings of Work Environment Page 16

Summary Data: Work Environment (cont d) Figure 8: Average Satisfaction Ratings of Work Environment by Employment Category Page 17

Summary Data: Work Environment (cont d) Work Environment "Satisfied" / " Very Satisfied" Not satisfied / Not satisfied at all Library resources and services are adequate 76% 7% The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor 72% 16% The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding 67% 9% The work I do is valuable to the institution 66% 15% My supervisor helps me improve my job performance 65% 22% My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work 56% 22% I learn about campus events in a timely manner 56% 23% My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say 52% 22% My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me 52% 22% I have the information I need to do my job well 50% 21% I am proud to work at this institution 49% 27% I have adequate opportunities for professional development 45% 22% The institution provides programs and services that enhance understanding and 44% 25% appreciation of diversity I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills 42% 25% I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies & 40% 25% procedures The organizational structure clearly depicts positions, associated responsibilities, 38% 25% and lines of authority My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives 38% 35% I am empowered to resolve problems quickly 38% 35% Information technology resources and services are adequate 35% 29% There is adequate campus input with regard to the hiring of high level personnel 34% 31% I have adequate access to institutional data 34% 32% It is easy for me to get information 29% 33% I have adequate opportunities for advancement 28% 44% I am paid fairly for the work I do 26% 50% The employee benefits available to me are valuable 25% 48% Fiscal operations of the institution are conducted in a timely manner 22% 48% My department has the staff needed to do its job well 19% 53% My department has the budget needed to do its job well 19% 51% The institution's web site is adequately updated to maintain the accuracy of information 16% 63% Table 2: Percent of TUC respondents rating Satisfied/Very Satisfied and Not Satisfied/Not Satisfied at all on Work Environment Page 18

TUC Comparison Group Campus Culture & Policies AND Work Environment IMP SAT IMP SAT GAP* Mean* Mean* Mean Mean GAP Faculty take pride in their work 4.69 3.72 0.96 4.64 3.76 0.87 This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students 4.68 3.19 1.49 4.68 3.46 1.22 This institution treats students as its top priority 4.66 3.47 1.18 4.70 3.59 1.11 The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose 4.64 3.00 1.64 4.63 3.35 1.28 Staff take pride in their work 4.63 3.61 1.02 4.57 3.74 0.84 Administrators take pride in their work 4.63 3.48 1.15 4.56 3.67 0.89 The employee benefits available to me are valuable 4.63 2.50 2.13 4.61 3.89 0.71 There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution 4.62 2.74 1.88 4.54 3.09 1.45 This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 4.61 2.13 2.48 4.48 2.98 1.50 My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me 4.61 3.32 1.29 4.59 3.68 0.90 I am paid fairly for the work I do 4.61 2.55 2.06 4.56 2.97 1.59 My department has the staff needed to do its job well 4.60 2.45 2.15 4.58 2.94 1.64 This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships 4.59 3.60 0.99 4.59 3.69 0.90 My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say 4.59 3.78 0.81 4.58 3.87 0.71 My department has the budget needed to do its job well 4.58 2.41 2.17 4.51 2.88 1.63 I have the information I need to do my job well 4.58 3.25 1.33 4.63 3.62 1.01 The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding 4.58 3.79 0.79 4.54 3.97 0.57 The reputation of this institution continues to improve 4.56 3.15 1.42 4.64 3.42 1.22 The work I do is valuable to the institution 4.54 3.71 0.83 4.54 3.90 0.64 This institution plans carefully 4.53 2.43 2.10 4.54 3.08 1.46 This institution is well-respected in the community 4.50 3.07 1.43 4.58 3.45 1.13 This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives 4.50 2.42 2.08 4.39 2.92 1.47 Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 4.49 2.93 1.56 4.48 3.29 1.19 This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of staff 4.48 2.53 1.95 4.38 3.07 1.31 This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty 4.48 2.69 1.79 4.39 3.30 1.08 My supervisor helps me improve my job performance 4.46 3.58 0.88 4.39 3.65 0.74 The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values 4.45 3.07 1.38 4.44 3.50 0.94 It is easy for me to get information at this institution 4.44 2.84 1.60 4.42 3.19 1.23 There are effective lines of communication between departments 4.44 2.79 1.65 4.44 2.73 1.71 This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new employees 4.44 2.85 1.59 4.29 3.23 1.06 I am empowered to resolve problems quickly 4.44 2.96 1.47 4.38 3.34 1.04 There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution 4.43 2.95 1.48 4.40 3.07 1.34 Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 4.42 2.90 1.52 4.42 3.10 1.32 The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor 4.42 3.72 0.69 4.40 3.86 0.54 My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work 4.39 3.42 0.97 4.27 3.61 0.67 This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.39 2.47 1.92 4.32 3.09 1.23 I am proud to work at this institution 4.39 3.31 1.07 4.51 4.02 0.49 I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills 4.37 3.14 1.23 4.29 3.35 0.94 I have adequate opportunities for professional development 4.36 3.23 1.13 4.29 3.32 0.98 This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees 4.32 2.50 1.82 4.32 3.07 1.25 Institution has written procedures clearly defining who is responsible for operation and service 4.31 2.72 1.60 4.25 2.97 1.28 The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by most employees 4.31 3.18 1.13 4.33 3.49 0.84 Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution 4.31 3.32 0.98 4.33 3.53 0.81 I have adequate opportunities for advancement 4.30 2.63 1.67 4.14 3.05 1.09 There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution 4.30 3.04 1.26 4.36 3.05 1.31 This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of administrators 4.28 3.03 1.26 4.20 3.57 0.63 Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution 4.26 2.57 1.69 4.22 2.91 1.31 This institution consistently follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements 4.23 2.51 1.72 4.17 3.11 1.07 My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives 4.13 2.97 1.16 4.13 3.44 0.69 I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures 4.07 3.14 0.93 4.14 3.57 0.58 I learn about important campus events in a timely manner 4.01 3.35 0.66 4.09 3.52 0.56 * IMP mean: the average rating of Importance; * SAT mean: the average rating of Satisfaction Table 3: Mean and Gap Score comparison between TUC and Comparison Group on Campus Culture & Policies AND Work Environment Page 19

Summary Data: Institutional Goals Figure 9: Average Ratings on Importance of Institutional Goals Institution Priority Goals TUC Mean Comparison Group Mean Improve employee morale 4.73 4.46 Improve the quality of existing academic programs 4.71 4.48 Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 4.44 3.61 Retain more of its current students to graduation 4.12 4.71 Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4.07 4.24 Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 3.79 3.65 Recruit students from new geographic markets 3.23 3.72 Increase the enrollment of new students 3.17 4.29 Develop new academic programs 3.15 3.83 Table 4: Importance Mean comparison between TUC and Comparison Group on Institutional Priority Goals Page 20

Summary Data: Institutional Goals (cont d) Figure 10: Number of Respondents Rating Institution s Priority Goals Page 21

Summary Data: Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making More than enough involvement/too much involvement Just the right Involvement Not enough involvement/ Not quiet enough involvement Executive Council Trustees Senior Administractors (VP, Provost level or above) Deans or Directors of Administrative Units Deans or Chairs of Academic Units Students Faculty 40% 44% Staff 59% Alumni 72% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Figure 11: Percent Rating Stakeholder s Involvement in Planning and Decision-Making Page 22

Appendix B: Comparison Group School List School Name Grantham University Northcentral University Davenport University Friends University Indiana Institute of Technology Laboure College National-Louis University Nebraska Wesleyan Schreiner University Shenandoah University Susquehanna University The University of Findlay University of St. Francis Black Hills State University Bluefield State College California State University San Marcos Canadian College Naturopathic Medicine School Category 4-year, Private for-profit 4-year, Private for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Private not-for-profit 4-year, Public 4-year, Public 4-year, Public Medical / 4-year, Private not-for-profit Table 4: List of Schools in the Comparison Group Page 23