TUC Noel-Levitz Employee Satisfaction Survey...

TUC Noel-Levitz Employee Satisfaction Survey 2016

Office of Institutional Effectiveness

Summary Report Methodology In Fall 2016, Touro University California (TUC) engaged with Noel-Levitz and conducted an anonymous

employee satisfaction survey (CESSTM). The survey was sent to TUC employees through the campus employee

listserv. At the time of survey deployment, the listserv included 498 email addresses, of which 239 associated

with a full-time TUC employee (data from TUC Information Technology Department). A total of 126

employees (115 with full-time employment status at TUC) responded to the survey with at least one valid

answer, resulting in a 34% (126/373) response rate. Response rate for full-time employees was 48% (115/239).

Table 1 below provides the demographics for the survey respondents.

Employment Classification

Years of Employment at TUC Faculty Staff Administrator No Response Total Less than 1 year 3 4 4 11 1 to 5 years 23 20 5 2 50 6 to 10 years 23 9 5

37

11 to 20 years 10 7 10

27 No Response

1 1

Total 59 40 24 3 126

Employment Classification

Employment Type Faculty Staff Administrator No Response Total Full-time 54 36 23 2 115 Part-time 5 3 8 No Response 1 1 1 3 Total 59 40 24 3 126

Table 1: Demographics of 2016 Survey Respondents

The survey consisted of 5 sections and an item for global satisfaction (See Appendix B for the complete survey instrument). Each section included Noel-Levitz standard items and TUC specific items.

• Section 1: Campus culture and policies (40 statements: 30 standard + 10 TUC specific)

• Section 2: Institutional goals (12 goals: 9 standard + 3 TUC specific)

• Section 3: Involvement in planning and decision-making (10 groups: 8 standard + 2 TUC specific)

• Section 4: Work environment (31 statements: 21 standard + 10 TUC specific)

• Section 5: Demographics In Section 1 (Campus culture and policies) and Section 4 (Work environment), respondents were asked to rate the importance (IMP) of the presented statements and then to rate their satisfaction (SAT). A five-point Likert scale was used to rate both importance and satisfaction. In Section 2 (Institutional goals), respondents were presented with 12 statements each describing an institutional goal and asked to rate how important it was for TUC to pursue each of the goals. A five-point



Likert rating scale was used to rate the importance. Respondents were then asked to identify which of these goals should be considered as TUC’s first priority, second priority, and third priority. In Section 3 (Involvement in planning and decision-making), respondents were presented with a list of types of individuals (faculty, staff, deans, students, trustees, alumni, Touro Western Division personnel, Touro College & University System personnel, etc.) and asked to rate how much involvement each group had in the TUC planning and decision-making process. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate involvement. Global satisfaction: In addition to the above sections, the survey included a global satisfaction item (“Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far”) using the same 5-point Likert scale and three open-ended questions:

1. Please provide any additional feedback about the campus culture and policies at TUC 2. Please provide any additional feedback about TUC’s goals 3. Please provide any additional feedback about the work environment at TUC

Table 2 below summarizes the relationship the scale anchors in each section to the Likert scale.

Table 2: Likert Scale Matching Values

Results: the 2016 Survey Overall Satisfaction About half of the TUC respondents (46.0%) marked “Satisfied” or “Very satisfied” when responding to the item “Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here thus far”, with an average rating of 3.39. Faculty (M = 3.49) rated the item slightly higher than staff (M = 3.35) and administrators (M = 3.21). The ANOVA result (F (1, 2) = .772, p > 0.05) suggested no statistically significant difference among the three groups. For sections 1 & 4, means for importance and satisfaction for individual items were calculated by summing the respondents’ ratings and dividing by the number of respondents. Gap means were calculated by taking the difference between the importance mean rating and the satisfaction mean rating. Higher gap means suggest

bigger discrepancy between importance and satisfaction. The items with the highest importance (mean scores ≥ 4.50) and highest satisfaction were considered as TUC’s “Strengths.” Those items that were of highest importance but with lowest satisfaction (or the largest gaps) were considered as TUC’s “Challenges” or priorities/opportunities for improvement.

Scale Value

Importance (IMP) Satisfaction (SAT) Involvement 5 Very important Very satisfied Too much involvement 4 Important Satisfied More than enough involvement 3 Somewhat important Somewhat satisfied Just the right involvement 2 Not very important Not very satisfied Not quite enough involvement 1 Not important at all Not satisfied at all Not enough involvement



Section 1: Campus Culture & Policies In this section, respondents rated the level of importance and their level of satisfaction on 40 aspects of TUC campus culture and policies. The average importance ratings of the 40 items ranged between 4.17 and 4.73 (See detailed item ratings in Appendix A.1). The average satisfaction ratings ranged between 1.86 and 4.07 (Appendix A.3). Table 3 below shows the top three “Strengths” (high importance rating and high satisfaction rating). Table 4 shows the top three “Challenges” (high importance rating but low satisfaction rating): decision making transparency and institutional resources in staff and budget. Additional respondents’ feedback about the campus culture and policies focused on the areas of more autonomy from Touro College & University System (TCUS), higher employee salary, and increasing TUC budget (See detailed word cloud picture in Appendix A.8).

Item IMP SAT GAP (SAT-IMP)

The institution does not discriminate on the basis of gender, age, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation 4.65 4.07 0.58

Faculty take pride in their work 4.63 4.00 0.63

The academic expectations for students are consistent with the University’s mission and values 4.59 3.83 0.76

Table 3: The Top 3 TUC “Strengths” in Campus Culture & Policies

Item IMP SAT GAP (SAT-IMP)

This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 4.73 1.86 2.87

This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives 4.57 2.09 2.48

Decision-making processes are transparent 4.53 2.36 2.17

Table 4: The Top 3 TUC “Challenges” in Campus Culture & Policies

Section 2: Institutional Goals Respondents were presented with a set of 12 institutional goals and asked to rate how important it was to them for the institution to pursue each of these goals. The following four institutional goals were rated as the most important goals at TUC. Ratings were consistent among administrators, faculty, and staff respondents, suggesting a great amount of employee agreement on TUC’s top priorities.

• Improve employee morale (M = 4.63)

• Improve the quality of existing programs (M = 4.58)

• Improve campus support services to students (M = 4.44)

• Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds (M = 4.42)

The goal “Improve campus support services to students” was added to the 2016 survey as one of the three TUC

specific items in this section. Another TUC specific item, “Increase the number of full-time faculty and staff

relative to the size of the student body,” received a high importance rating (M = 4.27) as well. The item

“Improve the quality of existing programs” was rated by the most respondents (N = 33) as TUC’s first priority

goal.



While two of TUC’s priority goals, increasing employee morale and improving the existing program quality, received high ratings from other schools participated in the 2016 CESSTM survey, improving the appearance of campus buildings and grounds was not rated high by other schools. This result explained itself well considering TUC’s unique history and the unique needs of improving appearance of campus buildings and grounds at TUC. Section 3: Involvement in Planning and Decision-making In this section, respondents were asked to rate how much involvement each type of individuals (faculty, staff, deans, trustees, alumni, Touro Western Division personnel, TCUS personnel, etc.) had in the TUC planning and decision-making process. Trustees were the group rated by the most respondents (50%) as “just the right involvement.” Staff were rated by 76% of survey respondents and alumni by 73% as “Not enough involvement” or “Not quite enough involvement.” More than three quarters of the survey respondents (78%) believed that TCUS personnel had “Too much involvement” or “More than enough involvement” in TUC institution planning and decision-making.

Chart 1: Respondents’ Rating on Individuals’ Level of Involvement in the TUC Planning & Decision-making Process Section 4: Work Environment In this section, respondents were asked to rate the level of importance for 31 statements on work environment and then to rate their satisfaction on each item. The average importance ratings ranged between 4.09 and 4.72 (Appendix A.2). The average satisfaction ratings ranged between 2.09 and 3.94 (Appendix A.4). The top three “Strengths” (high importance rating and high satisfaction rating) in this section were related to employees’ perspectives on job value and job appreciation (Table 5). The top three “Challenges” (high importance rating but low satisfaction rating) were about employee salary, and department staff and budget resources (Table 6).

Item IMP SAT GAP(SAT-IMP) My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say 4.55 3.94 0.61

The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding 4.58 3.92 0.66

The work I do is valuable to the institution 4.50 3.90 0.60

Table 5: The Top 3 TUC “Strengths” in Work Environment

76% 73%

50%

78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Faculty Staff Deans ordirectors of

administrativeunits

Deans or chairsof academic

units

Senioradministrators

(VP, Provostlevel or above)

Students Trustees Alumni Touro WesternDivision

personnel

Touro College &University

System (TCUS)personnel

Not enough or not quite enough involvement

Just the right involvement

More than enough or too much involvement



Item IMP SAT GAP(SAT-IMP) My department has the budget needed to do its job well 4.72 2.09 2.63

My department has the staff needed to do its job well 4.66 2.28 2.38

I am paid fairly for the work I do 4.59 2.62 1.97

Table 6: The Top 3 TUC “Challenges” in Work Environment

Results: Three-year Comparison TUC conducted the CESSTM survey to its employees in Spring 2014 and Spring 2011 and received 107 and 113

responses respectively. The survey instruments were the same in 2011 and 2014, but the 2016 survey included

additional TUC specific items. The comparison analysis below is only for the same Noel-Levitz standard items

included in the surveys for three years.

Overall Satisfaction The item, “Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here thus far,” received very similar average scores for three years (M = 3.39 in 2016, M = 3.42 in 2014 and M = 3.40 in 2011). The ANOVA result (F (2, 323) = 0.03, p > .05) indicated no statistically significant difference among these three scores. Section 1: Campus Culture & Policies and Section4: Work Environment Three-year results from the 51 Noel-Levitz standard items regarding campus culture & policies, and work environment were compared. Thirty-four items showed a gap mean score shape of (Appendix A.5) and 31 items showed a satisfaction mean score shape of (Appendix A.6) from 2011 to 2014 to 2016. This trend suggested that TUC respondents’ satisfaction level on two thirds of the items increased from 2011 to 2014, but decreased from 2014 to 2016. Moreover, the seven items with statistically significant satisfaction mean differences between 2014 and 2016 all indicated satisfaction decreases from 2014 to 2016 (Table 7). On the other hand, the 13 items with statistically significant mean differences between 2011 and 2014 indicated satisfaction increases from 2011 to 2014.

Item 2014 SAT 2016 SAT t value

This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 2.34 1.86 -3.54

My department has the budget needed to do its job well 2.60 2.09 -3.44

My department has the staff needed to do its job well 2.65 2.28 -2.44

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty 2.95 2.57 -2.64

There are effective lines of communication between departments 3.04 2.82 -1.49

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students 3.41 3.14 -2.22

The reputation of this institution continues to improve 3.40 3.10 -2.07

Table 7: Items with Statistically Significantly Satisfaction Mean Differences between 2014 and 2016

Section 2: Institutional Goals Results from the 2011 and 2014 surveys clearly showed respondents’ agreement on TUC’s top three priorities: I) Improve employee morale, II) Improve the quality of existing academic programs, and III) Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds. In the 2016 survey, the newly added TUC specific item



“Improve campus support services to students” received a slightly higher mean rating (0.02 more) than “Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds” and made it to the top three most important institutional goals. Section 3: Involvement in Planning and Decision-making A majority of respondents rated alumni and staff with “Not enough involvement” or “Not quite enough involvement” in TUC planning and decision-making for all three surveys. More than half of the respondents rated students with “Just the right involvement” in 2011 and 2014, but more respondents rated students with “Not enough involvement” or “Not quite enough involvement” in the 2016 survey. Of all survey respondents, half rated Touro Western Division personnel and more than three fourths rated TCUS personnel with “More than enough involvement” or “Too much involvement” in the 2016 survey. These last two groups were newly added in the 2016 survey. Recommended Actions

• The indicated institutional priority goals: increasing existing program quality and improving employee morale, campus student supports, and campus appearance are all addressed in the 2015-2020 Strategic Action Plan. TUC needs to secure funding and resources to implement the Plan.

• Representatives from alumni, staff, and the student body were included in the university strategic planning committee and other planning committees. TUC needs to find ways to encourage more involvement from these groups in future planning and decision-making processes.

• Lack of budget and staff resources to meet needs are continuous concerns at TUC, and may be one of the factors affecting employee morale. TUC needs to seek ways for improvement.

• The communication with TCUS to increase TUC’s autonomy in resource prioritization & application and data access to the system database should be continued.



Appendix A: Data summary for TUC Noel-Levitz CESSTM: 2016, 2014 and 2011 Comparison

A.1. Average Importance Ratings for items in Campus Culture & Policies



A.2. Average Importance Ratings for items in Work Environment



A.3. Average Satisfaction Ratings for items in Campus Culture & Policies



A.4. Average Satisfaction Ratings for items in Work Environment



A.5. Gap Mean for Noel-Levitz standard items in Campus Culture & Policies and Work Environment

Note: the highlighted items indicate statistically significant difference between 2014 and 2016



A.6. Satisfaction Mean for Noel-Levitz standard items in Campus Culture & Policies and Work Environment

Note: the highlighted items indicate statistically significant difference between 2014 and 2016



A.7. Average Importance Ratings TUC Institutional Goals

Institutional Goals 2011 2014 2016

I) Improve employee morale 4.73 4.57 4.63 G) Improve the quality of existing academic programs 4.71 4.61 4.58 H) Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 4.44 4.35 4.42 B) Retain more of its current students to graduation 4.12 4.14 4.11 C) Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4.07 4.21 3.98 E) Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 3.79 3.72 3.86 D) Recruit students from new geographic markets 3.23 3.35 3.43 A) Increase the enrollment of new students 3.17 3.29 2.98 F) Develop new academic programs 3.15 3.25 2.95 [J] Improve campus support services to students

4.44

[K] Increase the number of full-time faculty and staff relative to the size of the student body

4.27 [L] Improve employee engagement in campus and community activities

3.79

4.73 4.71 4.44

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

I) Improveemployee

morale

G) Improvethe quality of

existingacademicprograms

H) Improvethe

appearanceof campus

buildings andgrounds

B) Retainmore of its

currentstudents tograduation

C) Improvethe academic

ability ofenteringstudentclasses

E) Increasethe diversityof racial and

ethnicgroups

representedamong the

student body

D) Recruitstudentsfrom new

geographicmarkets

A) Increasethe

enrollmentof new

students

F) Developnew

academicprograms

[J] Improvecampussupport

services tostudents

[K] Increasethe numberof full-timefaculty and

staff relativeto the size ofthe student

body

[L] Improveemployee

engagementin campus

andcommunity

activities

2011

2014

2016



A.8. Open-Ended Comments Word Cloud

Note: words with “+” indicate positive comments



Appendix B: TUC 2016 Noel-Levitz CESSTM Instrument

TUC Noel-Levitz Employee Satisfaction Survey...

Documents

Transcript of TUC Noel-Levitz Employee Satisfaction Survey...