Employee Satisfaction Survey

Employee Satisfaction Survey
September 1998
Edward A. Feaver, Secretary

This report is dedicated to the memory of our friend and colleague Paul L. Field, Jr. October 24, 1936-October 5,
1998
Office of Human Resources Development Room 106, Building 1 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
and Office of Standards and Evaluation Room 306, Building 1 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
For additional copies of this report, please visit our publications website at:
http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/~os/osevmain/pubs.htm
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary........ .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .............3
Introduction .......... ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .............5 Survey
Results...... ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .............7
Statewide ..... ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .............7
Districts........ ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... ..........17
Institutions ... ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... ..........26 Improvement
Strategies. .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... ..........31
Appendices .......... ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... ..........33 A: Employee
Survey ........ .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... ..........35 B:
Methodology..... .......... .......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... ..........37 C: Workgroup Member
List......... .......... ......... .......... .......... ......... .......... ..........40
Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Children and Families’mission is to work in partnership with local communities to help people be
self-sufficient and live in stable families and communities. To accomplish this mission, the department must maintain
a workforce that is well-trained, competent and generally satisfied with its work environment on a daily basis.
Unhappy and disgruntled employees do not produce quality results. A statewide employee satisfaction survey was
administered to each of the Department of Children and Families’employees. The survey was designed to measure
satisfaction on a broad range of issues considered to be important to the department’ employees, s including
employees’perceptions of how well the department is providing a work environment which encourages productivity,
personal growth, safety and communication. The results of the survey will serve as the FY 97-98 baseline data for
improvement efforts focused on employee satisfaction. It is clear that the department cannot hope to fully attain its
goals and mission with a workforce that has a high degree of dissatisfaction. A total of 27,954 surveys were
distributed statewide during March 1998. The intent was for every department employee to have an opportunity to
respond anonymously to the survey. The one-page survey instrument included 20 statements to be rated on a five-
point scale. Statement 20 was a roll-up item which asked the employee to rate his or her overall job satisfaction. Of
the surveys distributed, 10,740 were returned for a statewide response rate of 38%. This response rate was generally
good, but some districts and institutions had response rates low enough that their results should be viewed with
caution. The survey results indicate numerous opportunities for the development of improvement strategies. District
and Central Office respondents reported a range of overall satisfaction rates from a high of 74.5% to a low of 55.8%.
In developing its 1997 - 1998 strategic support objectives, the department selected a 70% satisfaction rate as its target.
District 8, with the 74.5% rate, was the only district to attain this level. Although four institutions exceeded 70%, only
G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center had response rates above
30%. Analysis of low levels of satisfaction expressed through this survey can be useful in quality improvement
efforts. Districts and institutions are encouraged to investigate problem areas and develop strategies for improvement.


INTRODUCTION
A statewide employee satisfaction survey was administered to each of the Department of Children and
Families’27,954 employees as a measure of employee satisfaction. The survey was designed to assess
employees’perceptions of how well the department is providing a work environment which encourages productivity,
personal growth, safety and communication. The results of the survey will serve as the FY 97-98 baseline data for
improvement efforts focused on employee satisfaction. The employees receiving the survey responded to 20
statements that express their expectations of an agency that is centered on employee environment, well-being, and
productivity. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Safe At Work We Work Well Together I Understand What is Expected
Opportunity To Participate Chance To Be Creative Kept Informed Satisfied With Workload Given Tools To Do The
Job Chance To Move Up Chance For Education & Training Recognized For My Service Get The Training I Need
Happy With My Work Hours Paid Based On Responsibility Comfortable With Level of Job Security Retirement
Package Is Adequate Satisfied With benefits Chance To Help Make Decisions Boss Treats Me Fairly Satisfied With
My Job
The surveys were distributed statewide during March 1998. The one-page survey instrument included 20 items to be
rated on a five-point scale (Appendix A). All employees received a survey along with their paychecks, which ensured
that every employee received a survey form. All 15 districts, institutions, and Central Office participated in the
survey. For districts and institutions with low response rates, the results are presented with cautionary comments as
appropriate. An analysis of the results indicates good reliability of the instrument. Appendix B provides detail on the
methodology of the survey administration and data analysis, including scale reliability. Appendix C lists the members
of the employee satisfaction development workgroup.

STATEWIDE SURVEY RESULTS

Overall, employee response to the survey was good, but there were significant variations in the rates. As a group, the
15 districts experienced a 48% return rate, while the institutions attained a rate of 26%. The return rate for Central
Office was 35%. Extremely low return rates tend to produce less reliable data. The following chart provides a
breakdown of the response rate for each district, institution and the Central Office.
Response Rates By District/Institution District/Institution # Distributed # Returned Response Rate District 1 720 532
74% District 2 930 645 69% District 3 670 483 72% District 4 1,117 465 42% District 5 1,037 495 48% District 6
1,316 536 41% District 7 1,552 1,055 68% District 8 877 568 65% District 9 725 294 41% District 10 1,021 353 35%
District 11 2,812 592 21% District 12 486 212 44% District 13 621 309 50% District 14 687 430 63% District 15 406
250 62% Central Office 1,238 431 35% Florida State Hosp. 2,575 577 22% G.Pierce Wood 1,223 541 44% N.E. Fla.
State Hosp. 1,642 369 22% S.Fla. State Hosp. 907 179 20% N.FL.Eval.Treatment 487 292 60% S.FL.Eval.Treatment
414 81 20% Tacachale 1,761 512 29% Gulf Coast Center 965 208 22% Sunland-Marianna 1,013 174 17% Landmark
752 157 21% Total 27,954 10,740 38%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

Based on the 10,740 survey responses, the chart reflects the percent satisfied for each of the 20 survey statements. The
percentages in the chart are based on the number of employees who indicated that they either “ strongly agree” or “
agree” with the statement. A benchmark of 70% was chosen as an overall statewide employee satisfaction target. The
shaded boxes represent the districts with the highest and lowest satisfaction percentages for each statement. Survey
Questions 1 through 20: Percent Satisfied by Districts
Districts Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10 Q 11 Q 12 Q 13 Q 14 Q 15 Q 16 Q 17 Q 18 Q 19 Q 20 1 63.8
90.1 87.7 53.9 56.6 66.7 53.7 60.0 30.4 59.3 44.1 64.9 77.8 24.6 51.3 35.5 57.7 48.2 83.7 64.7 2 72.6 91.8 90.9 55.2
59.2 69.9 57.4 67.6 43.7 56.2 54.6 67.9 84.0 29.3 67.4 53.6 68.7 53.5 85.1 67.9 3 65.6 88.3 90.9 59.8 62.4 71.7 56.2
68.6 42.0 57.5 53.2 69.2 81.2 32.2 63.8 49.3 68.9 54.5 88.2 69.6 4 66.0 87.0 91.7 59.8 60.1 72.2 54.5 66.9 37.9 63.7
49.3 75.1 81.2 21.6 56.5 35.2 54.9 48.2 85.9 65.6 5 68.0 89.6 88.0 59.9 57.8 63.8 53.5 67.1 41.5 66.3 45.2 71.9 77.2
24.7 49.8 43.3 65.4 49.5 84.9 63.7 6 61.9 89.6 88.8 58.1 62.6 65.6 52.1 64.2 37.3 63.3 41.7 66.9 77.5 23.6 53.7 44.3
58.8 51.9 85.0 65.3 7 56.8 86.5 88.7 51.2 50.1 64.6 49.4 57.7 42.6 51.4 44.7 64.5 72.6 22.6 57.2 39.3 57.6 44.0 82.0
59.0 8 65.9 92.1 90.8 66.9 68.1 72.2 58.3 73.6 45.2 62.5 55.0 72.7 85.2 27.4 55.7 42.2 61.0 59.9 88.4 74.5 9 52.1 84.3
84.1 53.3 52.8 53.4 52.9 61.4 32.4 61.4 38.8 68.0 82.4 19.1 43.3 42.9 67.1 43.6 75.0 58.2 10 53.3 87.4 86.2 45.7 48.6
55.5 46.1 45.2 34.2 51.9 38.1 60.5 71.0 18.3 42.9 34.9 56.7 35.7 78.8 55.8 11 54.9 84.9 83.5 52.6 50.2 55.3 53.6 57.1
40.1 52.1 40.5 58.8 79.4 22.1 53.9 43.8 52.9 38.8 74.9 58.6 12 56.7 82.1 80.7 55.3 50.5 58.2 48.3 55.1 36.7 39.6 37.8
53.3 74.6 23.7 53.2 36.2 54.3 42.1 75.6 58.1 13 75.6 90.3 88.0 54.5 56.2 62.1 49.0 53.4 43.9 43.4 52.1 63.9 82.6 27.8
51.0 40.3 57.1 47.4 86.5 66.6 14 56.6 82.6 82.7 51.6 52.4 55.9 35.7 37.4 40.3 50.9 40.9 57.9 76.1 19.6 45.9 36.0 57.1
39.4 77.9 58.3 15 71.8 86.8 84.8 62.0 58.3 64.3 60.3 67.3 40.2 61.6 48.5 73.8 80.1 28.5 58.6 44.2 62.7 51.8 77.2 67.2
CO 81.9 87.5 80.0 53.2 63.6 57.6 58.3 61.7 35.0 56.3 47.7 61.5 79.9 41.8 65.7 48.0 69.4 57.3 74.9 64.3
Highest Lowest
Legend
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q 10 Safe At Work We Work Well Together I Understand What is Expected
Job Chance To Move Up Chance For Education & Training Q 11 Q 12 Q 13 Q 14 Q 15 Q 16 Q 17 Q 18 Q 19 Q 20
Recognized For My Service Get The Training I Need Happy With My Work Hours Paid Based On Responsibility
Comfortable With Level of Job Security Retirement Package Is Adequate Satisfied With benefits Chance To Help
Make Decisions Boss Treats Me Fairly Satisfied With My Job

Survey Questions 1 through 20: Percent Satisfied by Institutions

Florida State Hospital Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 Q 5 Q 6 Q 7 Q 8 Q 9 Q 10 Q 11 Q 12 Q 13 Q 14 Q 15 Q 16 Q 17 Q 18 Q 19 Q
20 64.9% 86.8% 85.9% 54.5% 54.2% 62.1% 62.4% 63.9% 32.4% 50.9% 42.7% 72.5% 79.5% 30.6% 60.1% 46.9%
62.1% 48.5% 79.3% 68.3% G. Pierce Wood 52.2% 85.0% 82.7% 61.1% 58.7% 63.9% 63.2% 55.1% 40.7% 53.0%
47.7% 69.0% 78.6% 30.9% 49.5% 45.8% 61.2% 56.0% 76.0% 68.2% NEFSH SFSH NFETC SFETC
Tacachale
Gulf Coast Center 75.3% 75.4% 79.4% 52.7% 59.0% 55.5% 54.1% 54.6% 40.9% 45.9% 44.5% 59.6% 76.0% 34.1%
52.7% 39.9% 28.0% 50.7% 69.4% 61.5%
Sunland Marianna
Landmark
77.6% 91.9% 88.1% 67.9% 62.6% 75.4% 63.5% 72.9% 42.7% 58.8% 50.5% 76.7% 76.2% 32.7% 64.0% 52.8%
66.9% 53.1% 80.0% 73.4%
57.2% 83.3% 86.5% 54.0% 59.6% 57.6% 52.8% 52.0% 30.5% 55.7% 44.6% 63.7% 84.3% 24.4% 31.5% 40.0%
62.0% 40.7% 76.1% 64.3%
70.7% 84.7% 85.5% 65.0% 69.0% 71.7% 75.4% 70.3% 39.2% 51.4% 55.3% 67.7% 84.3% 37.3% 70.9% 44.1%
73.7% 62.7% 78.2% 73.3%
52.5% 81.7% 87.8% 56.3% 51.3% 62.6% 64.6% 48.1% 26.3% 46.9% 41.4% 65.1% 82.9% 33.3% 45.1% 46.8%
68.8% 35.1% 76.6% 61.7%
77.4% 80.5% 89.0% 66.0% 67.7% 69.3% 70.5% 66.8% 49.1% 57.2% 56.1% 74.0% 82.8% 41.8% 63.1% 46.7%
69.5% 59.8% 80.2% 78.3%
83.2% 86.9% 86.3% 66.7% 69.2% 71.3% 66.5% 60.2% 35.7% 52.9% 51.2% 67.2% 78.1% 39.9% 71.7% 51.8%
62.8% 56.9% 78.0% 77.0%
62.9% 86.1% 86.7% 65.8% 63.8% 64.7% 60.5% 57.7% 47.7% 70.0% 49.0% 69.2% 76.6% 36.0% 49.4% 49.2%
64.7% 56.2% 74.5% 66.3%
Highest Lowest
Legend

Statewide Satisfaction - By Statement
Only four statements exceeded the statewide target of 70% of 80% employees being in agreement. 70% 70% The
highest responses related 60% to supervisor expectations, 50% working with co-workers, fair 40% treatment by one’
supervisor s 30% and work hours. The responses 20% which expressed the lowest levels of satisfaction were 10%
related to salary, promotional 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 opportunities and the retirement
Statement package. With 75% of the statements failing to attain the target level of satisfaction, there are clearly many
improvement opportunities available to all districts, institutions and the Central Office.
n=10,740 Statewide Target = 70%
90%
100%
Legend

Survey Participation by Gender

Of those who responded to the survey, 7,912 females and 2,782 males identified their gender. These numbers
represent 73.6% and 23.1% respectively. Approximately 3% of respondents did not indicate a gender. The gender
makeup of the department as a whole is 69% female and 31% male. The greatest disparity between female
respondents and male respondents was with statement #1, “ feel Safe At Work.” I Seventy-three percent of the males
felt safe at work, while only 62% of females felt safe at work. A variety of circumstances could account for why
individual employees disagreed with this statement and a more detailed inquiry at the district level may identify
specific opportunities for improvement.
Survey Statements 1 through 20: Satisfaction by Gender Statement Overall Male 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Safe At Work We Work Well Together I Understand What is Expected Opportunity To
Participate Chance To Be Creative Kept Informed Satisfied With Workload Given Tools To Do The Job Chance To
Move Up Chance For Education & Training Recognized For My Service Get The Training I Need Happy With My
Work Hours Paid Based On Responsibility Comfortable With Level of Job Security Retirement Package Is Adequate
Satisfied With benefits Chance To Help Make Decisions Boss Treats Me Fairly Satisfied With My Job 64.8% 87.1%
86.9% 57.3% 58.3% 64.6% 55.9% 61.2% 39.7% 55.8% 47.0% 67.2% 79.0% 27.9% 56.0% 43.3% 61.8% 49.7%
80.9% 65.7% 10,740 72.6% 87.4% 86.4% 58.5% 58.7% 58.4% 56.3% 60.7% 37.0% 53.9% 48.0% 65.6% 79.6%
30.6% 55.8% 41.3% 59.9% 52.2% 81.7% 65.3% 2,782
Female 62.1% 86.9% 87.2% 56.9% 58.1% 65.1% 55.8% 61.4% 40.6% 56.4% 46.6% 67.8% 78.9% 27.0% 56.1%
44.1% 62.4% 48.8% 80.7% 65.8% 7,912
Number of Surveys Returned

Statement #20 "I Am Satisfied With My Job" By District

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 70%
n=7,650
Statewide Target = 70%
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CO
Statement #20 “ am satisfied with I my job” was the roll-up statement which summarized the overall satisfaction of
the employee. The accompanying chart indicates job satisfaction throughout the state and corresponds to the shaded
map on page 15. As can readily be seen, only District 8 exceeded the first year target of 70%. District 3 was next at
69.6%
District
Statement #20 "I Am Satisfied With My Job" By Institution
Overall employee satisfaction among employees at the 80% department’ institutions reflected a s 70% 70% somewhat
better result, but readers 60% of the survey should be cautioned 50% that eight of the 10 institutions* had 40%
response rates below 30%. As 30% noted in the introduction to this 20% report, low response rates reduce 10% the
confidence level of the data’ s 0% reliability. Northeast Florida State FSH G.P. N.FSH S.FSH NFETC SFETC
Tacacha Gulf Sunland Landma Wood Coast Hospital, North Florida Evaluation & Institution Treatment Center,
Tacachale and Sunland-Marianna all exceeded the 70% target, but of these, only North Florida Evaluation &
Treatment Center and G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital with response rates of 60% and 44% respectively, exceeded
30%.
100%
n=3,090
90%
* 1. Florida State Hospital (FSH) 2. G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital (GPW) 3. Northeast Florida State Hospital
(NEFSH) 4. South Florida State Hospital (SFSH) 5. North Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center (NFETC) 6. South
Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center (SFETC) 7. Tacachale (TCLE) 8. Gulf Coast Center (GCC) 9. Sunland at
Marianna (SAM) 10.Landmark Learning Center (LLC)
The map compares statement # 20, “ am Satisfied With My Job” among I each of the 15 districts. The degree of
overall satisfaction ranged from a high of 74.5% in District 8 to a low of 55.8% in District 10. The overall percentage
among the 15 districts and Central Office was 63.7%. Six districts, (Districts 2, 3, 4, 6, 13, and 15) were within five
percentage points of the 70% target. Eight districts and the Central Office were more than five percentage points
below the target.
Statement #20: "I Am Satisfied With My Job" By District

Employee Satisfaction by Length of Service

The data in the following chart suggest that employee discontent reaches its peak in years three through five. In this
length of service range, the percentage of employee satisfaction was below the overall percentage on every one of the
20 survey statements. Districts and the department as a whole may want to examine these results relative to employee
turnover rates. The survey indicates that employees whose service exceeds 10 years are more satisfied with their
employment. For most statements, the percentage of satisfied employees increased steadily after the 10 year level was
reached. For every statement, employees with over 20 years of service were more satisfied than employees in the six
to 10 year category.
Survey Statements 1 through 20: Percent Satisfied by Length of Service

Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Safe At Work We Work Well Together I
Understand What is Expected Opportunity To Participate Chance To Be Creative Kept Informed Satisfied With
Workload Given Tools To Do The Job Chance To Move Up Chance For Education & Training Recognized For My
Service Get The Training I Need Happy With My Work Hours Paid Based On Responsibility Comfortable With Level
of Job Security Retirement Package Is Adequate Satisfied With benefits Chance To Help Make Decisions Boss Treats
Me Fairly Satisfied With My Job
Overall 64.8% 87.1% 86.9% 57.3% 58.3% 64.6% 55.9% 61.2% 39.7% 55.8% 47.0% 67.2% 79.0% 27.9% 56.0%
43.3% 61.8% 49.7% 80.9% 65.7% 10,740
<1 Year 76.4% 89.3% 90.2% 63.8% 62.2% 75.7% 64.0% 71.0% 58.9% 69.2% 63.4% 73.3% 81.4% 43.4% 62.4%
54.6% 67.8% 60.3% 88.4% 75.5% 1,043
1-2 Years 62.9% 86.0% 87.7% 59.5% 58.3% 68.1% 56.2% 62.7% 44.6% 58.0% 52.6% 68.7% 78.1% 31.6% 56.7%
45.0% 63.2% 51.3% 83.1% 63.7% 1,004
3-5 Years 59.7% 86.0% 86.2% 55.9% 54.9% 61.5% 51.9% 60.2% 36.7% 54.0% 43.8% 66.0% 76.4% 22.9% 52.2%
40.0% 59.2% 45.4% 79.8% 60.4% 2,399
6-10 Years 61.4% 85.5% 86.7% 55.4% 56.2% 61.6% 53.2% 56.8% 35.5% 52.6% 42.1% 65.0% 78.5% 23.1% 52.2%
37.7% 58.7% 45.9% 79.8% 63.7% 2,249
11-20 Years 64.1% 87.0% 86.1% 55.1% 57.9% 62.6% 55.4% 59.9% 36.3% 52.3% 42.5% 65.7% 80.7% 25.2% 54.8%
43.3% 61.9% 48.5% 78.6% 65.5% 2,276
> 20 Years 71.8% 89.8% 87.5% 61.0% 65.1% 67.4% 60.2% 63.4% 39.0% 57.8% 51.9% 70.1% 80.9% 34.2% 62.8%
49.2% 66.2% 56.7% 81.8% 72.0% 1,608

Survey Results by Position

The survey form provided employees with eight categories to choose from in identifying their positions. Some
categories did not produce enough responses to be significant and were combined with other categories as illustrated
in the chart below. As a group, the Official/Administrator category was more satisfied than any of the other
categories. Their percentage of satisfaction was higher on the roll-up statement (#20) than any of the other categories.
As a group, the Professional category demonstrated the lowest percentage relative to overall job satisfaction. For the
statement, “ am paid based on I my responsibility and performance,” less than one in four of this category either
agreed or strongly agreed. The following chart shows the percentage of satisfaction for each position category.
Survey Statements 1 through 20: Percent Satisfaction by Position

Statement 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Safe At Work We Work Well Together I
Understand What is Expected Opportunity To Participate Chance To Be Creative Kept Informed Satisfied With
Workload Given Tools To Do The Job Chance To Move Up Chance For Education & Training Recognized For My
Service Get The Training I Need Happy With My Work Hours Paid Based On Responsibility Comfortable With Level
of Job Security Retirement Package Is Adequate Satisfied With benefits Chance To Help Make Decisions Boss Treats
Me Fairly Satisfied With My Job Official/ Admin. 85.8% 92.4% 88.4% 83.7% 83.1% 83.3% 71.0% 72.7% 54.8%
72.3% 64.9% 73.2% 79.9% 50.0% 67.1% 61.7% 71.9% 78.9% 92.3% 86.4% 156 Prof. Tech/Sec /Para 60.7% 83.5%
85.1% 53.4% 52.9% 64.1% 61.9% 60.6% 39.0% 53.1% 43.3% 70.1% 79.0% 28.7% 53.6% 42.9% 61.5% 45.2%
75.5% 66.3% 2,113 Office/ Clerical 63.4% 86.0% 89.4% 55.9% 62.2% 67.7% 69.2% 71.9% 43.0% 55.4% 53.8%
69.6% 84.8% 32.4% 58.4% 47.3% 63.7% 53.3% 83.4% 71.6% 1,940 Skilled/ Service 72.5% 84.2% 86.8% 62.5%
62.0% 66.3% 67.8% 68.2% 44.5% 48.8% 54.5% 65.8% 83.4% 42.6% 59.0% 46.4% 65.8% 54.7% 78.5% 71.2% 429
65.7% 88.5% 86.7% 57.9% 58.0% 63.1% 48.5% 57.2% 38.0% 56.7% 45.1% 65.2% 77.0% 24.7% 55.5% 41.6%
60.8% 48.9% 81.8% 62.7% 6,033
Number of Responses

Satisfaction Levels by Class of Service

The survey asked respondents to identify themselves as either Other Personal Services (OPS), Career Service or
Selected Exempt/Senior Management Service (SES/SMS) employees. For every statement, SES/SMS employees were
more satisfied with their employment than Career Service employees. For 11 of the statements, the percentages of
satisfaction for SES/SMS employees exceeded those of Career Service employees by more than 10%. The most
striking disparity between the two groups was on the statement relative to pay. The percentage of satisfied SES/SMS
employees on this issue was nearly double that of Career Service employees. OPS employees were least satisfied with
the benefits and retirement statements.
Survey Statements 1 through 20: Percent Satisfaction By Job Class

Questions Overall Statewid e 64.8% 87.1% 86.9% 57.3% 58.3% 64.6% 55.9% 61.2% 39.7% 55.8% 47.0% 67.2%
79.0% 27.9% 56.0% 43.3% 61.8% 49.7% 80.9% 65.7% 10,740 SES/SMS Career Service OPS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
Safe At Work We Work Well Together I Understand What is Expected Opportunity To Participate Chance To Be
Creative Kept Informed Satisfied With Workload Given Tools To Do The Job Chance To Move Up Chance For
Education & Training Recognized For My Service Get The Training I Need Happy With My Work Hours Paid Based
On Responsibility Comfortable With Level of Job Security Retirement Package Is Adequate Satisfied With benefits
Chance To Help Make Decisions Boss Treats Me Fairly Satisfied With My Job
76.6% 90.9% 89.9% 75.4% 76.2% 76.9% 64.0% 64.1% 47.7% 70.2% 64.5% 73.5% 80.1% 50.6% 59.6% 61.2%
78.8% 75.2% 89.3% 78.3% 197
64.0% 86.7% 86.7% 56.6% 57.3% 63.7% 55.0% 60.5% 39.1% 55.2% 45.9% 66.8% 78.6% 26.6% 56.0% 43.1%
61.9% 48.5% 80.4% 65.0% 10,011
83.9% 92.1% 89.5% 63.9% 71.6% 78.1% 77.5% 81.2% 51.1% 64.7% 67.5% 73.6% 91.4% 53.5% 49.8% 36.4%
33.1% 66.4% 89.9% 77.1% 342

DISTRICT SURVEY RESULTS

The following charts reflect both differences and consistencies among the districts. The percentages of satisfaction
represent those employees who selected either “ agree” or “ strongly agree” in responding to each statement.
Employee satisfaction exceeded the 70% statewide target in all 15 districts on four statements: 2. 3. 13. 19. “ fellow
workers and I work well together.” My “ understand what my immediate supervisor expects of me.” I “ am happy
with my work hours.” I “ boss treats me in a fair and professional manner.” My
Response rates were very good in Districts 1 and 3, each of which exceeded 70%. Response rates were good in
Districts 7, 8, 14 and 15 and at North Florida Treatment & Evaluation Center. Response rates were poor (below 50%)
in Districts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, Central Office and all other institutions.

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 1
District 1 did not reach the statewide target of 70% on any statement other 80% than the four noted above. The 70%
70% district’ employees were least s 60% satisfied with pay, advancement 50% opportunities, the state’ retirement s
40% package, employee recognition and 30% involvement in decision-making. 20% These statements fell below
50%. 10% The statement on advancement 0% opportunities received the lowest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 Statement percentage of satisfaction of any district. For each of these statements, less than half the
respondents expressed a positive response (agree or strongly agree with the statement). The district was within five
percent of the statewide target on Statement 6, relating to communication. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction,
the district’ percentage of satisfied employees was 64.7%. District 1 had s 532 survey forms returned out of 720
distributed, a return rate of 74%. This was the highest return rate of any district.
90%
100%
n = 532

100% 90%
In addition to the four statements noted above, District 2 exceeded the 80% 70% statewide target on Statement 1 70%
60% regarding safety. The district’ s 50% employees were least satisfied with 40% pay and advancement
opportunities. 30% Both of these statements fell below 20% 50%. The district was within five 10% percent of the
statewide target on six 0% statements and scored the highest of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 any
district on Statements 15 and 16 Statement regarding job security and the retirement package, respectively. For
Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the district’ percentage of satisfied employees was 67.9%. District 2 had 645
survey s forms returned out of 930 distributed, a return rate of 69%.
n = 645

In addition to the four statements noted above, District 3 exceeded 80% the statewide target on Statement 6, 70% 70%
related to communication. The 60% district’ employees were least s 50% satisfied with pay, advancement 40%
opportunities and the state’ s 30% retirement package. These 20% statements fell below 50%. The 10% district was
within five percent of the 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 statewide target on five statements
Statement and, for Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the district’ s percentage of satisfied employees was 69.6%.
District 3 had 483 survey forms returned out of 670 distributed, a return rate of 72%.
100%
n = 483
90%

100% 90%
In addition to the four statements noted above, District 4 exceeded 80% 70% 70% the statewide target on Statements
60% 6 and 12, relating to communication 50% and training. The district’ s 40% employees were least satisfied with
30% pay, the state’ retirement package, s 20% advancement opportunities, 10% involvement in decision-making and
0% employee recognition. These 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 statements fell below 50%. The
Statement district was within five percent of the statewide target on three statements and scored the highest of any
district on Statements 3 and 6 related to knowledge of expectations and communication respectively. District 4
registered the lowest percentage of satisfaction with the state’ s retirement package of any district. District 4 had 465
survey forms returned out of 1,117 distributed, a return rate of 42%.
n = 465

In addition to the four statements noted above, District 5 exceeded 80% the statewide target on Statement 70% 70%
12 relating to training. The district’ s 60% employees were least satisfied with 50% pay, advancement opportunities,
40% recognition, job security, the state’ s 30% retirement package and involvement 20% in decision-making. These
10% statements fell below 50%. The 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 district was within five
percent of the Statement statewide target on four statements and scored the highest of any district on Statement 10
regarding the opportunity to receive training useful for professional development. For Statement 20, overall job
satisfaction, the district’ s percentage of satisfied employees was 63.7%. District 5 had 495 survey forms returned out
of 1,037 distributed, a return rate of 48%.
100%
n = 495
90%
70% district was within five percent of the 60% statewide target on three statements 50% which included Statements
6, 12 and 40% 20, involving communication, training 30% and overall job satisfaction. The 20% district’ employees
were least s 10% satisfied with pay, advancement 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
opportunities, recognition and the Statement state’ retirement package. These s statements fell below 50%. For
Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the district’ s percentage of satisfied employees was 65.3%. District 6 had 536
survey forms returned out of 1,316 distributed, a return rate of 41%.
90%
100%
n = 536

70% district’ employees were least s 60% satisfied with pay, advancement 50% opportunities, workload, recognition,
40% the opportunity to participate in 30% decision-making and the state’ s 20% retirement package. These 10%
statements fell below 50%. For 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Statement 20, overall job
satisfaction, Statement the district’ percentage of satisfied s employees was 59.0%. District 7 had 1,055 survey forms
returned out of 1,552 distributed, a return rate of 68%.
100%
n = 1,055
90%
In addition to the four statements noted above, District 8 exceeded the 90% statewide target on Statements 6, 8, 80%
70% 70% 12 and 20, relating to 60% communication, adequate tools and 50% supplies, training and overall job 40%
satisfaction. The district’ employees s 30% were least satisfied with pay, 20% advancement opportunities and the 10%
state’ retirement package. These s 0% statements fell below 50%, but the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 45.2% satisfaction result on Statement advancement opportunities was the highest of any district. The district
was within five percent of the statewide target on the three statements covering safety, team goal setting opportunities
and the chance to be creative and innovative. The district posted the highest percentage of any district on Statements
2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19 and 20. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the district’ percentage of satisfied
employees was 74.5%. District 8 had s 568 survey forms returned out of 877 distributed, a return rate of 65%.
100%
n = 568

District 9 did not reach the statewide target on any statement 80% other than the four noted above. 70% 70% The
district’ employees were least s 60% satisfied with pay, advancement 50% opportunities, recognition, job 40%
security, the state’ retirement s 30% package and the opportunity to be 20% involved in decision-making. Each 10%
of these statements fell below 50%. 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 The district experienced
the lowest Statement satisfaction percentage of any district on the safety and communication statements. The district
was within five percent of the statewide target on Statements 12 and 17 regarding training and benefits, respectively.
For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the district’ percentage of satisfied employees was 58.2%. s District 9 had
294 survey forms returned out of 725 distributed, a return rate of 41%.
100%
n = 294
90%
district’ employees were least s 70% 60% satisfied with pay, advancement 50% opportunities, team goal setting 40%
opportunities, the opportunity to be 30% creative and innovative, workload, 20% being furnished with necessary 10%
tools and supplies, recognition, job 0% security, the state’ retirement s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 package and decision-making Statement opportunities. Each of these statements fell below 50%. The district had
the lowest percentage of satisfied employees of any district on Statements 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15 and 18. For Statement 20,
overall job satisfaction, the district’ percentage of satisfied employees was 55.8%. s District 10 had 353 survey forms
returned out of 1,021 distributed, a return rate of 35%.
100%
n = 353

district’ employees were least s 60% satisfied with pay, advancement 50% opportunities, recognition, the 40% state’
retirement package and s 30% decision-making opportunities. 20% Each of these statements fell below 10% 50%. The
district experienced the 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 lowest percentage of employee
Statement satisfaction of any district regarding benefits and fair treatment. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction,
the district’ percentage of satisfied employees s was 58.6%. District 11 had 592 survey forms returned out of 2,812
distributed, a return rate of 21%.
100% 90%
n = 592

100% 90%
District 12 did not reach the statewide target on any statement 80% 70% 70% other than the four noted above. 60%
The district’ employees were least s 50% satisfied with pay, advancement 40% opportunities, workload, 30%
professional development 20% opportunities, recognition, the 10% state’ retirement package and s 0% decision-
making opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Each of these statements fell below
Statement 50%. The district attained the lowest satisfaction percentages of any district on Statements 2, 10, 11, and
12. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the district’ percentage of satisfied employees s was 58.1%. District 12
had 212 survey forms returned out of 486 distributed, a return rate of 44%.
n = 212

district’ employees were least s 60% satisfied with pay, advancement 50% opportunities, workload, 40% opportunities
for professional 30% development, the state’ retirement s 20% 10% package and decision-making 0% opportunities.
Each of these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 statements fell below 50%. The Statement district
was within five percent of the statewide target on the overall job satisfaction statement. For that statement , the
district’ percentage of satisfied s employees was 66.6%. District 13 had 309 survey forms returned out of 621
n = 309
90%
100%

100%
District 14 did not reach the 80% statewide target on any statement 70% 70% other than the four noted above. 60%
The district’ employees were least s 50% satisfied with pay, advancement 40% opportunities, workload, being 30%
furnished with necessary tools and 20% supplies, recognition, job security, 10% the state’ retirement package and s
0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 decision-making opportunities. Statement Each of these
statements fell below 50%. The district attained the lowest percentage of satisfied employees of any district regarding
the availability of necessary tools and supplies. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the district’ s percentage of
satisfied employees was 58.3%. District 14 had 430 survey forms returned out of 687 distributed, a return rate of 63%.
90%
n = 430

In addition to the four statements noted above, District 15 exceeded 90% the statewide target on Statements 80% 70%
1 and 12 regarding safety and 70% 60% satisfaction with training 50% respectively. The district’ s 40% employees
were least satisfied with 30% pay, advancement opportunities, 20% recognition and the state’ s 10% retirement
package. Each of these 0% statements fell below 50%. The 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 district
was within five percent of Statement the statewide target on two statements and scored the highest of any district on
Statements 7 and 12 regarding workload and training, respectively. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the
district’ percentage of satisfied employees was 67.2%. District 15 had 250 survey s forms returned out of 406
100%
n=250
In addition to the four statements noted above, Central Office 90% exceeded the statewide target on 80% 70%
Statement 1 regarding safety. 70% Central Office employees were least 60% 50% satisfied with pay, recognition, 40%
advancement opportunities and the 30% state’ retirement package. Each of s 20% these statements fell below 50%.
10% Central Office was within five 0% percent of the statewide target on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 two statements and scored higher Statement than all districts on Statements 1, 14 and 17, regarding safety, pay
and benefits, respectively. Central Office scored a lower percentage than any district on Statement 19 regarding fair
and professional treatment. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the percentage of satisfied employees at Central
Office was 64.3%. Central Office had 431 survey forms returned out of 1,238 distributed, a return rate of 35%.
100%
Employee Satisfaction By Statement Central Office
n = 431

INSTITUTION SURVEY RESULTS

The department’ institutions generally scored higher percentages of overall s satisfaction than the districts. As a group,
however, the institutions had lower response rates with only North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center and G.
Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital exceeding 30%. Therefore, results from the institutions should be viewed with
caution. Most of the institutions exceeded the 70% statewide target on the same four statements as the districts
(Statements 2, 3, 13 and 19).
In addition to the four statements noted above, Florida State Hospital 90% exceeded the statewide target on 80% 70%
Statement 12 regarding training. 70% The hospital’ employees were s 60% least satisfied with pay, 50% advancement
opportunities, 40% recognition, the state’ retirement s 30% package and decision-making 20% 10% opportunities.
Each of these 0% statements fell below 50%. For 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Statement 20,
overall job Statement satisfaction, the hospital’ s percentage of satisfied employees was 68.3%. Florida State Hospital
had 577 survey forms returned out of 2,575 distributed, a return rate of 22%.
100%
Employee Satisfaction By Statement Florida State Hospital
n = 577
Except for the four statements noted above, G. Pierce Wood Memorial Statewide Target = 70% n = 541 90% Hospital
did not exceed the 80% statewide target on any statement. 70% 70% The hospital’ employees were least s 60%
satisfied with pay, advancement 50% opportunities, recognition, job 40% security and the state’ retirement s 30%
package. Each of these statements 20% fell below 50%. The hospital was 10% within five percent of the statewide 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 target on two statements, but scored Statement the lowest of any
institution on Statement 1 regarding safety. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the hospital’ percentage of
satisfied employees s was 68.2%. G. Pierce Wood had 541 survey forms returned out of 1,223 distributed, a return
rate of 44%. Page 26
100%
Employee Satisfaction By Statement G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital
1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

In addition to the four statements noted above, Northeast Florida 90% State Hospital exceeded the 80% 70% statewide
target on Statements 1, 6, 70% 8, 12 and 20, regarding safety, 60% communication, availability of tools 50% 40% and
supplies, training and overall 30% job satisfaction respectively. The 20% hospital’ employees were least s 10%
satisfied with pay and advancement 0% opportunities. Both of these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 statements fell below 50%. The Statement hospital was within five percent of the statewide target on two
statements and scored the highest of any institution on Statements 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 regarding working well with
co-workers, participation in team goal setting, communication, availability of tools and supplies, training and
satisfaction with the state’ retirement package respectively. For Statement 20, overall s job satisfaction, the hospital’
percentage of satisfied employees was 73.4%. s Northeast Florida State Hospital had 369 survey forms returned out of
1,642 distributed, a return rate of 22%.
100%
Employee Satisfaction By Statement Northeast Florida State Hospital
n = 369
Except for the four statements noted above, South Florida State Hospital Statewide Target = 70% n = 179 90% did not
exceed the statewide target 80% on any statement. The hospital’ s 70% 70% employees were least satisfied with 60%
pay, advancement opportunities, 50% recognition, job security, the state’ s 40% retirement package and decision30%
making opportunities. Each of 20% these statements fell below 50%. 10% The hospital scored the highest of 0% 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 any institution on Statement 13 Statement regarding satisfaction with
work hours, but scored the lowest of any institution on Statements 7, 14 and 15 regarding workload, pay and job
security respectively. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the hospital’ percentage of s satisfied employees was
64.3%. South Florida State Hospital had 179 survey forms returned out of 907 distributed, a return rate of 20%.
100%
Employee Satisfaction By Statement South Florida State Hospital

In addition to the four statements noted above, North Florida Statewide Target = 70% n = 292 90% Evaluation &
Treatment Center 80% exceeded the statewide target on 70% 70% Statements 1, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 60% 20, regarding
safety, 50% communication, workload, 40% availability of tools and supplies, job 30% security, benefits and overall
job 20% satisfaction respectively. The 10% center’ employees were least s 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 satisfied with pay, advancement Statement opportunities and the state’ s retirement package. Each of
these statements fell below 50%. The center was within five percent of the statewide target on three statements, and
scored the highest of any institution on Statements 7, 13, 17 and 18 regarding workload, work hours, benefits and
decision-making opportunities respectively. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the center’ percentage of s
satisfied employees was 73.3%. North Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center had 292 survey forms returned out of
487 distributed, a return rate of 60%. This was the best return rate of any institution.
100%
Employee Satisfaction By Statement North Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center
Except for the four statements noted above, South Florida Evaluation & 90% Treatment Center did not exceed 80%
70% 70% the statewide target on any 60% statement. The center’ employees s 50% were least satisfied with pay, 40%
advancement opportunities, 30% availability of tools and supplies, 20% professional development 10% opportunities,
recognition, job 0% security, the state’ retirement s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Statement
package and decision-making opportunities. Each of these statements fell below 50%. The center was within five
percent of the statewide target on two statements, but scored the lowest of any institution on Statements 5, 8, 9, 11 and
18 regarding the opportunity to be creative and innovative, availability of tools and supplies, advancement
opportunities, recognition and decision-making opportunities respectively. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction,
the center’ percentage of s satisfied employees was 61.7%. South Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center had 81
survey forms returned out of 414 distributed, a return rate of 20%.
100%
Employee Satisfaction By Statement South Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center Statewide Target = 70%
n = 81

In addition to the four statements noted above, Tacachale exceeded 100% Statewide Target = 70% n = 512 the
statewide target on Statements 90% 1, 7, 12, and 20, regarding safety, 80% 70% workload, training and overall job
70% satisfaction respectively. 60% 50% Tacachale’ employees were least s 40% satisfied with pay, advancement 30%
opportunities and the state’ s 20% retirement package. Each of these 10% statements fell below 50%. 0% Tacachale
was within five percent of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 the statewide target on four Statement
statements, and scored the highest of any institution on Statements 3, 9, 11, 14, 19 and 20 regarding communication
with immediate supervisor, advancement opportunities, recognition, pay, fair and professional treatment and overall
job satisfaction respectively. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, Tacachale’ percentage of satisfied employees
was 78.3%. s Tacachale had 512 survey forms returned out of 1,761 distributed, a return rate of 29%.
Employee Satisfaction By Statement Tacachale
Gulf Coast Center exceeded the statewide target on Statements 1, 2, 100% Statewide Target = 70% n = 208 3 and 13
regarding safety, working 90% well with co-workers, communi80% 70% cation with immediate supervisor 70% 60%
and work hours respectively. The 50% center’ employees were least s 40% satisfied with pay, advancement 30%
opportunities, professional 20% development opportunities, 10% recognition, the state’ retirement s 0% package and
benefits. Each of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 these statements fell below 50%. Statement The
center was within five percent of the statewide target on one statement, but scored the lowest of any institution on
Statements 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 regarding working well with coworkers, communication with
immediate supervisor, the opportunity to participate in team goal setting, communication, opportunities for
professional development, training, work hours, the state’ retirement package, benefits, fair and professional treatment
s and overall job satisfaction respectively. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, the center’ percentage of
satisfied employees was 61.5%. Gulf Coast Center had 208 s survey forms returned out of 965 distributed, a return
rate of 22%.
Employee Satisfaction By Statement Gulf Coast Center

In addition to the four statements noted above, Sunland - Marianna 100% exceeded the statewide target on Statewide
Target = 70% n = 174 90% Statements 1, 6, 15 and 20, 80% regarding safety, communication, 70% 70% job security
and overall job 60% satisfaction respectively. Sunland’ s 50% employees were least satisfied with 40% pay and
advancement opportunities. 30% Both of these statements fell below 20% 50%. Sunland was within five 10% percent
of the statewide target on 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 three statements, and scored the
Statement highest of any institution on Statements 1, 5, and 15 regarding safety, the opportunity to be creative and
innovative, and job security respectively. For Statement 20, overall job satisfaction, Sunland’ percentage of satisfied
employees s was 77.0%. Sunland - Marianna had 174 survey forms returned out of 1,013 distributed, a return rate of
17%. This was the lowest return rate of any district or institution.
Employee Satisfaction by Statement Sunland-Marianna
In addition to the four statements noted above, Landmark Learning 90% Center reached the statewide target 80% 70%
on Statement 10 regarding the 70% 60% opportunity for professional 50% development. The center’ s 40%
employees were least satisfied with 30% pay, advancement opportunities, 20% recognition, job security and the 10%
state’ retirement package. Each of s 0% these statements fell below 50%. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 The center was within five percent Statement of the statewide target on four statements, and scored the highest
of any institution on Statement 10 regarding opportunities for professional development. For Statement 20, overall job
satisfaction, the center’ percentage of satisfied employees was 66.3%. Landmark Learning Center s had 157 survey
forms returned out of 752 distributed, a return rate of 21%.
100%
Employee Satisfaction By Statement Landmark Learning Center
n = 157

IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
Employee satisfaction is a key element in determining whether or not an organization is able to fulfill its mission,
realize its vision and move its values from theory to reality. Surveys such as this are valuable tools to help managers
determine areas on which to focus improvement activities. The current survey was intended to establish baseline data
from which districts and institutions could develop improvement strategies and action plans. The data should provide
an aid in identifying real improvement opportunities. Statewide, only four items on the survey exceeded the target
70% satisfaction level. These items indicate that, generally speaking, employees feel they work well with their co-
workers, understand what is expected of them, are satisfied with their work hours and feel fairly treated by their
immediate supervisors. By contrast, employee satisfaction fell below the 70% threshold on 15 items, as well as the
final, overall satisfaction item. This information identifies numerous opportunities for districts and institutions to
develop action plans focused on specific targets. Among the items showing the lowest degree of employee satisfaction
were: pay; opportunities for advancement; and, the retirement package. The information presented in this survey
provides an opportunity for districts and institutions to identify possible future strategic objectives based on data. In
addition to pointing out areas where improvement opportunities are indicated, the survey also establishes baseline data
for those areas.


APPENDICES
Appendix A: • Satisfaction Survey Appendix B: • Methodology Appendix C: • Workgroup Member List


APPENDIX A: SURVEY FORM


APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY
Survey Development Team The survey was developed by a department team comprised of representatives from
several districts, institutions, and the Central Office. The Office of Standards and Evaluations provided technical
assistance, and the team reviewed numerous employee satisfaction surveys. Following extensive discussion, the team
determined the basic structure, format, questions, and methodology for administering the survey. In October 1997, the
workgroup members participated in the pilot testing of the survey instrument by administering the instrument to five
or more employees. Each workgroup member was asked to include participants from management, paraprofessionals,
professionals, and support staff. The purpose of the pilot test was to determine the following: a. Determine if the items
were clear and understandable to the respondents. b. Determine if the employee feels that the items are important to
job satisfaction. c. To solicit suggestions for improvement of the instrument. d. To solicit information on employees
willingness to participate in such a survey. e. To solicit information on ways to encourage employee participation. The
survey results were used to revise items, improve the instructions, and improve the instrument. The workgroup
reviewed the results of the pilot test and approved of revisions. Description of The Survey The survey was designed
for all classes of department employees. These are Career Service, Other Personal Services (OPS), Selected Exempt,
and Senior Management Services. The criteria used in designing the survey form included: • that it be easy to read and
understand • that it be concise and easy to complete • that it measure specifics of the employee’ work environment s
The survey form includes 20 statements, in the affirmative, with which respondents express their level of agreement.
For each statement, there were six response options (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree,
Not Applicable) and a comments section. A twenty-first item solicited suggestions for improving employee

satisfaction. The survey form was designed to be read by an optical scanner. Employees were asked to complete the
form and indicate their gender, length of service, career class, district/institution, county, and job title. Survey
Administration The survey was administered in all of the districts and institutions of the department beginning March
27, 1998. Surveys were delivered to employees with their paychecks, accompanied with instructions to return the
completed forms to their personnel office. The completed forms were forwarded to Tallahassee, sorted and reviewed
for obvious errors by Central Human Resources staff, and entered into an Excel spread sheet by Central Support
Services staff. The data were then forwarded to the Office of Standards and Evaluation for final quality control checks
and statistical analyses using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). A total of 10,747 survey forms were
analyzed in this report. ( Another 123 forms did not have a district/institution code, and these were not used.) In the
data presented here, results for each item are based upon the number of records which have valid data for that item.
For example, because only 10,671 respondents answered the question of “ Job Title” results which include “ , Job
Title” will be based upon 10,671, not 10,747. Survey Instrument Reliability A reliability coefficient, Cronbach’ alpha,
was used to determine how well the survey s questions formed a coherent scale. Cronbach’ alpha was found to be .
9072, s indicating good reliability. All items contributed positively to the reliability of the scale. Item correlations with
the summary statement (item 20) are provided in the table below. While each item is positively correlated with the
summary statement, the size of the correlations are not as strong as would be expected in a scale measuring a
unidimensional construct. There may be several factors involved that could be more accurately measured with a
revised scale. The workgroup will discuss further analysis needed.

Item # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Item Correlation with Overall Satisfaction - Item 20 N=9,370 Item Correlation with Overall Satisfaction Safe At
Work .35 We Work Well Together .32 I Understand What is Expected .30 Opportunity To Participate .41 Chance To
Be Creative .44 Kept Informed .43 Satisfied With Workload .54 Given Tools To Do The Job .41 Chance To Move Up
.43 Chance For Education & Training .38 Recognized For My Service .47 Get The Training I Need .41 Happy With
My Work Hours .34 Paid Based On Responsibility .38 Comfortable With Level of Job .39 Security Retirement
Package Is Adequate .26 Satisfied With benefits .29 Chance To Help Make Decisions .51 Boss Treats Me Fairly .43
Satisfied With My Job 1.00

APPENDIX C: WORKGROUP MEMBER LIST
Janet Baggett Earl Barrett Sheila Collins Sandy Erickson Paul Field Ella Hall Dwight Hood Barbara McCullough
Susan McPhee Sallie O’ Hara Gloria Sanzo Carl Steinberg Diane Spencer Sarah Runkle
Central Office - Performance Development and Training District 1 Central Office - Adult Mental Health Central
Office - Family Safety and Preservation Central Office - Human Resources; Employee Relations Central Office -
Standards and Evaluation District 2 District 2 District 5 District 4 District 11 District 8 Central Office - Economic Self
Sufficiency District 2
Additional Recognition Bill DeGrove Monica O’ Neal John Porter Brian Watts Rita Cook Central Office - Standards
and Evaluation Central Office - Central Support Services Central Office - Standards and Evaluation Central Office -
Standards and Evaluation Central Office - Standards and Evaluation

Employee Satisfaction Survey

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Employee Satisfaction Survey

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Employee Satisfaction Survey

Edward A. Feaver, Secretary

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Page 2 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Page 4 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Page 6 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

STATEWIDE SURVEY RESULTS

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Overall Employee Satisfaction

Page 8 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Survey Questions 1 through 20: Percent Satisfied by Institutions

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Statewide Satisfaction - By Statement

Page 10 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Survey Participation by Gender

Number of Surveys Returned

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Statement #20 "I Am Satisfied With My Job" By District

Statewide Target = 70%

Statement #20 "I Am Satisfied With My Job" By Institution

Statewide Target = 70%

Statement #20: "I Am Satisfied With My Job" By District

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Employee Satisfaction by Length of Service

Survey Statements 1 through 20: Percent Satisfied by Length of Service

Number of Surveys Returned

Page 14 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Survey Results by Position

Survey Statements 1 through 20: Percent Satisfaction by Position

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Satisfaction Levels by Class of Service

Survey Statements 1 through 20: Percent Satisfaction By Job Class

Number of Surveys Returned

Page 16 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

DISTRICT SURVEY RESULTS

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 1

Statewide Target = 70%

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 2

Statewide Target = 70%

Page 18 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 3

Statewide Target = 70%

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 4

Statewide Target = 70%

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 5

Statewide Target = 70%

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 6

Statewide Target = 70%

Page 20 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 7

Statewide Target = 70%

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 8

Statewide Target = 70%

Page 7 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 9

Statewide Target = 70%

Employee Satisfaction By Statement District 10

Statewide Target = 70%

Page 22 1998 Report of Employee Satisfaction Survey