2022 City of Charlottesville Employee Survey November 21, 2022 Presented by: Thomas M. Guterbock Academic Director UVA Center for Survey Research TomG@virginia.edu Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 2 Page 1 of 26 Report Authors Thomas M. Guterbock, Ph.D. Academic Director, CSR Alayna Panzer, Ph.D. Project Manager, CSR Adina Kugler Research Assistant, CSR With special thanks to Michael Rogers (Interim City Manager), Ashley Williams (Deputy City Manager for Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion), Samuel Sanders (Deputy City Manager for Operations), Teresa Pollock (Administrative Assistant to Deputy City Manager) for their contributions to the project. Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 3 About the Survey Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 4 Page 2 of 26 Purposes of the Survey  Assess the level of employee satisfaction  Identify the determinants of employee satisfaction  Assess workplace environment  Provide an opportunity for employees to contribute ideas to make the City a better place to work  Measure change on key indicators that were asked in 2014 and 2017  2022 survey was 6th iteration of the employee survey Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 5 Survey Protocol  Announcement letter  Mostly online survey  Survey packets made available thru HR  Email invitation  Thank you/reminder email  Reminder flyer to all staff  Email reminder to non-respondents  Close-out email Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 6 Page 3 of 26 Anonymous Protocol  Fully anonymous  Separate confirmation web page and postcard for tracking response  Voluntary, non-coercive protocol  Small departments combined in aggregate ratings  Demographic data kept confidential by CSR Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 7 Accuracy of the Survey  Number of respondents: 531  Web: 504 (95% of the respondents)  Paper: 27 • 2017 - Web: 374 Paper: 59 Total: 433  Response rate: 45%  (same as 2017)  Margin of sampling error: +/- 3.2%  (+/-3.5% in 2017)  Other possible sources of error:  Were non-responders different?  Problems with questions or dishonest answers?  Same methods, same questions:  comparisons to prior years are highly reliable Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 8 Page 4 of 26 Questionnaire Structure  Key topic areas  Key aspects of work  Human resource issues  Supervisors and managers  New topic: Work from home vs. office  Overall satisfaction  Which areas most important?  Open-ended questions  Organizational vision, mission, and values  Demographic information Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 9 Demographics  Male and female employees are represented respectively at 53.7% and 45.7%  Nonbinary or provided own description: 0.7%  Good distribution across employee tenure and education  29.8% of respondents are supervisors and 21.7% are managers  Some employees are both  74.2% of respondents are White non-Hispanic, 15.5% Black/African-American, 10.3% other categories or multi-racial Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 10 Page 5 of 26 Demographics (cont.)  94.6% are full-time employees  61.9% said they are entitled to overtime pay or comp time (non-exempt personnel)  16.2% are in police, fire or sheriff departments  Overall demographics are similar to those in the 2017 survey, except for an increase in pay levels and those who use email for work Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 11 Survey Results Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 12 Page 6 of 26 Overall Satisfaction Measures  Overall satisfaction with the City of Charlottesville as a place to work  The City of Charlottesville as a place to work as compared to the way it was two years ago  Recommending the City of Charlottesville as a place to work Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 13 Overall Employee Satisfaction How satisfied are you overall with the City of Charlottesville as a place to work? [7-point scale] 6.8% Extremely 7.6% Satisfied 11.8% 28.7% Very 41.8% Satisfied 43.9% 35.5% of employees Somewhat 35.9% were extremely 29.3% Satisfied 30.4% satisfied or very Neutral 8.4% 5.4% Mean: 4.82 satisfied, decrease 5.4% (2017: 5.13) from 49.4% in 2017 10.7% Somewhat 10.6% Dissatisfied 5.4% Significant Very 3.0% 7.2% decrease from Dissatisfied 2.0% 2017 and 2014 2.3% Extremely 2.2% Dissatisfied 1.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 14 2022 2017 2014 Page 7 of 26 The City of Charlottesville Now and Then How would you rate the City of Charlottesville as a place to work now as compared to the way it was two years ago? [5-point scale] 11.1% Much better 6.8% 6.9% Somewhat better 23.5% 20.7% Mean: 2.92 28% of employees 21.8% (2017: 2.92) would rate the City 28.0% about the same as About the same 41.1% two years ago, 47.4% decrease from 20.7% Somewhat worse 20.1% 41.1% in 2017 19.0% More disagreement 16.7% Much worse 11.3% on this item in 2022 4.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 2022 2017 2014 15 Recommending the City I would recommend the City of Charlottesville as a place to work [5-point scale] 18.8% Strongly 32.4% Agree 37.7% Only 18.8% of 36.2% employees Somewhat Agree 35.7% 36.0% strongly agreed Mean: 3.46 they would 25.1% (2017: 3.79) recommend the Neutral 16.9% 17.9% Down significantly City as a place to 11.7% from 2017 work, a decrease Somewhat Disagree 8.2% from 32.4% in 6.7% 2017 8.2% Strongly 6.8% Disagree 1.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 16 2022 2017 2014 Page 8 of 26 Overall Satisfaction over Time 6 5.47 5.41 5.25 5.15 5.13 5 4.82 4.1 3.98 4.01 4 3.78 3.79 3.6 3.46 3.11 3.07 3.07 2.92 2.92 3 2 1 0 2006 2010 2012 2014 2017 2022 Overall Satisfaction Compared to Two Years Ago Recommend as a Place to Work Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 17 Key Aspects of Work Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 18 Page 9 of 26 Key-Topic Areas Commitment to the City of Diversity and equal employment Charlottesville opportunities by city and department Quality of your department’s Workplace environment workforce Responsiveness to the needs of Feelings towards remote work customers and clients Fair treatment of customers Personal safety Creativity, initiative, and new ideas Training and development efforts Dignity/worth felt in employment Pay and Benefits Empowerment to perform job well Performance appraisals Communication within the City of Issues concerning immediate Charlottesville supervisor Integrity of employees in delivering Issues concerning division level services managers Employee relations in the department Issues concerning working and city relationship with upper management 19 and supervisors Example of a Key-Topic Area Communication within the City of Charlottesville 20 Page 10 of 26 Changes from 2017  Based on the “overall” question for each key-topic area:  Satisfaction improved significantly in 3 areas  Employee benefits  Issues concerning immediate supervisor  Relationships with immediate supervisor  Other areas: No significant change  No areas went down in satisfaction Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 21 Four Components to the Analysis 1. Outcome variable: Overall satisfaction with the City 2. Performance Ratings 3. Perceived Importance 4. Derived Importance Performance and importance items sorted into three categories (High, Medium, and Low) Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 22 Page 11 of 26 Key Topic Performance  To determine key topic overall performance: • Use mean of responses to individual items for key-topic area • Negatively worded items were reversed for overall key-topic area performance • Sort key-topic areas into 3 performance categories (High, Medium, and Low) Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 23 High Performance Key-Topic Areas Items Mean High Fair treatment of customers D1-D4 4.42 Commitment to Charlottesville A1-A5 4.29 Responsiveness to customers’ needs C1-C5 4.16 Creativity of employees E1-E5 4.08 Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 24 Page 12 of 26 Low Performance Key-Topic Areas Items Mean Low Employee relations in the J1-J3 3.43 Department and City Communication within the City of H1-H5 3.40 Charlottesville Issues concerning division managers S1-S8* 3.22 Workplace environment L1-L5* 3.11 Relationships with upper T1-T7* 3.10 management Performance appraisals Q1-Q5 3.02 Employee pay P1-P4 2.73 Center for Survey Research * Items L1, TM2, and S5 were reverse-coded for this analysis. University of Virginia 25 Key-Topic Perceived Importance  How to determine which key topics are most important to employees based on their own choices:  At the end of the questionnaire employees were presented a list of key-topic areas  Employees indicated 4 key-topic areas they would most like management to work on • “My most important concern or issue is (Check up to four)”  Key-topic areas were ranked based on the number of employees responses who chose each one Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 26 Page 13 of 26 High Perceived Importance Percent of Most important issue or Count cases concern (%) High Pay 376 78.5% Benefits 127 26.5% Dignity and worth 123 25.7% Communication within the City of 121 25.3% Charlottesville Training and development 111 23.2% Performance appraisals 94 19.6% Quality of the workforce 87 18.2% Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 27 Low Perceived Importance Less important issue or Percent of cases Count concern (%) Low Issues concerning division managers 37 7.7% Responsiveness to needs of customers and 34 7.1% clients Integrity of employees 33 6.9% Personal safety of employees 25 5.2% Commitment to Charlottesville 23 4.8% Fair treatment of customers 15 3.1% Issues concerning immediate supervisors 14 2.9% Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 28 Page 14 of 26 Key Topic Derived Importance  How to determine which key topics are most important to employees based on what drives employee satisfaction:  Use correlation analysis  Correlate each overall key-topic area rating item with overall satisfaction independently  Sort key-topic areas into 3 importance categories (High, Medium, and Low) Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 29 High Derived Importance Zero order Key-Topic Areas correlation coefficient High Dignity and worth 0.70 Workplace environment 0.68 Relationships with upper management 0.64 Communication within the City 0.64 Issues concerning division managers 0.62 Employee empowerment 0.61 Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 30 Page 15 of 26 Low Derived Importance Zero order Key-Topic Areas correlation coefficient Low Relationships with immediate supervisor 0.41 Diversity in the City workforce 0.40 Issues concerning immediate supervisors 0.39 Responsiveness to customer needs 0.36 Creativity of employees 0.35 Fair treatment of customers 0.30 Employee benefits 0.30 Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 31 Setting Priorities  What should be prioritized for study and change?  Create a “Priority Matrix”  Uses both performance ratings and importance measures  We have 1 Performance measure  We have 2 Importance measures  Matrices identify areas of greatest leverage for change Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 32 Page 16 of 26 Goal Category Priority Matrix Importance Measure High Medium Low (Mean Performance Scores) High Areas of strength Performance Medium Second priority Low First priority Second priority 33 Priority Matrix for Perceived Importance Perceived Importance (Multiple Mentions Analysis) High Medium Low  Fair treatment of customers  Commitment to City of (Mean Performance Scores) High  Creativity of employees Charlottesville  Responsiveness to customers’ Performance needs  Quality of department  Diversity in the Dept.  Integrity of employees  Diversity in City workforce Medium workforce  Issues concerning immediate  Dignity and worth  Relationship with supervisor  Training and development immediate supervisor  Personal safety of employees  Employee benefits  Employment empowerment  Employee relations  Communication  Workplace environment Low  Performance appraisals  Issues concerning division  Relationships with upper  Employee pay managers management 34 Page 17 of 26 Priority Matrix for Derived Importance Derived Importance (Zero-order Correlations) High Medium Low  Fair treatment of customers  Responsiveness to High  Commitment customers  Creativity of employees (Mean Performance Scores)  Diversity in the Dept.  Employee benefits  Quality of Dept. Performance  Issues concerning  Dignity and Worth Medium workforce immediate supervisors  Employee  Personal safety  Relationships with empowerment  Integrity of employees immediate supervisors  Training and  Diversity in City workforce development  Workplace environment  Communication  Employee relations Low  Relationships with  Performance appraisals upper management  Employee pay  Issues concerning division managers 35 Remote Work Satisfaction with remote work used 70.0%  97.5% of [CELLRANGE] employees 60.0% working from home were 50.0% satisfied or 40.0% very satisfied [CELLRANGE] 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 2.5% [CELLRANGE] 0.0% Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 36 Page 18 of 26 Remote Work Would you prefer to work at home…  32.3% of 40.0% employees 35.0% 33.6% preferred to 30.0% work from 25.0% 24.4% home all or 20.0% most of the 14.5% 17.8% time 15.0% 9.7% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% All of the Most of the Some of the Rarely Never time time time Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 37 Office Space  What type of office space do you need for your job? No office space needed; 21.9% Private office; Shared office 44.9% space; 7.2% Dedicated (non- private) work space; 26.0% Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 38 Page 19 of 26 Survey Results in Review Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 39 Overall Satisfaction  Compared to 2017, employees in 2022 were significantly less satisfied with the City of Charlottesville as a place to work overall  in 2022 and 2017, roughly equal proportions of employees said the City was a better place to work than it was two years ago  But in 2022 fewer said it was “about the same”  A significantly lower proportion of employees in 2022 said they would recommend the City as a place to work compared to 2017 Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 40 Page 20 of 26 Highest-Rated Factors The highest-rated key topic areas might be thought of as intangible factors (as opposed to tangible factors such as pay, policies, etc.). The City’s greatest strengths in 2022 were:  Customer relations • “Responsiveness to customers” • “Fair treatment of customers”  Commitment to the City of Charlottesville  Creativity of Employees Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 41 Lowest-Rated Factors The lowest-rated factors are more related to tangible rewards and processes. In 2022, they were:  Pay  Performance appraisals  Workplace environment  Management • “Working relationships with upper management” • “Issues concerning division level managers”  Employee relations  Communications Center for Survey Research University of Virginia • “ 42 Page 21 of 26 Priority Areas  Key-topic areas of greatest strength  i.e., higher performance & highest importance  Commitment  Creativity of Employees Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 43 Priority Areas  Key-topic areas requiring highest priority for attention  i.e., lowest performance & highest importance  Based on employee choices:  Employee pay  Performance appraisals  Communication  Based on satisfaction drivers:  Workplace environment  Communication  Work relationships with upper management 44  Issues concerning division managers Page 22 of 26 Overall Change  Measures of key-topic areas mostly unchanged from 2017  3 areas went up  But many are lower than 2014  Overall satisfaction is lower than 2017  Not clear why this is so, since no topic ratings went down compared to 2017  Possibly this reflects employees’ uncertainty about the future, after five years of management turnover and public controversies Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 45 Demographic Differences  Generally more favorable ratings from:  Employees with higher pay  Recent hires  Those with higher education  “Exempt” employees (usually higher pay)  Generally more negative ratings from:  Public safety departments Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 46 Page 23 of 26 Demographic Similarities  Race is not an important factor predicting key topic ratings  Black or African-American and white employees are very similar in what they rate high or low  Blacks have higher overall satisfaction than whites  Blacks and whites equal on ratings of diversity measures  Very few gender differences  Women give higher ratings on pay, benefits, and workplace environment  These results speak well for City’s workplace diversity, equity and inclusion issues Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 47 More takeaways . . .  Priority areas  Mostly unchanged from 2017  Relationships to immediate supervisor improved and therefore no longer as high in priority  Remote work  Those who worked remotely were highly satisfied with working from home  About a third of employees would prefer to work from home  Shared offices are OK with some Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 48 Page 24 of 26 Conclusions  It is notable that employee ratings of specific aspects of work are essentially unchanged  Despite five years of controversy and rapid change  Subjective indicators of diversity and inclusion are favorable for race and gender  Nonetheless, overall employee satisfaction did decrease significantly  The areas of strength and areas of challenge for the City remain largely the same as they were in 2017 Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 49 For more details: Please see our narrative report:  Results for all questions  Importance and demographic analyses, along with analyses by key- topics CSR.CooperCenter.org/Reports Center for Survey Research University of Virginia 50 Page 25 of 26 Questions? 51 2022 City of Charlottesville Employee Survey Thomas M. Guterbock Academic Director, UVa Center for Survey Research TomG@virginia.edu CSR.CooperCenter.org/Reports November 21, 2022 Page 26 of 26