ML18087A137
| ML18087A137 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/20/2018 |
| From: | Stephanie Blaney Information Services Branch |
| To: | Ravnitzky M - No Known Affiliation |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2018-000127 | |
| Download: ML18087A137 (73) | |
Text
NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE NUMBER (01-2018) v""" "'leu, INRC-2018-00012711 I
(~*}
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF I
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST RESPONSE D INTERIM 0 FINAL
""+.,
.0,
...,!I..
TYPE REQUESTER:
DATE:
!Michael Ravnitzky 11 03/20/2018 I
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS:
2016 NRC Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) Agency Management Report and 20 16 NRC FEVS Trend Report PART I. -- INFORMATION RELEASED You have the right to seek assistance from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison. Contact information for the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison is available at https://www.nrc._gov/reading-rm/foia/contact-foia.htm.1.
D Agency records subject to the request are already available on the Public NRC Website, in Public ADAMS or on microfiche in the NRC Public Document Room.
[Z] Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.
D Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.
D We are continuing to process your request.
[Z] See Comments.
PART I.A -- FEES NO FEES AMOUNT' D You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed.
II II
[Z] Minimum fee threshold not met.
D You will receive a refund for the amount listed.
D Due to our delayed response, you will
- see Comments for details D Fees waived.
not be charged fees.
PART I.B -- INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE D
We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Agencies may treat three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA ("exclusions"). 5 U.S.C. 552(c). This is a standard notification given to all requesters; it should not be taken to mean that any excluded records do, or do not, exist.
D We have withheld certain information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II.
D Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal at th is time. We will notify you of your right to appeal any of the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination.
You may appeal this final determination within 90 calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or e-mail to the
[Z]
FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or.FOIA.Resource@nrc.gov. Please be sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA Appeal." You have the right to seek dispute resolution services from the NRC's Public Liaison, or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). Contact information for OGIS is available at
.b.11ps.JL.o..9§_,_filch i'[e...s.,g9.'ifi;Jb..O.YJ:.Qgi~!..c_ont2c.bnfo!ID2.ti.o..!Lbtm PART I.C COMMENTS ( Use attached Comments continuation page if required)
The original FOIA case number was FOJA/P A-2018-0034. Due to a recent change in NRC FOJA processing software, the new case number is now NRC-2018-000127.
Signature - Freedom of Information Act Officer or Designee
!Stephanie A. Blaney Digitally signed by Stephanie A. Blaney I
Date: 2018.03.20 08:58:20 -04'00' NRC F om, 464 Part I (01 -2018)
Table of Contents About This Report.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Your FEVS Results: Taking Action............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Respondent Overview............................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Employee Engagement Index................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Employee Engagement Index Benchmarks........................................................................................................................................ 7 Employee Engagement Index Component Scores and Trends........................................................................................................... 7 Employee Engagement Key Drivers..................................................................................................................................................... 11 New IQ Index...................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 New IQ Index Benchmarks............................................................................................................................................................. 13 New IQ Index Component Scores and Trends................................................................................................................................. 13 Decision Aid: Increases........................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Decision Aid: Decreases....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Decision Aid: No Change..................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks......................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results................................................................................................................... 30
About This Report The 2016 FEVS Agency Management Report (AMR) was designed to help your agency identify issues and provides guidance to take action for improvement. This report also highlights important agency successes, which should be acknowledged. We encourage you to share these successes and areas for improvement with your employees.
When reviewing your results, keep the guidelines below in mind. These guidelines were created to organize your survey results in a way that is easier to digest and interpret.
Understanding Your Results Percent Positive The sum of two positive categories (e.g., Strongly Agree/ Agree)
Percent Negative The sum of two negative categories (e.g., Strongly Disagree/Disagree)
Percent Neutral The neutral category (e.g., Neither Agree nor Disagree)
Identifying Strengths, Challenges and Neutral Findings 65 percent positive or higher is considered a strength 35 percent negative or higher is considered a challenge 30 percent neutral or higher suggests uncertainty, presenting an opportunity for communication between managers and staff Identifying Increases and Decreases Movement up or down since the previous year is another important piece of information to consider when examining your results. Any increase or decrease in results can be important; however larger increases or decreases (generally 3 or more percentage points) may be a result of significant changes taking place within your agency and should be explored. Increases indicate positive change that should continue to be reinforced. Decreases, especially in areas considered mission critical, may call for appropriate action to initiate and support beneficial workplace improvements.
About This Report
Your FEVS Results: Taking Action This section provides guidelines for taking action based on your FEVS results -
focusing on steps you can take to form an action planning team, identify challenges, develop an action plan, and measure progress toward meeting goals. In addition, descriptions of helpful resources and tools are outlined. A broad overview of the process of moving from results to action is displayed in diagram below, with the specific steps and guidelines outlined in the following pages.
Moving from Results To Action Implement Actions Implement your plan.
Review Results and Progress Identify your FEVS team.
Use your AMR and other resources (reports, websites) to identify areas for improvement.
Monitor your progress.
Planning Continue to monitor your progress.
Develop your goals for improvement.
Develop your plan for action.
Getting Started Agencies receive many FEVS reports each year, so it can be confusing to know where to start. One suggested starting point is to adopt a strategy based on an action planning framework. This involves looking for improvements you have made in previous years while also examining areas of decline. To help you get started, several steps are outlined below, including references to sections of the Agency Management Report (AMR) and other resources that you may find useful to help you focus on the most critical issues.
Step 1: Identify and Establish a FEVS Action Team This is a crucial step, as the team you establish can make or break your efforts to improve areas of concern and keep strengths strong. Teams can be composed of leadership, employees, or a combination. It is important that each member of your team is actively engaged in the process and supports its goals. Identifying your team is not just limited to personnel selection. It also includes identifying and pulling together your available resources while being aware of staff interests, capabilities, and agency budget and resources.
Step 2: Use Your AMR and Other Resources to Identify Areas for Improvement Your agency has many available resources that present your FEVS results. The sections of the AMR as well as additional resources are described below to help narrow your focus on the tools and results that may be most helpful as you move from results to taking action.
Your FEVS Results: Taking Action 2
Your FEVS Results: Taking Action (continued)
Sections of the AMR Respondent Overview The Respondent Overview provides a snapshot of the characteristics of your employees who responded to the survey. Understanding who responded in your agency has a number of benefits. For example, this section allows you to better understand the ratio of seasoned employees who may be preparing for retirement to newer employees. This information can help inform and guide your recruiting and retention efforts. It is important to keep in mind that this is a survey respondent overview, and these percentages may not match up exactly to your agency's total population characteristics.
Employee Engagement Index and New IQ Index The Employee Engagement Index (EEI) and New IQ Index provide agencies with consistent metrics for measuring progress toward objectives. Benchmarks are included to provide insight into how your agency compares to others, and to encourage information sharing between agencies. For example, some of the top ranking agencies in the Engagement Index may have suggestions on things that have and have not worked to engage their employees.
Trends for both indices are also displayed, going as far back as 2013 when available.
Employee Engagement Key Drivers This is a new section of the AMR containing information about key drivers of engagement. These groupings of FEVS items have been shown to influence the engagement potential of workplaces. While the EEi provides perspective on the conditions important to supporting engagement, the drivers can help you to more effectively target resources and actions needed to influence conditions and improve the engagement potential of your agency.
Decision Aid The Decision Aid is useful in helping you easily identify the most critical issues in your agency as well as recognize where your agency has improved since 2015. The Decision Aid is divided into three sections to help you focus your attention on improvements and declines in your results since last year:
Increases contains items that increased since 2015 Decreases contains items that decreased since 2015 No Change contains items that did not change since 2015 Appendix A and Appendix B The appendices give you an opportunity to more thoroughly understand your workforce by displaying item-level results. Appendix A shows how well your agency scored relative to others in the government. Scanning the graphs can indicate how your agency is generally performing as well as help you identify particularly strong or weak areas.
Appendix B shows the breakdown of the Work/Life Program and demographic results.
Note: The Decision Aid only includes items 1-71. See Appendix B for a breakdown of the Work/Life results for your agency.
Your FEVS Results: Taking Action 3
Your FEVS Results: Taking Action (continued)
Additional FEVS Resources Other Reports Governmentwide Management Report This report provides an overview of the governmentwide results. The report includes item results, index scores, trends, and information on who responded to the survey.
Subagency Comparison Report This report provides the results of all the offices that report to the same "parent" office. This report is only created when there are two or more sub-offices that both have at least ten responses.
Subagency Breakout Report This report displays survey results for a single office so long as it has at least ten responses.
Trend Report This report provides agency and first level results for current and previous survey administrations.
It also indicates whether the year-over-year differences were statistically significant or not.
Occupational Series Reports This report allows for the comparison of occupational series and families at the agency level.
Demographic Comparison Reports This report allows for the comparison of demographic subgroups at the agency level.
Annual Employee Survey (AES) Report This report is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with a breakdown of agency and first level results.
Websites FEVS website Agencies and the general public can access governmentwide data reports, as well as special topic reports produced from the FEVS. This website includes results from the 2004 administration of the survey to the present. Access the FEVS website at www.opm.gov/FEVS.
Public Release Data File (PRDF)
Three types of public use data sets are available for the FEVS: 1) a full data extract excluding the LGBT variable,
- 2) a separate data extract containing the LGBT variable, and 3) a data extract for trend analysis combining the public use files from 2004 up to the current year. To request a public use data file, complete the form available at: www.fedview.opm.gov/2015/EVSDATA. Note: The 2016 PRDF will be available in the winter.
FedScope OPM's FedScope is an online publicly available tool which allows users to access and analyze HR data from OPM's Enterprise Human Resources Integration-Statistical Data Mart (EHRI-SDM). Access this site using the following link: www.fedscope.opm.gov.
Unlock Talent A tool for both the general public and agencies to view comprehensive data visualizations with broad displays of FEVS data. These displays allow agencies to identify subcomponents for action to improve engagement, as well as resources agencies can apply to their action planning. This site can be accessed at www.unlocktalent.gov.
Questions and feedback for the dashboard can be sent to unlocktalent@opm.gov.
Note: Subagency reports are only available for agencies that included organizational breakouts in 2016.
Your FEVS Results: Taking Action 4
Your FEVS Results: Taking Action (continued)
FEVS Online Data Analysis Tool A password protected tool for agency points of contact to access agency-specific and governmentwide reports. In addition, agency users can develop customized reports that may be useful for data analysis and action planning.
Questions and feedback for this online tool can be sent to EVS@opm.gov.
Step 3: Develop Your Goals for Improvement To develop your goals for improvement, you should consider issues that are most critical to your agency and how these issues relate to your strategic goals. It is also important to focus on issues that will provide both short-term, visible, measurable results, and those that will require long-term perspective. Keep in mind that you are more likely to show and achieve improvements if you follow SMART guidelines when establishing your goals. To be achievable goals must be:
Specific Goals need to be concrete and detailed enough to know when you meet with success.
- What exactly do you intend to do? Use action words such as lead, coordinate, direct, develop, plan, and build.
- How are you going to do it? Describe which actions need to be taken by which employees and when.
Measurable What evidence will you have to show that you have met your goal? Put a concrete figure or value to the objective (e.g., percentage increase in positive scores).
Attainable Goals should not be too easy or too difficult. Those that require a slight stretch to meet can create excitement, motivation, and the kind of commitment it takes to reach them.
Realistic Make goals challenging, but identify your resources and any limitations on those so you can actually achieve your objectives.
Time Specific Set a deadline to keep plans on track and meet the needs of decision-makers. Large goals should be established as a series of milestones to keep motivation high and the overall goal on schedule.
Step 4: Develop Your Plan for Action Once your team has identified its goals, you should develop a list of actions that must be taken to reach these goals.
You might also consider soliciting employee input on your plan. Assign staff responsibilities for each action and keep in mind timeframes. Tasks should include start dates, end dates, milestones, and description of how you plan to measure and provide evidence for goal success. Make sure you get approval for the actions you must take to achieve your agency goals. Remember that leadership buy-in, involvement, and communication is critical to your success.
Step 5: Communicate the Implementation of Your Plan There are many ways to publicize and communicate your intentions to employees, such as all-hands meetings, announcements, intranet/web updates, and social media, to name a few. After your plan is communicated and you have leadership support, you are ready to launch the plan. Communicating early and often ensures staff and leadership are well-informed.
Step 6: Monitor and Communicate Your Progress In addition to measuring your progress along the way and evaluating the success of your plan, it is important that you communicate progress toward goals and final outcomes. Communicating during the entire process provides transparency which can add to staff engagement.
Your FEVS Results: Taking Action 5
Respondent Overview The Unique Characteristics of Nuclear Regulatory Commission Respondents The figures below provide a snapshot of your survey participants. Except for military status and race, the most frequently selected response choice for each demographic item is highlighted in the first figure. The second figure displays the total FEVS respondent breakdown by generation.
Please be aware that these results are based on survey respondents, which may differ from the characteristics of the total employee population.
65%
Male 47°/o Agency Tenure of 11+ Years I
I 10 51%
Advanced Degrees (Post-Bachelor's) ac 81°/o Pay Grades 13 to 15 9d~
I / $
26°/o Military Service
~ ~
Generations 31°/o Minorities 2%
Traditionalists (born 1945 or earlier) 49%
Baby Boomers (born 1946 - 1964) 34%
Generation X (born 1965-1 980) 15%
Generation Y (born 1981 or later)
Note: The sum of percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Note: For the full list of demographic item results, please see to Appendix 8.
Respondent Overview NRC Response Rate 6 2 0 'o (2,152 out of 3,482
]C employees responded)
Field Period: April 28, 2016 - June 9, 2016 Overall 2015 response rate: 75%
Component Response Rates 76% Region Ill 75% Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 74% Region IV 74% Office of the Secretary of the Commission 71% Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 68% Office of Investigations 66% Region I 65% Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 65% Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 63% Office of the Chief Financial Officer 63% Office of Public Affairs 62% Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 62% Office of the Chief Information Officer 61% Office of Small Business and Civil Rights 61% Office of Enforcement 60% Region II 59% Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 59% Office of New Reactors 59% Office of the Executive Director for Operations 55% Office of Congressional Affairs 54% Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 54% Office of International Programs 54% Office of the General Counsel 45% Office of the Inspector General 41% Office of Administration 39% Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Agency results have a margin of error of +I-1 %
6
Employee Engagement Index Because the FEVS is an assessment of organizational climate, the Employee Engagement Index (EEI) does not directly evaluate an employee's level of engagement. Therefore, instead of measuring aspects of engagement such as focused attention and dedication to completing assignments, this index concentrates on factors that lead to an engaged workforce (e.g., supporting employee development, communicating agency goals).
Below, you can see where your agency's EEI score ranks ( out of 37 departments/large agencies, where Army, Army Corps of Engineers, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Other Defense agencies/activities are rolled into Department of Defense) and how it compares to the governmentwide average. The names of agencies with the highest EEI scores are listed to facilitate the sharing of information, such as best practices. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has also created the Unlock Talent website (www.unlocktalent.gov) to share resources and help with interagency communication.
Employee Engagement Index Benchmarks NRC 74%
65%
Governmentwide The table below displays the EEI score for each component in your agency as well as the scores for the three engagement subfactors, which can facilitate information-sharing within your agency. To provide more information on engagement, the table also includes engagement trends back to 2013 for your components, as well as the overall agency and governmentwide trends for comparison. Please note that depending on organizational structure in previous administrations, not all components may trend back to 2013.
Employee Engagement Index Component Scores and Trends
(!)1-----------------
EEi Trends 2016 EEi Subfactors
~
~
~
-~
£;
Z!
- ?.'
- y
~
~ "t, t
- ~ -~
-~
q.,
~
~
~
~
~~
§-
~~
c..-;
.s;~
Governmentwide
e 53 72 70 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 66 80 76 Leaders Lead: Employees' perceptions of leadership's integrity as well as leadership behaviors such as communication and workforce motivation. (Q.53, 54, 56, 60, and 61)
Supervisors: Interpersonal relationship between worker and supervisor, including trust, respect, and support. (Q.47, 48, 49, 51, and 52)
Intrinsic Work Experience: Employees' feelings of motivation and competency relating to their role in the workplace. (Q.3, 4, 6, 11, and 12)
Employee Engagement Index 7
Employee Engagement Index (continued)
EEi Trends 2016 EEi Subfactors
~
~
-~
£ {!j
~
~
- ~.,
~
~
~
~b
- § ~
~
~
~
~
lg ~
§-
-S Ji Nuclear Regulatory Commission
e 66 80 76 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 86 100 92 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 85 91 93 Office of the Executive Director for Operations 73 87 91 Region I 79 89 83 Office of Small Business and Civil Rights 75 92 81 Office of International Programs 76 81 82 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 89 71 78 Office of Investigations 78 81 77 Office of the General Counsel 76 79 78 Office of the Inspector General 70 71 88 Employee Engagement Index 8
Employee Engagement Index (continued)
EEi Trends 2016 EEi Subfactors
~
~
£&
~
.~
- ~*ffe Z!
~
~
~'t:,
t
- S
<2.i
/8 ~
§-
JS~
~
~
~
~
~l.<J Nuclear Regulatory Commission
@------@--@--e 66 80 76 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 69 83 73 Region Ill 64 83 77 Region II 66 80 77 Region IV 64 84 75 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 66 81 75 Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 60 79 81 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 60 80 78 Office of New Reactors 67 77 73 Office of Administration 59 80 75 Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 59 78 74 Employee Engagement Index 9
Employee Engagement Index (continued)
EEi Trends 2016 EEi Subfactors t!
~
£&
t!
.g
-~.,
~
~
~
~ "t, t
- S C2.i lg ~
§-
,s ~
~
~
~ :e Nuclear Regulatory Commission 66 80 76 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 59 79 72 Office of Public Affairs 67 58 84 Office of Enforcement 46 70 76 Office of the Chief Information Officer 52 69 70 Employee Engagement Index 10
Employee Engagement Key Drivers What is a Key Employee Engagement Index Driver?
The Employee Engagement Index (EEI) measures conditions important to supporting employee engagement.
"What actions can leadership take to influence those conditions and improve the engagement potential of agency workplaces?" is a question often asked about how to make the EEi actionable. To help answer that question, OPM identified items on the FEVS that are key drivers of the EEL Key drivers are groupings of FEVS items that influence the engagement potential of workplaces.
How Can Drivers Help Identify Effective Action?
Agencies can more effectively target resources to increase levels of employee engagement, aided by the key driving factors for the EEi and its subfactors. Through a thorough review, OPM's Survey Analysis team found that a number of FEVS items align with topics shown to be important to both employee engagement and to overall effective management practices. Final item selection for EEi drivers was guided by three principles: 1) they align with prior research, 2) they are strongly related to the EEi and/or its subfactors, and 3) they are actionable because they indicate practices and behaviors that can influence an agency's engagement potential.
OPM examined the impact of nine different factors on the EEL These nine factors were: 1) Collaborative/
Cooperative Management; 2) Employee Training and Development; 3) Job Resources; 4) Merit System Principles;
- 5) Performance Feedback; 6) Performance Rating; 7) Performance Recognition and Reward; 8) Supportive Coworkers; and 9) Work/Life Balance. The figure on the following page identifies and ranks the key drivers of the overall Employee Engagement Index and subfactors in order of impact for all of the Small/Independent Agencies combined. A 'l' indicates the key driver with the greatest impact on the index or subfactor.
For an example of how to use EEi drivers, consider the driver labeled Performance Feedback. It is comprised of three FEVS items:
- Discussions with my supervisor about my performance are worthwhile. (Q.44)
- My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job performance. (Q.46)
- In the last six months, my supervisor has talked with me about my performance. (Q.50)
Assume that a review of your agency's FEVS results shows low scores on one or more of the items under Performance Feedback. To improve the engagement potential of your workplace, actions could be taken to address priorities indicated by the wording of the items, such as ensuring feedback that provides worthwhile or constructive suggestions to improve performance, as well as timely feedback.
Note: OPM conducted regression analyses of 2013, 2014, 2015, and most recently 2016 FEVS data to identify the key drivers. Factors with statistically significant standardized regression coefficients of 0.10 or above were identified as a "key driver." A detailed discussion of the methodology used to conduct all of the key driver analyses can be found at www.opm.gov/FEVS.
Employee Engagement Key Drivers 11
Employee Engagement Key Drivers (continued)
Employee Engagement Key Drivers Performance Feedback Collaborative/Cooperative Management Merit System Principles Training and Development Work/Life Balance Performance Recognition and Reward Performance Rating Job Resources Supportive Co-workers Employee Engagement Index 5
Leaders Lead 3
Performance Feedback: Provide meaningful, worthwhile, and constructive performance conversations. (Q.44, 46, and 50)
Supervisors 2
Intrinsic Work Experience Collaborative/Cooperative Management: Promote and support collaborative communication and teamwork in accomplishing goals and objectives. (Q.58 and 59)
Merit System Principles: Support fairness and protect employees from arbitrary actions, favoritism, political coercion, and reprisal. (Q.17, 37, and 38)
Training and Development: Target opportunities for employees to improve skills and enhance professional development, including training needs assessments. (Q.1 and 18)
Work/Life Balance: Support employee needs to balance work and life responsibilities. (Q.42)
Performance Recognition and Reward: Support and effective recognition and reward system in which supervisors/managers/leaders recognize outstanding actions.
(Q.22, 23, 24, and 25)
Performance Rating: Ensure employees are held accountable and performance is evaluated and rated. (Q.15, 16, and 19)
Job Resources: Allow sufficient materials, knowledge, personnel, skills, information and work distribution to complete the job. (Q.2, 9, and 10)
Supportive Co-workers: Refers to supportive coworker relationships that involve cooperation and information sharing to perform job. (Q.20 and 26)
Employee Engagement Key Drivers 12
New IQ Index The New IQ stands for the New Inclusion Quotient. The New IQ is based on the concept that individual behaviors repeated over time will create habits necessary for inclusiveness. It consists of 20 questions that relate to inclusive work environments. These 20 questions are grouped into five Habits of Inclusion: Fair, Open, Cooperative, Supportive, and Empowering. The New IQ Index score for your agency, the highest scoring agencies, and the governmentwide average are displayed below, along with your agency ranking (out of 37 departments/large agencies, where Army, Army Corps of Engineers, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Other Defense agencies/
activities are rolled into Department of Defense).
New IQ Index Benchmarks NRC 68%
58%
Governmentwide The table below shows the New IQ Index score for each component in your agency as well as the scores for all five habits of inclusion. To provide more information on the New IQ, the table also includes trends back to 2013 for your components, as well as the overall agency and governmentwide trends for comparison. Please note that depending on organizational structure in previous administrations, not all components may trend back to 2013.
New IQ Index Component Scores and Trends New IQ Index Trends 2016 New IQ Index Subfactors
~
~
~
"C q,
.f>
~
0
- ?
- ?
~
~
§-
lJ:
-~
f-
~
~
~
~
~
r§-
<3 c5?
4:i Governmentwide
G Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fair: Are all employees treated equally? (Q.23, 24, 25, 37, and 38)
Open: Does management support diversity in all ways? (Q.32, 34, 45, and 55)
Cooperative: Does management encourage communication and collaboration? (Q.58 and 59)
Supportive: Do supervisors value employees? (Q.42, 46, 48, 49, and 50)
Empowering: Do employees have the resources and support needed to excel? (Q.2, 3, 11, and 30)
New IQ Index 45 53 57 54 75 58 68 66 85 67 13
New IQ Index (continued)
New IQ Index Trends 2016 New IQ Index Subfactors
~
~
.f' cl;'
~
i?
~
~
- y
~
~
~
§-
0
-~
ff
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
tJ v;
L.(j Nuclear Regulatory Commission 53 68 66 85 67 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 75 88 78 94 90 Office of the Secretary of the Commission 66 78 85 93 82 Office of Small Business and Civil Rights 68 88 74 96 73 Region I 66 76 76 92 76 Office of Investigations 69 71 89 85 70 Office of the Executive Director for Operations 54 69 85 93 82 Office of International Programs 56 65 80 86 78 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 54 69 90 75 69 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 61 77 67 86 66 Office of the Inspector General 62 69 65 79 79 New IQ Index 14
New IQ Index (continued)
New IQ Index Trends 2016 New IQ Index Subfactors
§:'
§:'
- §
~
t
~
~
- t
~
§-
!j:
0
-~
~
~
~
~
~
<§-
i3
<5r Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
53 68 66 85 67 Office of the General Counsel 55 69 73 85 70 Region II 50 72 71 85 71 Region Ill 53 68 73 86 68 Region IV 54 64 70 86 65 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 51 69 68 85 65 Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 50 65 65 86 65 Office of Administration 55 69 57 83 67 Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer 47 66 59 85 74 Office of New Reactors 53 66 64 83 63 Office of the Chief Financial Officer 48 62 58 87 68 New IQ Index 15
New IQ Index (continued)
New IQ Index Trends 2016 New IQ Index Subfactors g,
g,
-~
~
~
'§ it
<l.i Z!
~
~
~
8-
~
0
-~
!}
~
~
~
~
<t" r§-
l3
~
<a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
e 53 68 66 85 67 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 48 62 58 84 61 Office of Public Affairs 37 55 62 80 72 Office of Enforcement 41 54 58 80 61 Office of the Chief Information Officer 49 59 47 74 59 New IQ Index 16
Decision Aid: Increases Identifying Increases Since 2015 The items in this section are sorted by greatest to smallest increase in percent positive ratings. The items are sorted to allow you to quickly and easily identify where your agency has made the greatest improvements since last year.
Using the Legend Icons The legend icons provide context for interpreting these results. While these items have improved, some may still be considered challenges (35% or more negative) or others may have reached the 65% or more positive mark and become new strengths this year. The legend icons help to highlight areas in need of continued focus and areas that have been successfully improved and should be celebrated. A new feature this year is the addition of "top pos/neg" icons that highlight where an item is either in the top 10 positive items or top 10 negative items for your agency.
1 Item Increased Since 2015 0 Strength 0 Caution 0 Challenge These items are These items are These items are 65 percent positive 30 percent neutral 35 percent negative or higher or higher or higher Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated. (Q. 37)
D New Strength -
Top Pos/Neg These items became These items are in a new strength your top positive in 2016 or top negative 2015 2016 2016 2016 Increase Positive Positive Neutral Negative Since 2015 61 62 18 20
+1 Note: The Decision Aid only includes items 1-71. See Appendix B for a breakdown of the Work/Life results for your agency.
Decision Aid: Increases 17
Decision Aid: Decreases Identifying Decreases Since 2015 The items in this section are sorted by greatest to smallest decrease in percent positive ratings. The items are sorted to allow you to quickly and easily identify where results have dropped since last year.
Using the Legend Icons The legend icons provide context for interpreting these results. When identifying the most critical decreases to focus on, it is important to check if these decreases are also identified as challenges (35% or more negative) or if they were previously identified as strengths that have fallen below the 65% or more positive threshold. A new feature this year is the addition of "top pos/neg" icons that highlight where an item is either in the top 10 positive items or top 10 negative items for your agency.
56 Items Decreased Since 2015 0 Strength 0 Caution 0 Challenge D Past Strength
- Top Pos/Neg These items are These items are These items are These items are no These items are in 65 percent positive 30 percent neutral 3 5 percent negative longer a strength your top positive or higher or higher or higher in 2016 or top negative 2015 2016 2016 2016 Decrease Positive Positive Neutral Negative Since 2015 How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? (Q. 68) 71 58 22 20
-13 My training needs are assessed. (Q. 18) 65 55 21 24
-10 My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. (Q. 21) 62 53 20 1:127
.g I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) to get my job done. (Q. 9) 70 61 14 25
.g How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization? (Q. 67) 45 36 25 ~
.g I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. (Q. 1) 78 13 17
-8 I believe the results of this survey will be used to make my agency a better place 56 49 23 1:127
-7 to work. (Q. 41)
I recommend my organization as a good place to work. (Q. 40) 79 15 11
-5 Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. (Q. 22) 48 43 27 1:130
-5 Senior leaders demonstrate support for Work/Life programs. (Q. 62) 82 13 9
-4 Supervisors in my work unit support employee development. (Q. 47) 82 12 10
-4 Note: The Decision Aid only includes items 1
- 71. See Appendix B for a breakdown of the Work/Life results for your agency.
Decision Aid: Decreases 18
Decision Aid: Decreases (continued) 2015 2016 2016 2016 Decrease Positive Positive Neutral Negative Since 2015 How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work? (Q. 63) 66 62 18 20
-4 Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes. (Q. 30) 58 54 21 11125
-4 How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what's 67 64 16 19
-3 going on in your organization? (Q. 64)
Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? (Q. 69) 76 14 13
-3 The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. (Q. 27) 60 57 27 17
-3 Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives. (Q. 59) 71 17 15
-3 In my organization, senior leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment 55 52 22 11125
-3 in the workforce. (Q. 53)
Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization? (Q. 71) 71 15 16
-3 Managers promote communication among different work units (for example, about 67 18 18
-2 projects, goals, needed resources). (Q. 58)
I have enough information to do my job well. (Q. 2) 84 9
9
-2 How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job? (Q. 65) 62 60 20 20
-2 Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate supervisor? (Q. 52) 79 14 8
-2 Managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward meeting its 75 17 11
-2 goals and objectives. (Q. 57)
I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better. (Q. 8) 91 m
8 3
-2 Discussions with my supervisor about my performance are worthwhile. (Q. 44) 73 13 15
-2 I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear 75 14 14
-2 of reprisal. (Q. 17)
My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment. (Q. 4) 77 13 12
-2 How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? (Q. 66) 57 55 24 20
-2 Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (for example, recruiting 74
© 18 9
-2 minorities and women, training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring). (Q. 34)
My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills. (Q. 43) 78 12 11
-2 I have trust and confidence in my supervisor. (Q. 51) 77 12 13
-2 Decision Aid: Decreases 19
Decision Aid: Decreases (continued) 2015 2016 2016 2016 Decrease Positive Positive Neutral Negative Since 2015 The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. (Q. 20) 83 10 9
-2 I like the kind of work I do. (Q. 5) 84 10 7
-2 Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services. (Q. 31 )
65 63 19 18
-2 My workload is reasonable. (Q. 10) 72 13 16
-1 My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance. (Q. 15) 75 13 13
-1 I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior leaders. (Q. 61) 66 18 17
-1 My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission. (Q. 39) 89 K@
9 3
-1 Creativity and innovation are rewarded. (Q. 32) 48 47 27 11 26
-1 My talents are used well in the workplace. (Q. 11) 67 14 20
-1 Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting, cleanliness in the 75 12 14
-1 workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well. (Q. 14)
I am held accountable for achieving results. (Q. 16) 85 11 5
-1 The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish 80 12 9
-1 organizational goals. (Q. 29)
Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization. (Q. 56) 73 15 13
-1 My supervisor listens to what I have to say. (Q. 48) 85 8
9
-1 The work I do is important. (Q. 13) 89 K@
8 3
-1 Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. (Q. 33) 24 23 27 a:@
-1 My supervisor treats me with respect. (Q. 49) 88 I@
6 7
-1 Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other. (Q. 26) 82 9
10
-1 In the last six months, my supervisor has talked with me about my performance. (Q. 50) 93 a@
4 4
-1 My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my 73 14 14
-1 job performance. (Q. 46)
My supervisor is committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society. (Q. 45) 79 15 7
-1 Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs. (Q. 25) 53 52 23 24
-1 Decision Aid: Decreases 20
Decision Aid: Decreases (continued) 2015 2016 2016 2016 Decrease Positive Positive Neutral Negative Since 2015 My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues. (Q. 42) 90 a@)
6 5
-1 My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats. (Q. 36) 86 10 5
-1 Decision Aid: Decreases 21
Decision Aid: No Change Identifying Items That Have Not Changed Since 2015 Your percent positive results for these items have not changed since last year. These are items that your agency is maintaining, which can be either a positive, neutral, or negative finding. For example, an item with low percent positive results over several years is a strong indication of a need for focused action. You may also want to consider changing or updating your approach to addressing these issues if the item has been the focus of attention in the past. On the other hand, a trend of stable, high percent positive ratings is a finding that should be celebrated. Review each item carefully to determine whether there may be areas of concern for your agency.
Using the Legend Icons The legend icons provide context for interpreting results. While these items have not increased or decreased, they still may be causes for celebration or concern depending on the percent positive, negative, and neutral ratings.
A new feature this year is the addition of "top pos/neg" icons that highlight where an item is either in the top 10 positive items or top 10 negative items for your agency.
14 Items Did Not Change Since 2015 0 Strength 0 Caution 0 Challenge -
Top Pos/Neg These items are These items are These items are These items are in 65 percent positive 30 percent neutral 3 5 percent negative your top positive or higher or higher or higher or top negative 2015 2016 2016 2016 Change Positive Positive Neutral Negative Since 2015 I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things. (Q. 3) 67 14 20 0
I know what is expected of me on the job. (Q. 6) 83 9
8 0
When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done. (Q. 7) 96 a@
2 2
0 I know how my work relates to the agency's goals and priorities. (Q. 12) 90 m@
6 5
0 In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at 66 14 20 0
different performance levels (for example, Fully Successful, Outstanding). (Q. 19)
In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not 34 34 29 ~ 0 improve. (Q. 23)
In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way. (Q. 24) 43 43 27 a3o 0
How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit? (Q. 28) 89 8
2 0
Employees are protected from health and safety hazards on the job. (Q. 35) 90 m@
6 4
0 Note: The Decision Aid only includes items 1-71. See Appendix B for a breakdown of the Work/Life results for your agency.
Decision Aid: No Change 22
Decision Aid: No Change (continued) 2015 2016 2016 2016 Change Positive Positive Neutral Negative Since 2015 Prohibited Personnel Practices are not tolerated. (Q. 38) 76 14 10 0
My organization's senior leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity. (Q. 54) 67 16 16 0
Supervisors work well with employees of different backgrounds. (Q. 55) 75 13 12 0
Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager directly above your 71 18 11 0
immediate supervisor? (Q. 60)
Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay? (Q. 70) 68 15 17 0
Decision Aid: No Change 23
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks For each item, your agency's percent positive response is shown on a O to 100 scale, with the triangular arrow indicating where your agency falls. The gray bars represent the range of scores for the 37 departments and large agencies surveyed, where Army, Army Corps of Engineers, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Other Defense agencies/activities are rolled into Department of Defense.
To understand how well your agency performed compared to others, focus on the location of the triangle within the gray bar. If the triangle is toward the right side of the bar, then your agency was above average on that item. If it is at the right edge of the bar, then you had the highest percent positive response for that item. Additionally, you can numerically compare your percent positive to the governmentwide average listed to the right of each item.
0 My Work Experience
- 1:1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization.
- 2. I have enough information to do my job well.
- 3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.
- 1:4. My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.
- 5. I like the kind of work I do.
- 6. I know what is expected of me on the job.
- 7. When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get a job done.
- 8. I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better.
- 9. I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) to get my job done.
- 1:10. My workload is reasonable.
- 1:11. My talents are used well in the workplace.
- 1:12. I know how my work relates to the agency's goals and priorities.
Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger (t).
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks Low NRC 2016 High 100 G'wide 70%
63%
82%
70%
67%
58%
75% -
72%
82%
83%
83%
79%
96%
96%
89%
91%
61%
47%
71%
57%
66%
58%
90%
83%
24
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks (continued) 0 Low I
- 1:13. The work I do is important.
- 1:14. Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting, cleanliness in the workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well.
- 1:15. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.
- 16. I am held accountable for achieving results.
- 17. I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.
- 1:18. My training needs are assessed.
- 1:19. In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at different performance levels (for example, Fully Successful, Outstanding).
My Work Unit
- 1:20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.
- 1:21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills.
- 1:22. Promotions in my work unit are based on merit.
-~--
- 1:23. In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer 34%
who cannot or will not improve.
- 1:24. In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.
~
- 25. Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs.
- 26. Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other.
- 27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year.
- 28. How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?
Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger(;).
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks NRC...
High 74%
88%
74%
84%
73%
55%
66%
81%
53%
~-~~
43%
43%
52%
81%
57%
~
89%
100 I
2016 G'wide 90%
66%
70%
82%
62%
53%
69%
73%
43%
34%
29%
34%
41%
73%
54%
82%
25
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks (continued) 0 Low My Agency
- t:29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals.
BO. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes.
- 31. Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services.
- t:32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded.
~---
23%
- t:33. Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs.
- 34. Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (for example, recruiting minorities and women, training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring).
- t:35. Employees are protected from health and safety hazards on the job.
- t:36. My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.
- 37. Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercion for partisan political purposes are not tolerated.
- 38. Prohibited Personnel Practices are not tolerated.
- 39. My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission.
- 40. I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
- 41. I believe the results of this survey will be used to make my agency a better place to work.
Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger (t).
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks NRC High 79%
54% -
63% -
47% -
72% -
90%
85%
62% -
76%
~- -
88%
~- *- -- -
74% -
49% -
100 2016 G'wide 69%
45%
48%
38%
22%
58%
76%
77%
53%
67%
74%
64%
41%
26
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks (continued) 0 Low My Supervisor
- 42. My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.
- 43. My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstrate my leadership skills.
- 44. Discussions with my supervisor about my performance are worthwhile.
- 45. My supervisor is committed to a workforce representative of all segments of society.
- 46. My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job performance.
- 47. Supervisors in my work unit support employee development.
- 48. My supervisor listens to what I have to say.
- 49. My supervisor treats me with respect.
- 50. In the last six months, my supervisor has talked with me about my performance.
- 51. I have trust and confidence in my supervisor.
- 52. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate supervisor?
Leadership
- 53. In my organization, senior leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce.
~-
- 54. My organization's senior leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity.
- 55. Supervisors work well with employees of different backgrounds.
- 56. Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.
Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger (l).
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks NRC...
~
~
High 89%
~
76% -
71% -
78%
72% -
78% -
84% -
~
87% -
9~o 75%
77%
52% -
67% -
75%
72%
-=-
100 2016 G'wide 78%
66%
63%
68%
62%
66%
76%
81%
78%
67%
70%
41%
52%
64%
60%
27
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks (continued) 0 Low I
- t57. Managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.
- 58. Managers promote communication among different work units (for example, about projects, goals, needed resources).
- 59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives.
- 60. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager directly above your immediate supervisor?
- t61. I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior leaders.
- 62. Senior leaders demonstrate support for Work/Life programs.
My Satisfaction
- 63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work?
- t64. How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what's going on in your organization 7
- t65. How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job?
- t66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders 7
- t67. How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job 36%
in your organization 7
- t68. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job 7
- t69. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
- 70. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?
- 71. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization 7 Note: Items included on the Annual Employee Survey are noted by a double dagger (t).
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks NRC High 73%
65%
68%
71%
65%
78%
62%
64%
60%
55%
58%
73%
68% --
68%
100 I
2016 G'wide 60%
52%
56%
58%
53%
55%
51%
48%
48%
42%
36%
53%
66%
58%
57%
28
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks (continued) 0 Work/Life Programs
- 72. Have you been notified that you are eligible to telework? (See Appendix B)
Low NRC...
- 73. Please select the response below that best describes your current teleworking situation. (See Appendix B) 74 - 78.
Do you participate in the following Work/Life programs? (See Appendix B) 79 - 84.
How Sqtisfied are you with the following Work/Life programs?*
- 79. Telework
- 80. Alternative Work Schedules (AWS)
- 81. Health and Wellness Programs (for example, exercise, medical screening, quit smoking programs)
- 82. Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
- 83. Child Care Programs (for example, daycare, parenting classes, parenting support groups)
- 84. Elder Care Programs (for example, support groups, speakers)
High
- The Work/Life program satisfaction results (Q. 79-84) include only employees who indicated that they participated in the program.
Appendix A: Item Results and Benchmarks 100 85%
94%
92%
91%
87%
85%
2016 G'wide 79%
90%
81%
75%
72%
68%
29
Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results Appendix B displays more detailed Work/Life Program results for your agency. It also includes a more detailed look than the reported snapshot of the demographic characteristics of your agency's survey respondents. Use the Work/Life results to gain an understanding of how your Work/Life Programs are used and rated. The demographic results can be useful in planning, recruiting, and training activities in your agency.
Work/Life Programs Have you been notified that you are eligible to telework?
Yes, I was notified that I was eligible to telework Yes, I was notified that I was not eligible to telework No, I was not notified of my telework eligibility No, Not sure if I was notified of my telework eligibility Please select the response below that BEST describes your current teleworking situation.
I telework 3 or more days per week I telework 1 or 2 days per week I telework, but no more than 1 or 2 days per month I telework very infrequently, on an unscheduled or short-term basis I do not telework because I have to be physically present on the job (e.g., Law Enforcement Officers, Park Rangers, Security Personnel)
I do not telework because I have technical issues (e.g., connectivity, inadequate equipment) that prevent me from teleworking I do not telework because I did not receive approval to do so, even though I have the kind of job where I can telework I do not telework because I choose not to telework Do you participate in the following Work/Life programs? Alternative Work Schedules (AWS)
Yes No Not Available to Me Do you participate in the following Work/Life programs? Health and Wellness Programs (for example, exercise, medical screening, quit smoking programs)
Yes No Not Available to Me Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results 2016 Percentages 83 5
5 6
4 33 10 26 5
3 18 57 40 3
41 56 2
30
Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results (continued)
Do you participate in the following Work/Life programs? Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
Yes No Not Available to Me Do you participate in the following Work/Life programs? Child Care Programs (for example, daycare, parenting classes, parenting support groups)
Yes No Not Available to Me Do you participate in the following Work/Life programs? Elder Care Programs (for example, support groups, speakers)
Yes No Not Available to Me Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results 2016 Percentages 18 81 3
88 8
3 90 6
31
Appendix B: Work/life Programs & Demographic Results (continued)
Demographic Results Where do you work?
Headquarters Field What is your supervisory status?
Non-Supervisor Team Leader Supervisor Manager Senior Leader Are you:
Male Female Are you Hispanic or Latino?
Yes No Are you:
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races (not Hispanic or Latino)
What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed?
Less than High School High School Diploma/GED or equivalent Trade or Technical Certificate Some College (no degree)
Associate's Degree (e.g., AA, AS)
Bachelor's Degree (e.g., BA, BS)
Master's Degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA)
Doctoral/Professional Degree (e.g., Ph.D., MD, JD)
Note: Demographic results are unweighted.
Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results 2016 Percentages 69 31 78 5
11 4
3 65 35 7
93 8
11
<1 75 5
0 2
<1 5
2 40 39 12 32
Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results (continued)
What is your pay category/grade?
Federal Wage System GS 1-6 GS 7-12 GS 13-15 Senior Executive Service Senior Level (SL) or Scientific or Professional (SD Other How long have you been with the Federal Government (excluding military service)?
Less than 1 year 1 to 3 years 4 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 14 years 15 to 20 years More than 20 years How long have you been with your current agency (for example, Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency)?
Less than 1 year 1 to 3 years 4 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20 years Are you considering leaving your organization within the next year, and if so, why?
No Yes, to retire Yes, to take another job within the Federal Government Yes, to take another job outside the Federal Government Yes, other I am planning to retire:
Within one year Between one and three years Between three and five years Five or more years Note: Demographic results are unweighted.
Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results 2016 Percentages
<1 10 81 5
2 2
8 4
30 18 11 28 2
12 4
35 27 20 72 6
12 5
5 4
10 12 74 33
Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results (continued)
Do you consider yourself to be one or more of the following?
Heterosexual or Straight Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender I Prefer Not to Say What is your US military service status?
No Prior Military Service Currently in National Guard or Reserves Retired Separated or Discharged Are you an individual with a disability?
Yes No What is your age group 7 25 and under 26-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Note: Demographic results are unweighted.
Appendix B: Work/Life Programs & Demographic Results 2016 Percentages 85 2
13 74 2
7 17 9
91 4
20 20 35 20 34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report This 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Report provides trend results for your department or agency.
Response Summary 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 uclear Regulatory Commission 2011 uclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 407,789 2,152 2,675 2,467 2,509 2,709 2,612 2,503 The results include response percentages for each survey item. The definitions for the Positive, Neutral, and Negative response percentages vary in the following ways across the three primary response scales used in the survey:
Positive: "Strongly Agree and Agree" or "Very Satisfied and Satisfied" or "Very Good and Good" Neutral:
"Neither Agree nor Disagree" or "Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied" or "Fair" Negative: "Disagree and Strongly Disagree" or "Dissatisfied and Very Dissatisfied" or "Poor and Very Poor" Positive, Neutral, and Negative percentages are based on the total number of responses (N) that are in these three categories. The number of Do Not Know (DNK) or No Basis to Judge (NBJ) responses, where applicable, is listed separately.
The last column indicates whether or not there was a statistically significant increase, decrease, or no change in positive percentages from the previous year. Statistical significance indicates that the differences from year to year are not due to random chance. Arrows slanting up indicate a statistically significant increase, and arrows slanting down indicate a statistically significant decrease. Horizontal arrows indicate the change was not statistically significant. For example, in the row with the 2016 results, if the arrow was slanting up,,, there was a significant increase in positive percentages from 2015 to 2016. Please keep in mind that with large sample sizes, even small differences may show statistical significance.
Note: The report tables that follow do not include results for any year listed in the Response Summary table (above) that had fewer than 10 completed surveys. If there were fewer than 30 respondents for a given year, the column showing the 'Difference from previous year' will show '--' to signify that no test was performed due to small sample size. Items 72 to 78 are on a different response scale and are not included in the significance testing.
2010 response percentages are shown to provide context for the significance test from 2011.
2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 1 of 34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report My Work Experience
- 1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 2. I have enough information to do my job well 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 3. !feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 406,992 62.6%
16.3%
2,148 70.0%
12.8%
2,674 78.2%
11.0%
2,465 74.7%
12.1%
2,507 73.9%
13.9%
2,706 79.6%
9.7%
2,608 84.2%
8.6%
2,499 84.9%
8.1 %
21.1%
17.2%
10.8%
13.2%
12.2%
10.7%
7.1%
6.9%
~
-+
~
~
-+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 404,152 70.2%
14.7%
2,129 81.6%
9.1%
2,653 83.8%
8.5%
2,446 82.2%
8.7%
2,488 82.7%
9.8%
2,705 83.2%
8.9%
2,609 86.0%
7.7%
2,499 86.2%
7.5%
15.1%
9.4%
7.8%
9.1 %
7.5%
7.9%
6.4%
6.3%
~
-+
-+
~
-+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 401,408 57.7%
18.0%
24.3%
2,133 66.9%
13.5%
19.6%
-+
2,638 66.5%
16.6%
16.9%
-+
2,437 67.4%
14.5%
18.1%
-+
2,491 65.9%
17.2%
16.9%
~
2,700 68.2%
15.8%
16.0%
~
2,609 72.3%
14.1%
13.6%
~
2,491 74.6%
13.4%
11.9%
Page 2 of34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report My Work Experience (continued)
- 4. My work gives me afeeling of personal accomplishment.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 uclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 5. I like the kind of work I do.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 uclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 6. I know wha1 is expected ofme on thejob.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 uclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Diflerence from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 404,402 71.6%
14.3%
2,129 75.3%
12.6%
2,662 77.2%
11.7%
2,444 77.3%
11.9%
2,500 76.9%
12.5%
2,702 77.4%
11.5%
2,605 79.3%
12.1%
2,497 81.2%
10.3%
14.1 %
12.1%
11.1%
10.8%
10.6%
11.1%
8.6%
8.5%
~
~
~
~
~
~
Difference rrom previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 401,675 83.2%
10.8%
2,127 82.2%
10.4%
2,639 83.6%
10.6%
2,442 83.1 %
10.5%
2,481 83.2%
11.1 %
2,700 83.8%
10.9%
2,605 85.3%
9.8%
2,495 85.5%
9.3%
- 6. 1%
7.4%
5.8%
6.5%
5.8%
5.3%
4.9%
5.2%
~
~
~
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 402,718 79.4%
11.0%
9.6%
2,132 82.9%
9.3%
7.8%
~
2,656 83.0%
8.6%
8.4%
~
2,444 83.0%
9.0%
8.0%
~
2,485 83.3%
8.6%
8.0%
2,693 81.7%
9.4%
8.9%
~
2,597 83.7%
9.5%
6.8%
~
2,487 84.6%
8.4%
7.0%
Page 3 of 34
My Work Experience (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 7. When needed I am willing to put in the extra ejfort to get a job done.
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 8. I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 404,739 95.7%
2.7%
2,135 95.8%
2.3%
2,650 96.2%
2.5%
2,455 96.3%
2.2%
2,497 96.2%
2.3%
2,701 97.3%
1.6%
2,606 98.2%
1.3%
2,496 98.0%
1.4%
1.6%
1.9%
1.3%
1.5%
1.6%
1.1%
0.5%
0.6%
+
+
+
!II
!II
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 405,416 90.9%
7.2%
1.8%
2,140 89.1%
8.2%
2.7%
!II 2,666 91.1%
7.2%
1.8%
2,455 89.4%
8.6%
2.1%
+
2,499 90.1%
7.5%
2.4%
!II 2,701 91.7%
6.3%
2.0%
+
2,601 92.4%
6.4%
1.3%
+
2,495 92.5%
6.0%
1.5%
- 9. I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) to get my job done.
2016 Goverrunentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 405,568 46.6%
16.0%
37.5%
922 2,145 61.2%
14.1%
24.8%
0
~
2,669 69.6%
11.6%
18.8%
3 2,460 66.7%
11.9%
21.3%
3 2,497 64.5%
13.6%
21.9%
8
!II 2,703 70.6%
12.3%
17.0%
+
2,599 70.7%
12.2%
17.0%
4
!II 2,495 73.4%
10.8%
15.8%
5 Page 4 of34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report My Work Experience (continued)
JO. My workload is reasonable.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 uclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 11. My talents are used well in the workplace.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 uclear Regulatory Commission 2014 uclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 12. I know how my work relates to the agency's goals and priorities.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 uclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 403,398 57.5%
16.2%
2,134 70.9%
12.7%
2,658 72.3%
11.8%
2,439 70.6%
12.4%
2,494 70.3%
13.1%
2,703 72.2%
12.6%
2,600 73.9%
11.6%
2,493 71.7%
12.2%
26.3%
693 16.4%
2 15.9%
2 17.0%
2 16.6%
15.2%
0 14.4%
4 16.1 %
2
+
+
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 394,751 58.4%
16.5%
2,101 65.9%
13.9%
2,592 67.1%
13.4%
2,396 64.8%
14.5%
2,449 64.7%
15.1%
2,675 68.3%
12.7%
2,589 68.9%
14.5%
2,478 70.4%
15.1%
25.1%
1,759 20.2%
8 19.6%
12 20.7%
9 20.2%
12 19.0%
7 16.5%
13 14.5%
7
+
+
~
+
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 402,835 83.1%
9.9%
7.0%
1,337 2,127 89.8%
5.6%
4.6%
6
+
2,656 90.1 %
5.9%
4.0%
4
+
2,455 89.7%
6.2%
4.1 %
5
+
2,498 90.1 %
6.4%
3.5%
+
2,696 90.1 %
5.6%
4.3%
3
+
2,602 91.0%
5.6%
3.4%
~
2,485 92.3%
5.5%
2.2%
7 Page 5 of 34
My Work Experience ( continued)
- 13. The work I do is important 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative ON K year 399,340 90.3%
6.6%
3.2%
1,152 2,118 88.4%
8.2%
3.4%
7
+
2,631 89.2%
7.3%
3.5%
6
+
2,418 89.2%
7.6%
3.2%
6
+
2,477 89.2%
7.8%
3.0%
2
+
2,695 90.1 %
7.4%
2.5%
3
+
2,598 90.6%
7.0%
2.5%
5
~
2,477 92.2%
5.6%
2.2%
6
- 14. Physical conditions (for example, noise level, temperature, lighting, cleanliness in the workplace) allow employees to perform their jobs well 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 uclear Regulatory Commission 2014 uclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 15. My pe,fonnance appraisal is afair reflection ofmy performance.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 uclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 403,735 65.7%
14.0%
2,133 74.3%
11.9%
2,660 75.5%
10.2%
2,458 78.6%
10.4%
2,501 79.4%
9.7%
2,690 81.8%
9.8%
2,594 83.4%
8.4%
2,495 81.1%
10.5%
20.3%
1,775 13.8%
8 14.3%
7 11.0%
4 10.9%
4 8.4%
7 8.1%
9 8.5%
+
~
+
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 399,544 69.6%
14.3%
16.2%
6,003 2,127 74.1%
12.6%
13.3%
17
+
2,635 75.5%
10.2%
14.4%
32 2,429 73.4%
12.l %
14.4%
32
+
2,481 72.6%
13.0%
14.3%
24
+
2,675 72.7%
12.3%
14.9%
27
~
2,580 75.9%
11.7%
12.4%
23
+
2,471 76.7%
12.4%
10.9%
25 Page 6 of34
My Work Experience (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 16. I am held accountable for achieving results.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 uclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 uclear Regulatory Commission Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DN K year 402,229 81.6%
12.1 %
6.3%
1,953 2,120 84.1%
10.7%
5.2%
10
+
2,657 85.2%
9.5%
5.3%
11
+
2,437 85.9%
9.7%
4.5%
17
+
2,488 85.5%
10.2%
4.3%
6
~
2,687 87.6%
8.5%
4.0%
8
+
2,587 88.6%
7.9%
3.4%
7
+
2,477 89.2%
8.6%
2.2%
9
- 17. I can disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 uclear Regulatory Commission
- 18. My training needs are assessed.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DN K year 386,924 62.1%
18.1%
2,063 72.9%
13.6%
2,557 74.8%
12.4%
2,383 75.1 %
13.3%
2,427 75.1 %
13.4%
2,624 76.1%
13.0%
2,529 78.3%
12.7%
2,409 80.2%
11.5%
19.8%
17,784 13.5%
76 12.8%
108 11.6%
79 11.5%
70 10.9%
76 9.0%
70 8.3%
83
~
+
+
+
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 401,073 52.9%
22.9%
24.2%
4,002 2,113 54.9%
20.6%
24.5%
25
~
2,639 65.0%
18.9%
16.0%
19 2,438 60.7%
20.4%
18.8%
15 2,474 57.2%
22.6%
20.3%
22
~
2,678 66.2%
18.6%
15.3%
23
~
2,571 69.2%
18.4%
12.4%
21
+
2,462 69.4%
17.0%
13.6%
14 Page 7 of34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report My Work Experience(continued)
- 19. In my most recent performance appraisal, I understood what I had to do to be rated at different performance levels (for example, Fully Success.fut Outstanding).
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 uclear Regulatory Commission 2011 uclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission My Work Unit
- 20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 uclear Regulatory Commission 2013 uclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative N BJ year 396,712 2,114 2,622 2,420 2,461 2,657 2,578 2,484 69.0%
13.6%
17.3%
66.1%
14.1%
19.9%
66.5%
14.7%
18.9%
64.8%
14.7%
20.6%
63.5%
15.5%
21.0%
65.2%
15.4%
19.4%
70.1%
13.3%
16.6%
69.4%
15.0%
15.6%
10,380 36 49 45 47 48 26 14
~
~
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 406,886 73.3%
13.5%
2,148 81.0%
9.8%
2,670 82.5%
9.0%
2,465 82.0%
10.1%
2,503 83.1%
9.6%
2,705 84.3%
8.7%
2,389 85.5%
8.4%
2,423 86.4%
8.1 %
13.2%
9.2%
8.5%
7.9%
7.4%
7.0%
6.1 %
5.5%
~
~
~
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 392,412 42.6%
25.2%
32.2%
14,370 2,066 52.9%
20.5%
26.7%
79
~
2,583 61.5%
18.8%
19.7%
91
~
2,394 63.1%
18.5%
18.4%
68 2,430 59.0%
20.4%
20.5%
75
~
2,624 57.9%
20.8%
21.3%
82
~
2,525 65.2%
18.2%
16.6%
83
~
2,430 68.3%
18.4%
13.3%
64 Page 8 of 34
My Work Unit(continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 22. Promotions in my work unit are based on meriL Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 376,444 34.5%
27.6%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,958 43.1%
26.7%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,437 48.0%
25.4%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,252 49.5%
26.1%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,310 49.0%
26.0%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,499 51.7%
24.8%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,433 57.9%
23.7%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,341 58.4%
22.7%
- 23. In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor peiformer who cannot or will not improve.
38.0%
27,943 30.1%
174 26.6%
216 24.3%
199 25.0%
188 23.5%
198 18.4%
172 18.8%
149
~
~
+
~
~
+
Difference rrom previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 363,758 29.3%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,809 34.1%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,275 34.1 %
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,075 34.3%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,151 34.1%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,338 36.5%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,260 39.7%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,162 41.1 %
- 24. In my work unit, differences in peiformance are recognized in a meaningful w~.
27.1%
43.6%
29.4%
36.6%
28.8%
37.0%
30.0%
35.7%
30.5%
35.4%
29.6%
33.8%
30.3%
30.0%
29.2%
29.7%
41,216 327 387 380 347 361 347 334
+
+
+
~
~
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 380,352 34.0%
27.9%
38.1%
25,041 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,986 43.1%
26.9%
30.0%
150
+
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,460 43.4%
27.1%
29.5%
205 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,258 41.8%
29.7%
28.5%
200
~
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,313 43.7%
27.3%
29.0%
188
~
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,517 47.3%
25.7%
27.0%
183
~
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,442 54.4%
24.7%
20.9%
162
+
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,354 54.6%
24.7%
20.7%
140 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 9 of34
My Work Unit(continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 25. Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs.
Difference rrom previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 26. Employees in my work unit sharejob knowledge with each other.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 376,070 41.4%
24.9%
1,978 52.3%
23.5%
2,448 52.7%
22.4%
2,249 50.1%
24.0%
2,339 52.3%
21.6%
2,547 54.6%
20.3%
2,468 61.9%
19.1%
2,393 63.3%
18.1%
33.8%
28,546 243%
155 24.9%
201 25.9%
202 26.2%
160 25.1%
152 19.0%
138 18.6%
101
~
~
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 403,664 73.3%
13.8%
2,123 80.9%
9.3%
2,659 81.6%
9.1 %
2,449 82.4%
9.4%
2,492 81.6%
10.2%
2,694 82.1%
9.8%
2,598 83.2%
9.9%
2,485 82.9%
10.1%
12.9%
9.9%
9.3%
8.2%
8.2%
8.1%
6.9%
7.0%
1,739 12 7
10 12 7
8 9
~
+
+
+
+
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 389,303 54.2%
28.2%
17.6%
16,713 2,037 56.9%
26.6%
16.6%
101
~
2,549 59.6%
26.0%
14.3%
117 2,338 57.3%
27.1%
15.6%
122
+
2,383 58.0%
27.8%
14.2%
119
~
2,593 59.8%
26.3%
13.9%
109
~
2,509 66.3%
24.0%
9.7%
87
+
2,403 66.8%
23.2%
10.0%
81 Page 10 of 34
My Work Unit(continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 28. How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit?
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 2016 Governmentwide 406,077 82.3%
14.1%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,147 89.5%
8.2%
2015 uclear Regulatory Commission 2,670 89.0%
9.3%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,466 88.7%
9.5%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,499 90.5%
7.6%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,698 89.9%
8.0%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,599 90.3%
8.3%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,485 91.5%
7.4%
- 29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals.
3.6%
2.3%
1.7%
1.7%
1.9%
2.0%
1.4%
1.1 %
+
+
~
+
+
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 393,750 69.4%
17.3%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,091 79.0%
11.6%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,601 80.1%
11.5%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,415 80.7%
10.7%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,451 81.6%
11.4%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,644 83.5%
9.6%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,557 85.0%
9.3%
2010 uclear Regulatory Commission 2,451 86.1 %
8.3%
- 30. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes.
13.3%
6,753 9.4%
40 8.4%
47 8.6%
32 7.0%
30 6.9%
36 5.6%
24 5.6%
25
+
+
+
~
~
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 390,805 44.8%
24.6%
30.6%
9,449 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,061 54.0%
21.1%
24.9%
67
~
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,565 57.6%
20.2%
22.2%
76
+
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,372 57.6%
21.4%
21.1 %
71
+
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,416 58.2%
21.8%
20.1%
68
~
2012 uclear Regulatory Commission 2,615 61.6%
18.6%
19.8%
62
~
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,525 67.3%
18.0%
14.8%
61
+
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,426 68.8%
17.0%
14.2%
53 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 11 of34
My Agency (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 31. Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services.
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 33. Pay raises depend on how well employees peiform their jobs.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 390,973 48.0%
23.1%
2,081 63.5%
18.7%
2,602 64.5%
17.7%
2,399 63.9%
17.6%
2,435 65.1 %
18.2%
2,638 68.6%
15.5%
2,559 75.2%
14.2%
2,457 77.6%
12.5%
28.9%
8,551 17.8%
42 17.8%
42 18.5%
38 16.7%
38 15.9%
35 10.6%
28 9.9%
26
+
+
+
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 385,387 38.4%
28.3%
2,037 47.1%
27.3%
2,544 48.4%
27.4%
2,339 47.7%
27.0%
2,379 49.2%
26.3%
2,592 52.7%
25.0%
2,511 59.8%
23.5%
2,408 62.7%
22.3%
33.3%
13,365 25.6%
90 24.2%
87 25.2%
97 24.5%
96 22.3%
84 16.7%
71 15.l %
67
+
+
+
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 368,966 22.3%
26.9%
50.7%
29,028 1,963 23.0%
27.1%
49.9%
158
+
2,426 23.8%
30.5%
45.7%
204
+
2,241 24.5%
29.0%
46.6%
192 2,285 22.8%
30.5%
46.8%
182
~
2,475 27.5%
31.1 %
41.4%
200
~
2,406 35.0%
31.3%
33.6%
182
~
2,310 40.5%
30.3%
29.2%
173 Page 12 of 34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report My Agency (continued)
- 34. Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace (for example, recruiting minorities and women, training in awareness of diversity issues, mentoring).
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 35. Employees are protected.from health and safety hazards on the job.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 36. My organization has prepared employees for potential security threats.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative ON K year 370,140 57.8%
27.4%
1,994 72.3%
18.4%
2,521 74.0%
17.3%
2,321 75.4%
15.9%
2,381 74.1 %
17.8%
2,535 77.1%
15.9%
2,474 79.8%
14.3%
2,406 81.1%
13.6%
14.8%
29,591 9.3%
130 8.7%
118 8.7%
117 8.1 %
98 7.0%
142 6.0%
107 5.2%
72
+
ll,I
+
ll,I ll,I
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 393,340 76.0%
13.3%
2,101 89.9%
6.4%
2,602 90.3%
6.0%
2,415 90.7%
- 6. 1%
2,459 91.6%
5.7%
2,642 92.0%
5.7%
2,562 92.7%
5.9%
2,460 92.7%
5.5%
10.7%
3.8%
3.8%
3.2%
2.7%
2.3%
1.4%
1.8%
6,278 26 36 25 20 29 20 17
+
+
+
+
+
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 393,948 77.2%
13.3%
9.5%
4,677 2,097 85.4%
10.0%
4.5%
28
+
2,616 85.5%
10.3%
4.2%
19 2,405 84.1%
10.3%
5.6%
24
+
2,452 84.7%
10.6%
4.7%
25
+
2,633 84.9%
10.7%
4.3%
37
+
2,551 85.9%
11.1 %
3.1%
25
+
2,452 85.3%
10.3%
4.4%
26 Page 13 of 34
My Agency (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 37. Arbitrary action, personal favoritism and coercionforpartisan political purposes are not tolerated.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 375,254 53.1%
21.8%
25.1%
23,720 1,971 62.0%
18.1%
19.9%
155
+
2,439 61.5%
19.0%
19.5%
194
+
2,254 60.5%
19.8%
19.7%
180
+
2,320 62.0%
18.3%
19.7%
162
+
2,511 62.0%
18.9%
19.1%
160
!Iii 2,435 67.4%
17.6%
15.0%
139
!Iii 2,333 70.0%
18.3%
11.7%
136
- 38. Prohibited Personnel Practices (for example, illegally discriminating for or against any employee/applicant, obstructing a person's right to compete for employment, knowingly violating veterans' preference requirements) are not tolerated.
2016 Govemrnentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 IO Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 39. My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 361,746 66.7%
18.9%
1,898 75.8%
14.2%
2,384 76.1 %
14.0%
2,219 75.5%
14.8%
2,233 76.6%
14.5%
2,439 76.4%
14.8%
2,412 80.4%
12.9%
2,310 81.5%
12.2%
14.4%
10.0%
9.9%
9.6%
8.9%
8.9%
6.7%
6.3%
35,073 218 241 207 236 227 166 159
+
+
+
+
~
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 392,488 74.0%
17.2%
8.8%
7,188 2,110 87.6%
9.0%
3.4%
16
~
2,619 88.9%
8.1%
3.0%
22
+
2,424 88.7%
8.0%
3.3%
16
+
2,452 89.1%
7.5%
3.4%
22
+
2,652 89.3%
7.6%
3.0%
21
~
2,552 92.3%
5.5%
2.2%
13
+
2,442 92.4%
5.9%
1.6%
12 Page 14 of34
My Agency (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 40. I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 2016 Governmentwide 400,013 64.0%
20.1%
15.8%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,130 74.1%
14.7%
11.2%
~
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,643 79.0%
12.4%
8.5%
-+
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,435 78.7%
13.3%
7.9%
~
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,479 80.5%
11.7%
7.8%
-+
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,674 81.0%
11.7%
7.3%
~
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,567 84.4%
9.8%
5.8%
~
2010 uclear Regulatory Commission 2,469 86.7%
8.0%
5.3%
- 41. 1 believe the results of this survey will be used to make my agency a better place to work.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission My Supervisor
- 42. My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 370,195 40.9%
26.8%
2,045 49.3%
23.3%
2,569 56.4%
20.4%
2,351 57.5%
22.2%
2,345 58.3%
22.3%
2,552 64.6%
20.0%
2,464 69.4%
18.3%
2,365 72.2%
16.8%
32.3%
30,395 27.5%
89 23.2%
77 20.3%
92 19.4%
136 15.4%
126 12.3%
108 11.0%
112
~
-+
-+
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DN K year 397,533 78.3%
10.8%
10.9%
2,147 2,119 89.2%
5.5%
5.3%
9
+
2,639 89.7%
5.4%
5.0%
7
+
2,433 89.3%
5.2%
5.5%
8
+
2,467 88.7%
5.4%
5.8%
11
+
2,661 88.8%
5.9%
5.3%
14
+
2,562 88.5%
6.4%
5.0%
10
+
2,475 89.6%
5.9%
4.5%
9 Page 15 of 34
My Supervisor (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 43. My supervisor provides me with opportunities to demonstraLe my leadership skills.
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 44. Discussions with my supervisor about my performance are worthwhile.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 396,644 66.2%
16.9%
17.0%
2,108 76.2%
12.4%
11.4%
2,630 77.8%
11.5%
10.6%
2,424 78.2%
11.2%
10.6%
2,458 75.8%
13.1%
11.1%
2,659 78.0%
11.5%
10.6%
2,560 78.8%
12.0%
9.2%
2,472 79.5%
11.3%
9.1%
2,033 13 10 10 13 11 6
8 ll,I
+
ll,I
+
+
Difference from pre,ious N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 391,835 63.4%
18.2%
18.4%
4,496 2,092 71.4%
13.4%
15.2%
16 ll,I 2,617 73.4%
12.6%
14.0%
20 2,407 71.6%
13.9%
14.4%
16 2,452 70.1%
15.1 %
14.8%
17
+
2,639 71.3%
14.1%
14.6%
29 ll,I 2,560 74.0%
13.5%
12.5%
12
+
2,450 75.2%
12.9%
11.9%
28
- 45. My supervisor is committed to a worliforce representative of all segments of society.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 365,376 67.8%
21.7%
10.5%
32,531 1,905 78.1%
15.0%
6.9%
213
+
2,387 78.6%
15.8%
5.5%
251
+
2,215 79.5%
15.0%
5.5%
216 2,219 76.1%
18.1 %
5.8%
247
+
2,419 75.8%
18.0%
6.2%
248 ll,I 2,345 77.9%
17.0%
5.2%
221
+
2,267 78.9%
17.0%
4.0%
212 Page 16 of34
My Supervisor (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 46. My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job performance.
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commjssion 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 47. Supervisors in my work unit support employee development.
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 48. My supervisor listens to what I have to say.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 395,581 62.5%
19.1%
18.5%
2,112 72.3%
13.7%
14.0%
2,616 72.9%
15.0%
12.1%
2,424 71.7%
14.4%
13.8%
2,456 68.7%
17.6%
13.7%
2,657 70.9%
16.3%
12.8%
2,553 74.1%
14.4%
11.5%
2,460 73.0%
14.9%
12.0%
2,285 9
10 7
14 11 9
16
+
+
~
~
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 392,465 2,093 2,605 2,405 2,447 2,644 2,545 2,451 65.6%
17.8%
16.6%
77.7%
12.0%
10.3%
81.8%
10.5%
7.7%
80.6%
11.2%
8.2%
79.4%
12.3%
8.2%
80.0%
11.4%
8.6%
83.7%
9.2%
7.1%
83.5%
9.6%
6.9%
6,120 33 33 30 27 23 15 16
~
+
+
~
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 398,731 76.1 %
12.1%
11.8%
2,122 83.6%
7.8%
8.6%
+
2,641 84.5%
7.3%
8.2%
+
2,435 84.0%
8.2%
7.7%
+
2,472 83.6%
8.2%
8.2%
+
2,665 83.5%
7.7%
8.8%
+
2,565 85.0%
8.0%
7.0%
+
2,478 85.8%
7.8%
6.4%
Page 17of34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report My Supervisor (continued)
- 49. My supervisor treats me with respect 2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 50. In the last six months, my supervisor has talked with me about my pe,:formance.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 uclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 51. I have trust and confidence in my supervisor.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 397,483 81.3%
10.0%
2,113 86.9%
6.0%
2,638 87.7%
6.5%
2,432 87.1%
6.8%
2,473 86.7%
7.2%
2,669 86.8%
6.7%
2,563 87.7%
7.0%
2,475 89.2%
5.7%
8.7%
7.1%
5.8%
6.1%
6.1%
6.4%
5.3%
5.1%
-+
-+
-+
-+
-+
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 397,581 77.6%
10.0%
2,116 92.1%
4.0%
2,639 92.8%
4.3%
2,430 92.4%
4.7%
2,465 91.5%
4.8%
2,660 88.6%
5.8%
2,559 92.4%
4.6%
2,474 85.7%
6.3%
12.4%
3.9%
2.9%
2.9%
3.7%
5.6%
3.0%
8.0%
-+
-+
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 398,003 67.4%
16.0%
16.6%
2,124 75.2%
11.9%
12.9%
-+
2,640 76.7%
10.7%
12.6%
-+
2,432 76.7%
11.4%
11.9%
2,468 75.1 %
13.3%
11.5%
-+
2,661 75.7%
12.3%
12.1%
~
2,556 78.4%
11.9%
9.7%
-+
2,469 78.1%
12.0%
9.9%
Page 18 of 34
My Supervisor (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 52. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by your immediate supervisor?
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 2016 Govemmentwide 398,213 70.5%
17.4%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,126 77.2%
14.4%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,640 79.3%
12.9%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,434 79.1%
12.8%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,468 78.4%
13.0%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,661 77.8%
13.7%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,561 80.6%
11.7%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,469 80.6%
12.7%
Leadership
- 53. In my organization, senior leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the worliforce.
12.1%
8.4%
7.7%
8.1%
8.7%
8.5%
7.6%
6.8%
~
-+
-+
-+
~
-+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Govemmentwide 388,819 40.9%
24.1%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,086 52.4%
22.2%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,599 55.0%
21.6%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,405 55.2%
21.9%
2013 uclear Regulatory Commission 2,437 56.6%
23.0%
2012 uclear Regulatory Commission 2,636 59.6%
20.3%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,539 66.3%
19.4%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,455 67.8%
17.6%
- 54. My organization's senior leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity.
35.0%
7,594 25.4%
33 23.4%
30 22.9%
22 20.4%
21 20.1 %
22 14.2%
23 14.6%
20
~
-+
-+
~
~
-+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Govemmentwide 372,029 51.8%
24.0%
24.3%
23,730 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,018 67.2%
16.4%
16.4%
93
-+
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,531 66.5%
17.3%
16.2%
95
~
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,323 68.0%
17.3%
14.7%
103
~
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,407 70.0%
17.8%
12.2%
54
-+
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,592 70.4%
15.6%
14.0%
63
~
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,489 77.1%
12.8%
10.1%
64
-+
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,408 78.1%
12.9%
9.0%
64 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 19 of34
Leadership (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 55. Supervisors work well with employees of different backgrounds.
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 56. Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 368,225 64.0%
22.0%
1,993 74.9%
13.4%
2,470 74.9%
15.9%
2,305 75.8%
14.9%
2,352 76.3%
14.8%
2,565 76.6%
13.6%
2,480 79.9%
13.2%
2,411 80.2%
12.3%
13.9%
11.7%
9.2%
9.3%
8.9%
9.8%
6.8%
7.5%
25,081 110 143 101 101 88 79 62
~..
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 389,027 60.3%
20.1%
19.6%
5,145 2,084 72.2%
14.9%
12.9%
17 2,604 73.3%
14.3%
12.4%
20..
2,396 72.8%
14.7%
12.6%
17 2,429 74.1%
15.1%
10.8%
17 2,629 74.8%
13.0%
12.2%
15
~
2,538 79.2%
12.1%
8.6%
16
~
2,452 80.4%
11.5%
8.1%
14
- 57. Managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward meeting its goals and objectives.
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 367,493 60.1%
23.5%
16.4%
26,319 1,979 72.7%
16.8%
10.5%
123
~
2,454 74.8%
16.2%
9.0%
159 2,284 71.7%
18.2%
10.1%
130
~
2,325 73.6%
17.2%
9.1 %
117
~
2,549 77.0%
14.3%
8.8%
103
~
2,458 79.7%
14.2%
6.1%
98
~
2,384 82.3%
11.7%
6.1 %
83 Page 20 of34
Leadership (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 58. Managers promote communication among different work units (for example, about projects, goals, needed resources).
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Govemmentwide 381,145 52.0%
22.5%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,061 64.8%
17.6%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,545 67.0%
18.0%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,350 66.6%
16.4%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,403 66.2%
18.4%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,602 69.0%
15.9%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,501 72.0%
15.4%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,421 73.8%
14.1%
- 59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives.
25.5%
13,697 17.6%
52 15.1 %
71 17.1%
66 15.4%
47 15.1%
51 12.6%
so 12.0%
40
~
-+
-+
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DN K year 2016 Govemmentwide 380,902 55.7%
22.4%
21.8%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,058 68.1%
17.3%
14.7%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,561 70.8%
15.3%
13.9%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,362 71.0%
14.7%
14.3%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,417 70.0%
16.5%
13.5%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,597 71.6%
15.6%
12.8%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,494 76.0%
12.8%
11.1%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,412 77.2%
13.0%
9.8%
- 60. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager directly above your immediate supervisor?
14,062 55 62 57 35 48 45 45
~
-+
-+
-+
~
-+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Govemmentwide 373,425 57.9%
23.3%
18.9%
21,965 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,048 71.4%
17.9%
10.8%
70
-+
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,547 71.0%
18.2%
10.8%
81
-+
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,352 69.7%
18.9%
11.3%
71
-+
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,372 71.3%
19.0%
9.8%
87
-+
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,573 71.2%
16.9%
11.9%
73
~
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,491 74.7%
16.3%
9.0%
56
-+
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,425 75.0%
15.2%
9.9%
40 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 21 of 34
Leadership (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 61. I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior leaders.
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Govemmentwide 390,254 53.1%
23.5%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,088 64.7%
18.1%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,609 66.1%
16.9%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,408 65.8%
18.1%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,445 66.9%
18.3%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,632 67.0%
16.7%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,540 75.0%
13.9%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,456 76.8%
12.7%
- 62. Senior leaders demonstrate support for Work/Life programs.
23.4%
5,078 17.2%
29 17.0%
17 16.0%
13 14.8%
11 16.2%
11 11.1%
9 10.5%
9
-+
-+
-+
-+
!Iii
!Iii Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative DNK year 2016 Govemmentwide 363,124 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,032 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,556 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,362 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,383 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,569 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,495 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,406
- 63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work?
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 55.1%
25.8%
19.1%
77.6%
13.2%
9.1%
81.8%
11.3%
6.9%
80.5%
12.5%
6.9%
79.9%
13.0%
7.1%
80.4%
12.4%
7.2%
83.2%
11.0%
5.8%
84.2%
10.2%
5.6%
32,433 85 70 59 72 81 51 58
!Iii
-+
-+
!Iii
-+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 394,068 50.7%
22.7%
26.6%
2,107 61.9%
18.3%
19.8%
!Iii 2,623 65.7%
16.7%
17.6%
-+
2,416 65.5%
16.7%
17.8%
-+
2,452 65.0%
18.4%
16.6%
!Iii 2,649 66.6%
17.0%
16.5%
!Iii 2,548 71.2%
15.9%
12.8%
-+
2,478 71.8%
15.3%
12.8%
Page 22 of34
My Satisfaction (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 64. How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what's going on in your organization?
Difference rrom previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 65. How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for doing a good job?
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 66. How satisfied are you with the polides and practices of your senior leaders?
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 201 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 393,156 48.0%
23.5%
2,110 64.4%
16.3%
2,618 67.3%
16.9%
2,410 66.4%
18.2%
2,450 64.3%
19.8%
2,645 66.5%
18.5%
2,545 71.9%
16.1%
2,475 72.7%
15.3%
28.5%
19.4%
15.8%
15.4%
15.9%
15.1%
12.0%
12.0%
~
~
~
~
~
Difference rrom previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 392,389 47.5%
23.8%
2,107 60.1%
20.1%
2,600 62.2%
18.0%
2,409 61.7%
18.2%
2,444 61.8%
18.4%
2,644 64.0%
17.0%
2,545 70.4%
15.0%
2,476 70.9%
15.6%
28.7%
19.8%
19.8%
20.1 %
19.9%
19.0%
14.6%
13.5%
~
~
~
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 392,440 42.5%
29.3%
28.3%
2,101 55.5%
24.5%
20.0%
~
2,602 57.3%
23.4%
19.2%
~
2,402 58.1%
24.4%
17.5%
~
2,442 58.5%
24.1%
17.4%
~
2,636 59.8%
20.8%
19.4%
~
2,548 67.6%
19.7%
12.7%
~
2,469 68.2%
19.2%
12.7%
Page 23 of 34 1
My Satisfaction (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 67. How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization?
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commjssion
- 68. How satisfied are you with the training you receiveforyourpresentjob?
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commjssion 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 69. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commjssion 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 392,739 35.9%
27.3%
2,105 36.4%
25.4%
2,605 44.6%
25.3%
2,409 45.9%
24.3%
2,446 43.4%
26.3%
2,637 46.8%
25.6%
2,544 54.7%
24.2%
2,469 60.2%
21.9%
36.8%
38.3%
30.0%
29.8%
30.3%
27.6%
21.1 %
17.9%
~
-+
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 392,659 52.5%
23.5%
2,099 57.6%
22.3%
2,615 71.1%
18.4%
2,410 67.7%
19.5%
2,448 62.7%
21.3%
2,629 71.3%
17.5%
2,544 75.7%
15.8%
2,469 76.3%
14.8%
23.9%
20.1%
10.6%
12.8%
16.0%
11.1 %
8.5%
8.9%
~
~
~
-+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 392,826 66.2%
17.4%
16.4%
2,106 73.0%
14.4%
12.7%
~
2,614 75.8%
13.2%
11.0%
-+
2,402 74.7%
14.4%
10.9%
-+
2,447 74.4%
14.9%
10.8%
~
2,642 77.4%
11.4%
11.1%
~
2,544 80.5%
11.4%
8.1%
-+
2,472 81.6%
10.0%
8.3%
Page 24 of34
My Satisfaction (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 70. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?
Difference rrom previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 2016 Governmentwide 393,242 58.2%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,107 68.4%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,617 68.2%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,411 66.6%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,446 62.4%
201 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,640 68.9%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,544 76.6%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,476 81.7%
- 71. Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?
16.9%
24.9%
14.9%
16.6%
15.3%
16.5%
16.1%
17.3%
15.9%
21.7%
14.2%
16.8%
11.8%
11.6%
10.1%
8.2%
~
~
~
~
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative year 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Work/Life
- 72. Have you been notified whether or not you are eligible to telework?
2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 393,451 56.9%
2,103 68.4%
2,619 71.0%
2,407 70.6%
2,447 71.4%
2,639 73.4%
2,543 78.3%
2,470 80.2%
392,364 40.3%
2,102 83.2%
2,617 80.5%
2,407 77.8%
- This item was added to the survey in 2014. fl is on a different response scale and is not included in the significance testing.
2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 21.4%
15.5%
16.2%
16.6%
16.5%
13.8%
12.4%
11.2%
21.6%
5.4%
5.8%
6.5%
21.7%
16.1%
12.8%
12.8%
12.0%
12.9%
9.2%
8.6%
29.1%
5.3%
7.2%
8.6%
~
~
~
~
~
~
9.1%
6.2%
6.5%
7.0%
Page 25 of 34
Work/Life (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 73. Please select the response below that BEST describes your current teleworking situation.
2016 Govemmentwide 389,999 5.7%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,105 4.1%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,616 3.8%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,410 3.2%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,438 3.0%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,635 2.6%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,544 2.5%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11.8%
33.1%
29.5%
29.1%
27.5%
23.4%
21.2%
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. It is on a different response scale and is not included in the significance testing.
2016 Govemmentwide 389,999 30.4%
4.2%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,105 5.2%
1.4%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,616 6.2%
1.3%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,410 6.5%
1.5%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,438 7.3%
1.5%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,635 7.8%
2.1%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,544 7.6%
2.9%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. It is on a different response scale and is not included in the significance testing.
2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 4.7%
11.8%
9.7%
25.5%
9.8%
28.2%
9.4%
28.3%
10.7%
27.9%
11.2%
27.9%
10.5%
29.3%
(continued) 19.2%
12.2%
3.1%
18.0%
3.8%
17.3%
4.5%
17.6%
4.0%
17.9%
4.8%
20.2%
4.7%
21.5%
Page 26 of34
Work/Life ( continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 74. Do you participate in the following Work/Life programs? Alternative Work Schedules (A WS) 2016 Governmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 391,178 2,103 2,613 2,398 2,442 2,638 2,533
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. It is 011 a di.!Jerent response scale and is not included in the significance testing.
33.4%
45.8%
57.2%
39.5%
58.9%
38.2%
59.5%
37.3%
61.1 %
35.4%
62.0%
34.2%
61.8%
35.5%
- 75. Do you participate in the following Work/Life programs? Health and Wellness Programs (for example, exercise, medical screening, quit smoking programs) 2016 Governmentwide 390,233 26.8%
61.0%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,095 41.2%
56.4%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,599 44.6%
53.2%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,381 42.4%
55.6%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,427 42.4%
55.3%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,630 43.9%
52.9%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,517 42.1%
55.3%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. It is on a di.!Jerent response scale and is not included in the significance testing.
2016 Govemmentwide 387,376 13.6%
81.0%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,088 18.2%
80.9%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,584 19.9%
79.1%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,378 19.4%
80.0%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,423 17.3%
81.6%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,628 15.1 %
83.6%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,504 13.9%
85.0%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. It is on a di.!Jerent response scale and is not included in the significance testing.
20.8%
3.2%
2.9%
3.2%
3.4%
3.7%
2.7%
12.1%
2.4%
2.2%
2.0%
2.4%
3.1%
2.6%
5.3%
0.9%
0.9%
0.6%
1.0%
1.2%
1.1%
2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 27 of34
Work/Life (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 77. Do you partidpate in the following Work/Life programs? Child Care Programs (for example, daycare, parenting classes, parenting support groups) 2016 Governmentwide 390,848 3.7%
79.1%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,089 3.3%
88.4%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,599 3.8%
88.2%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,394 4.3%
87.7%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,434 4.2%
88.8%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,628 3.8%
88.7%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,499 3.0%
91.0%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. It is on a different response scale and is not included in the significance testing.
- 78. Do you partidpate in the following Work/Life programs? Elder Care Programs (for example, support groups, speakers) 2016 Govemmentwide 391,248 2.3%
80.4%
2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,092 3.3%
90.5%
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,609 3.1 %
90.4%
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,397 3.8%
89.5%
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,440 3.1%
90.1%
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,623 2.5%
90.3%
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2,489 2.0%
91.2%
2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. It is on a different response scale and is not included in the significance testing.
- 79. How satisfied are you with thefollowing Work/Life programs in your agency? Telework 17.2%
8.2%
8.0%
8.0%
7.0%
7.5%
6.0%
17.2%
6.3%
6.5%
6.7%
6.8%
7.2%
6.8%
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ year 2016 Govemmentwide 204,775 78.9%
12.0%
9.1%
6,007 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,489 84.5%
10.3%
5.2%
22
~
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,843 87.7%
7.9%
4.4%
24 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,652 85.8%
8.8%
5.4%
23
~
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,645 85.1%
8.9%
5.9%
42
~
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,699 86.7%
8.6%
4.7%
36
~
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,605 86.2%
9.2%
4.6%
23 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. The results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in this program.
2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 28 of34
Work/Life ( continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 80. How satisfied are you with thefollowing Work/Life programs in your agency? Alternative Work Schedules (A WS)
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative NIU year 2016 Govemmentwide 148,859 89.7%
7.0%
3.3%
3,222 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,184 94.4%
4.0%
1.6%
16
+
2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,528 95.3%
3.8%
0.9%
15
~
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,410 96.2%
2.7%
1.0%
18 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,481 95.3%
3.9%
0.8%
13
+
2012 uclear Regulatory Commission 1,610 95.4%
3.4%
1.2%
21
+
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,568 96.4%
3.1%
0.6%
12 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. The results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in this program.
- 81. How satisfied are you with the following Work/Life programs in your agency? Health and Wellness Programs (for example, exercise, medical screening, quit smoking programs)
Difference rrom previous N
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ year 2016 Govemmentwide 102,282 80.5%
15.7%
3.8%
7,335 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 824 92.3%
6.0%
1.7%
36 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,141 91.7%
6.6%
1.6%
35 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,001 90.8%
6.7%
2.5%
38 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,009 91.1 %
7.0%
1.9%
31 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,112 92.6%
6.5%
0.9%
44 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1,049 93.6%
5.5%
0.9%
32 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. The results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in this program.
- 82. How satisfied are you with the following Work/Life programs in your agency? Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
+
+
+
~
+
Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ year 2016 Govemmentwide 51,991 75.5%
20.1%
4.4%
8,067 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 359 91.4%
5.8%
2.8%
32 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 502 88.4%
9.5%
2.1%
39
+
2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 443 87.9%
9.1%
3.0%
48
+
2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 403 88.1%
9.4%
2.5%
41
+
2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 357 88.5%
9.3%
2.1%
52
~
2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 354 92.2%
6.7%
1.1 %
35 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 2011. The results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in this program.
2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 29 of 34
Work/Life (continued)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report
- 83. How satisfied are you with thefollowing Work/Life programs in your agency? Child Care Programs (for example, daycare, parendng classes, parendng support groups) 2016 Goverrunentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ year 10,701 72.2%
23.5%
4.3%
4,380 63 86.8%
13.2%
0.0%
24
+
81 81.7%
17.0%
1.2%
34
+
78 75.9%
24.1%
0.0%
43
+
77 76.8%
19.1 %
4.1%
38
+
71 82.1%
16.5%
1.3%
48
+
78 82.0%
18.0%
0.0%
39
- This item was added to the survey in 201 I. The results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in this program.
- 84. How satisfied are you with the following Work/Life programs in your agency? Elder Care Programs (for example, support groups, speakers) 2016 Govemmentwide 2016 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2014 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2013 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2011 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2010 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- This item was added to the survey in 201 I.
2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Difference from previous N
Positive Neutral Negative NBJ year 7,399 67.6%
30.2%
2.2%
3,730 55 85.3%
14.7%
0.0%
28
+
72 83.7%
12.2%
4.1%
18
+
68 77.4%
22.6%
0.0%
37
+
58 75.3%
24.7%
0.0%
29
+
47 70.8%
24.9%
4.3%
40
+
59 68.5%
29.4%
2.1%
43 The results for this item only include employees who indicated that they participated in this program.
Page 30 of 34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report Demographic Questions Where do you work?
Headquarters Field What is y our supervisory status?
Non-Supervisor Team Leader Supervisor Manager Senior Leader Are you:
Male Female Are you Hispanic or Latino?
Yes No Race American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 1,449 651 69.0%
31.0%
1,621 109 220 76 61 77.7%
5.2%
10.5%
3.6%
2.9%
1,341 65.4%
708 34.6%
143 7.0%
1,891 93.0%
14 0.7%
164 8.4%
213 10.9%
7 0.4%
1,471 75.1%
89 4.5%
Page 31 of 34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report Demographic Questions (continued)
What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed?
Less than High School High School Diploma/GED or equivalent Trade or Technical Certificate Some College (no degree)
Associate's Degree (e.g., AA, AS)
Bachelor's Degree (e.g., BA, BS)
Master's Degree (e.g., MA, MS, MBA)
Doctoral/Professional Degree (e.g., Ph.D., MD, JD)
What is your pay category/grade?
Federal Wage System GS 1-6 GS 7-12 GS 13-15 Senior Executive Service Senior Level (SL) or Scientific or Professional (ST)
Other 0
0.0%
32 1.6%
8 0.4%
106 5.1%
43 2.1%
815 39.6%
809 39.3%
246 11.9%
0.0%
19 0.9%
202 9.8%
1,675 81.3%
99 4.8%
38 1.8%
27 1.3%
How long have you been with the Federal Government (excluding military service)? -
Less than l year 32 1.6%
1 to 3 years 162 7.9%
4 to 5 years 73 3.6%
6 to 10 years 616 30.0%
11 to 14 years 364 17.7%
15 to 20 years 224 10.9%
More than 20 years 584 28.4%
2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Page 32 of34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report Demographic Questions (continued)
How long have you been with your cu"ent agency (for example, Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency)?
Less than 1 year 38 1.8%
1 to 3 years 240 11.6%
4 to 5 years 89 4.3%
6 to 10 years 730 35.4%
11 to 20 years 551 26.7%
More than 20 years 415 20.1%
Are you considering leaving your organization within the next year, and if so, why?
No Yes, to retire Yes, to take another job within the Federal Government Yes, to take another job outside the Federal Government Yes, other I am planning to retire:
Within one year Between one and three years Between three and five years Five or more years Self-Identify as:
Heterosexual or Straight Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender I prefer not to say What is your US military service status?
No Prior Military Service Currently in National Guard or Reserves Retired Separated or Discharged 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 1,488 121 253 99 114 71.7%
5.8%
12.2%
4.8%
5.5%
90 197 239 1,532 4.4%
9.6%
11.6%
74.4%
1,653 41 260 84.6%
2.1%
13.3%
1,504 34 150 350 73.8%
1.7%
7.4%
17.2%
Page 33 of 34
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trend Report Demographic Questions (continued)
Are you an individual. with a disability?
Yes No What is your age group?
25 and under 26-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 174 8.5%
1,873 91.5%
28 1.3%
77 3.6%
439 20.4%
425 19.7%
752 34.9%
431 20.0%
Page 34 of34