MISSION: “We help people who change the world” Key processes include:

1. FINANCE & FACILITIES Administration • Capital Projects Office • Facilities Services • Financial Management • Treasury Group • University Audit Operational Performance DashboardDate updated: 03.11.2010 MISSION: “We help people who change the world” Key processes include: Value Resources Instill Customer Confidence Control Costs Manage Business Growth Manage Operational and Business Risk Synthesize Information and Inform Campus Manage Investment Portfolios Monitor Customer Satisfaction Manage Cost of Capital Internal Business Processes Staff Learning & Growth Advise and Consult Develop Staff Purchase Goods and Services Lead People Manage Workspace and Infrastructure Projects Operate and Maintain Buildings; Campus Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

2. Welcome to Finance & Facilities’ (F2) Operational Dashboard Linking F2’s strategy to operations is key to our success in meeting customer needs and managing our work. We have translated the objectives on our Strategy Map into a set of Key Processes. These processes can be monitored through a set of performance measures, which we call a dashboard, cast in the same four quadrants as our Strategy Map (Customer, Internal Business Process, Financial, and Staff Learning & Growth). Measures were selected from all functional areas in F2; some remain in development or are lacking targets. We continue to work on refining each of these measures, and the next dashboard will reflect improvements and adjustments. Green arrows within the measures indicate direction of desired change. Questions or comments may be directed to: F2MR@uw.edu Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

3. Finance & Facilities’ Strategy Map for 2008–2013 Mission Vision Values We are a global leaderable to deliver outstanding service anywhere, anytime • Collaboration • Integrity We help people who change the world • Diversity • Respect • Excellence • Teamwork • Innovation Value to You, Our Customer C.3 Provide clear, timely, accurate, consistent communications from knowledgeable staff C.2 Help solve complex University-wide problems C.1 Provide value for your money Improve Operational Excellence Attract and Retain a Talented and Diverse Staff O.3 Lead strategic UW-wide projects O.2 Develop customer value proposition S.1 Create and maintain collaborative relationships S.3 Develop individuals to their full potential O.1 Improve, streamline and innovate S.2 Enhance leadership effectiveness O.4 Champion environmental stewardship Enhance Resources R.1 Provide cost-effective services R.2 Build and maintainUW’s physical assets R.3 Increase and stewardUW’s financial assets Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu Adopted, March 25, 2008

4. FINANCE & FACILITIES • Administration •Capital Projects Office • Facilities Services • Financial Management • Treasury Group • UniversityAudit Operational Performance Dashboard

5. Measure #1: Student Fiscal Services (SFS)—Percent of Financial Aid Disbursed Within 1st Week of Academic Quarter (C.1) DESCRIPTION: Student Fiscal Services is responsible for disbursing aid to students that originates both through UW sources (e.g., departmental scholarships, aid packages awarded through the Office of Student Financial Aid, as well as external sources (e.g., private scholarships, VA awards, etc.) The sooner we can process and release the funds to students, the sooner they can pay their educational expenses. SFS seeks to disburse as much aid as possible during the first week of each quarter. Note: Figures reported are sensitive to data report timing issues, which results in values that can be slightly over- or under-stated by several percentage points. The scope of this variation is probably within +/- 5%. ANALYSIS: The percentage of aid dollars disbursed within the 1st week is relatively stable, yet showing improvement per quarter in each of the last four quarters. Autumn quarter is traditionally the highest volume of disbursements; this year’s performance shows significant improvement over the previous year’s Autumn quarter. SFS has seen the percentage disbursed during the 1st week increase, even as student numbers and award dollar volumes have increased (a total of $184 million was disbursed to students during Autumn quarter 2009, a 12% increase from the prior year). This is due in part, to staff hired within the past two years becoming fully integrated into current processes, as well as process improvements in customer communications (including outreach efforts), early notification to students to complete necessary paperwork (e.g., promissory notes), and overall improved internal processes. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

6. Measure #2: Grant & Contract Accounting (GCA); Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP)—Number of Business Days to Set up New Budgets (C.1) DESCRIPTION:This measure shows the average number of days to establish a new research-budget award in the UW Financial Systems. The 12-month average for January 2009 to December 2009 is 15 days.ANALYSIS: The implementation of SERA (System for Electronic Research Accounting) in January 2009, reflects the coordination of efforts of GCA (Grant and Contract Accounting) and OSP (Office of Sponsored Programs) to automate sharing of information. Elimination of doubled manual entry and hardcopy paper trails helped to decrease award setup time. SERA’s implementation supports the account set-up process that includes passage of data, specific award communication between OSP and GCA, and principal investigator/campus notification on account set-up completion. The average time to set up new budgets in GCA increased this period due to the influx of new awards the University is receiving under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The number of new budgets increased from 140 in April 2009 to 320 in September 2009. OSP is currently exploring why the average number of processing days increased in November and December 2009. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

7. Measure #3: Transportation Services—Transportation Modes to and from Campus (C.2) DESCRIPTION: UW Transportation Services compares commuting patterns at UW over time to measure success in reducing the social and environmental impacts of commuting by students, faculty and staff. ANALYSIS: Since the 1983 agreement between the City of Seattle and UW, the University’s ability to grow the Seattle Campus has been limited by its ability to stay within specific thresholds for daily traffic volumes and parking capacity on campus. With the future of the U-PASS program threatened by rapidly increasing transit costs, it is expected that participation in “reduced impact” modes will decline. Our strategy will be two-fold: to sustain the U-PASS value proposition and to enhance “carbon neutral” offerings. In this way, we can experience continued success in mitigating the highest impact behavior: drive-alone commuting. UW continues to be one of the “best in class” schools relative to promoting alternative transportation options. Target = 20% ? Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

8. Measure #4: Facilities Services (FS)—Customer perception, “FS employees effectively communicate with me”; 2009 Customer Survey (C.3) DESCRIPTION: Results measure effectiveness of day-to-day/transactional communications from the perspective of customers across all major functions in Facilities Services. Surveys were conducted in summer 2009. Percentage reflects number of responses in top two boxes (4, 5 out of 5), divided by the total number of responses. The “Key Client Group” represents top-box satisfaction of Campus key administrators and managers, who were surveyed separately. A total of 8,488 online surveys were completed, with a 26% response rate. In other areas of Finance & Facilities, customer-satisfaction surveys are underway, and will be presented in the next F2 Dashboard. ANALYSIS: Satisfaction levels on this baseline survey are in the “above-average” range; specific stretch targets will be identified for each service. The responses from the key-client group were significantly lower than from any other group. Communication plans will target improvements in this area. Overall customer-satisfaction targets are compared to benchmark data from the APPA* Facilities Performance Index 2008 survey in these comparative groups (UW is included in each): Overall (all schools) (72%); Carnegie “research very high” schools (68%); Public universities (73%); Pacific region schools (71%); and Schools with enrollment over 20,000 (69%)—UW’s 2009 overall satisfaction score is 4.02, or 80.4% satisfied. New APPA data will be available for the next reporting period. 72% target, 2011 Total % in Top Box Survey Populations * APPA—Peer organization of professionals in educational-institution Facilities Management Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

9. Measure #5: Capital Projects Office (CPO)—Client Advisory Committee Quarterly Survey Results (C.1) Client Advisory Committee members are process partners and key customers on all UW campuses (Bothell, Seattle, Tacoma) DESCRIPTION: A quarterly satisfaction survey is conducted at the end of every Client Advisory Committee meeting. “Project Leadership,” “Process Management” and “Adding Value” are evaluated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being highest (most positive). The current target is 7 for each category, with a stretch goal of 9 by 2014. This graph depicts the data converted from the 10-point survey scale to a 1-to-5-point Likert scale, so as to conform to the F2-wide measurement system. In the same vein, the 7-point target is converted to 3.5. ANALYSIS: The last four quarterly scores were obtained from CPO clients who attended Client Advisory Committee meetings. Project Leadership is on the rise, but Process Management and Adding Value are trending slightly down over the past 3 quarters. The survey average for all categories is 3.3, or 0.2 below the target. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

10. Measure #6: Student Fiscal Services (SFS)—Student Overall Satisfaction with SFS Services (C.3) DESCRIPTION: Student Fiscal Services (SFS) conducts an annual survey each spring to gauge student satisfaction with services delivered either online, or via in-person assistance. The survey is likewise made available online, or in paper form, in the SFS student services location. We interpret scores in the “top two” boxes (e.g., 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) as “satisfied with services.” This is benchmarked against the AAU Bursars “customer satisfaction” rating of 64% top box. ANALYSIS: Strategies deployed and process improvements implemented since 2008 have resulted in a dramatic shift in “overall satisfaction” ratings. Our improvements have included: simplified signage, a restructured web site, enhanced internal communications, refreshed customer service training, and increased responsiveness to customer-initiated communications. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

11. Measure #7: Annual Productivity: F2 versus DOL Benchmark DESCRIPTION: Measure for departmental productivity, F2 data represent work outputs per FTE; DOL data represent outputs per employee work-hour across all non-farm and non-manufacturing sectors. Data points show year-on-year productivity change at end of fiscal year. ANALYSIS: Depending on F2 organizational alignment, data may be available back to 1990, depending on work unit team or department. F2 units are revisiting baseline data by identifying appropriate work outputs and consistent methods for assessing FTEs (e.g., temporary and part-time workers, etc.). Large fluctuations in the F2 productivity compared to DOL are likely due to the granularity of the small sample size vs. the dampening effect of the much-larger averages in the DOL data. Drops in F2 productivity may be due to adding staff in the 2003, and 2006-7 timeframes. Benchmark: Department of Labor > Bureau of Labor Statistics > Productivity > Major Sector Productivity and Costs Index Private Business Output per Hour of All Persons - MPU490003 (more formatting options > annual percent change) http://www.bls.gov/data/ Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

12. Measure #8: Financial Services—Number of Invoice Discrepancies Over 30 Days Old DESCRIPTION:This measure quantifies the number of vendor invoices in discrepancy status for more than 30 days within Accounts Payable. Please note that 50 discrepancies was chosen as a “stretch” target. ANALYSIS:To resolve these outstanding discrepancies, the original Purchase Order or the actual invoice must be modified (or the invoice itself must be approved) before payment can occur. This process can take time, as it requires a coordinated effort between the Purchasing Department, the UW department that placed the order, and Financial Services. This measure shows excellent results in reduction of discrepancies that are not resolved within 30 days, due to changes in prioritization of this resolution process as well as improvements in tracking via Lamont (new system solution) and improved Purchasing/Payables communication. Many of these transactions could have been made through eCommerce methods. As we continue to migrate small-dollar transactions to eCommerce, this measure should reach target. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

13. Measure #9: Financial Services—Percent of Online Invoices Paid Within 45 Days of Invoice Date (O.1) DESCRIPTION:Identifies the number of days between the invoice date and the invoice-payment date. ANALYSIS:Research and analysis by the Accounts Payable (AP) Customer Service Project and the Seamless Utilization Task Group (UTG#1) shows that over 60% of invoices are mailed by vendors to the ordering department rather than to AP. The delay of delivery to AP increases the likelihood of payment in more than 30 days from date of the invoice. This measure is also impacted by the time required to resolve invoice discrepancies.NEXT STEPS:AP strives to improve the expedited process for aging invoices coming from campus and vendors. AP and Purchasing continue to make improvements to the invoice discrepancy resolution process. Also, more importantly, we continue to explore alternative payment methods for the invoices that are still coming through AP. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

14. Measure #10: Capital Projects Office—Closed Projects, Cost vs. Budget (O.1) DESCRIPTION: Graphs indicate composite of budgeted dollars for capital projects (over $5M) and smaller projects (under $5M) vs. actual dollars expended, by calendar year. In all cases, projects were not assessed until closed, when all charges and invoices had been reconciled. ANALYSIS: For capital projects over $5M in 2009, actual vs. budgeted amounts were 8.4% under budget, very near a +/- 10% benchmark. Unused funds are returned to the clients. Note there were significantly fewer projects of this magnitude completed during this year, compared to 2008. For projects under $5M, end-of-year activity shows we were under budget, within 6.0% of our allocation—again, within the +/- 10% benchmark. Volume in this area was significantly higher in 2009 than in 2008— 67% more projects—and higher than any of the previous 5 years. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

15. Measure #11: Facilities Services—Carbon Footprint Reduction, Scope 1 and 2 Emissions (O.4) DESCRIPTION: Cumulative reduction in actual greenhouse gas emissions for UW Seattle, Tacoma and Bothell in Scope 1 and 2 emissions. (Breakout categories that define specific emissions appear on the next page.) ANALYSIS: For the 12-month period ending December 2009, the annual MgCO2e decreased by 2.4% compared to baseline, a decrease of 2,864 MgCO2e. For reporting purposes, we are now displaying Scope 1 and 2 separately from Scope 3. For this period, the MgCO2e was lower in all categories, except for Tacoma, which is probably due to Assembly Hall coming on line in late 2008. The decreases in the Power Plant, Seattle buildings, Other, and Bothell categories were due to the decrease in Heating Degree Days, down 4.4%. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

16. Measure #11: Facilities Services—Scope 1 & 2, cont. (detailed breakouts) (0.9% of Scope 1&2) Other (0.1% of Scope 1&2) (0.6% of Scope 1&2) (0.2% of Scope 1&2) (0.0% of Scope 1 & 2) (1.0% of Scope 1&2) Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

17. Measure #11: Facilities Services—Carbon Footprint Reduction, Scope 3 Emissions (O.4) DESCRIPTION: Cumulative reduction in actual greenhouse gas emissions for UW Seattle, Tacoma and Bothell in Scope 3 emissions, which include commuting, professional travel, Harborview, and the National Primate Research Center-Western Ave. Facility. ANALYSIS: For the 12-month period ending September 2009, the annual MgCO2e decreased by 5.3% compared to the previous period—a decrease of 4,792 MgCO2e. For the 12-month period ending FY10-Q1 the annual MgCO2e decreased by 11.9% compared to the 12-month period ending FY08-Q4, or a decrease of 10,664 MgCO2e. The baseline number for FY08-Q4 was 89,621 MgCO2e. The largest reduction came from Seattle campus commuting, which was down 9.9%, or 8,872 MgCO2e . Student commuting was down 16.5% , faculty commuting was down 18.7%, and staff commuting was down 23.9%. The faculty percentage decrease was due to a drop in positions, the student commuting decrease was due to a change in commuting habits, and the staff commuting decrease was a combination of a drop in positions and a change in commuting habits. Seattle Steam has recently started burning wood waste, which is applicable to Harborview’s steam use. The State has not finalized its guidelines for calculating wood waste emissions, which may reduce Harborview’s carbon emissions from purchased steam. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

18. Measure #11: Facilities Services—Scope 3,cont. (detailed breakouts) HNC & HNC & NPRC-Western (1.2% of Scope 3) Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

19. Measure #12: Facilities Services—Water and Energy Conservation, Seattle Campus (O.4) Seattle Campus Average Daily Water Consumption DESCRIPTION: This measure tracks average daily water usage across the Seattle campus for building, utility, and site activities. Partnerships and targeted water-saving projects have enabled our success in surpassing the target. ANALYSIS: The target is 1% reduced consumption, to 1,188,000 gallons per day (gpd). The average daily water consumption for this quarter was 1,123,000 gpd. This measure contributes to success on other utilities-savings measures, as it is related to overall utilities consumption reduction. This measure displays a rolling 12-month average to accommodate seasonal variability due to irrigation and the academic calendar. September data included increased consumption for irrigation, and filling of the IMA Pool and Drumheller Fountain. gpd Average Daily Energy Consumption per GSF in BTU DESCRIPTION: This measure tracks average daily electricity usage—measured in British Thermal Units (BTUs) per gross square foot (gsf) across Seattle campus ANALYSIS: The FY09 target was 1% reduced consumption, to 538.5 btu/gsf. Average daily consumption for the last 12 months was 510 btu/gsf/day (normalized for heating-degree days). This reflects a 6% decrease from the baseline. Further improvements are anticipated from partnering with Seattle City Light to re-audit campus buildings to identify energy-saving opportunities for lighting and controls. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

20. Measure #13: Percent of Minority and/or Women Owned Business Enterprises (M/WBE) and SBA firms in eProcurement/Diverse Supplier Portal DESCRIPTION: This measure illustrates the usage of UW’s supplier portal by eligible minority- and/or women-owned businesses. The Business Diversity Program (BDP) helps strengthen the economic development and viability of small, minority and women-owned businesses while helping to ensure that the University receives quality goods and services at competitive prices. ANALYSIS: The goal is to migrate all eligible purchases from the Purchasing Accounts Payable System (PAS) to eCommerce. This will save the University time, money and effort in accordance with Financial Management's strategic objective to streamline the Procure-to-Pay process. There are currently 8 firms that are either certified M/WBE or SBA (U.S. Small Business Administration) available in UW eProcurement or the Contracted Diverse and Local Supplier Portal. The Diverse and Local Supplier Portal was created in September 2008 in partnership with UW eCommerce and is intended to allow UW staff easy access to a variety of diverse and local small businesses that have secured contract pricing with the UW. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

21. Measure #14: Facilities Services—Annual Utilities Cost Avoidance, Seattle Campus (R.1) • DESCRIPTION: • Facilities Services (FS) tracks consumption reductions from campus utility providers, and computes costs avoided based on four major components: a series of agreements with SCL for retrofit projects that guaranteed usage savings over time (carried forward each year); ESCO energy-savings projects with guaranteed usage savings (carried forward each year); consumption changes since initiatives began being introduced in 2001; and landfill charges avoided by recycling tonnage diverted from the waste-stream. • ANALYSIS: • Despite growth in student, staff and faculty populations and campus square footage, UW-Seattle continues to avoid significant utility costs. Contributing factors include more efficient equipment and systems, process improvements and adoption of “green” practices, which—over the years—have included: • Installing new and retrofitted equipment; • Using computerized irrigation systems; • Installing high-efficiency lighting and motion sensors and conducting lighting studies; • Partnering with utility companies; • Modifying campus indoor air-temperature standards; and • Installing more efficient boilers in the Power Plant. • Approximately $65M has been avoided from UW Seattle campus utility costs since 2001 due to these improvements. Overall, FS estimates avoidance of $76M since 1996. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

22. Measure #15: Cost of (Leased) Space per Square Foot (R.1) • DESCRIPTION: • This new measure shows UW’s negotiated lease rates per square foot as compared to average market rates in the local markets where leases are signed. From this point on, data will be trended by quarter. • ANALYSIS: UW’s Real Estate Office (REO) uses a portfolio-composition rating factor to determine an average weighted rate (over the space types) of $32.44/sq. ft. A similar weighting is used for the market portfolio, which for this quarter, averages $33.15/sq. ft. UW’s current performance is 2 percent below market. Our longer term goal is 10 percent below market. UW’s weighted avg: $32.44/sf Market weighted avg: $33.15/sf UW is 2% below market Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

23. Measure #16: Mailing Services—U. S. Postal Service (USPS) Postage Cost Avoidance (R.1) DESCRIPTION: The UW mail automation program captures daily savings through automation discount mail programs as defined by the United States Postal Service (USPS). The top chart shows total cost avoidance (blue bar) adjacent to total eligible postage (red bar). The bottom chart tracks percentage saved from total postage. The target is 8.5 percent. ANALYSIS: We recognize the decline in postage avoidance as a combination of different factors. These include increased usage of electronic communications, changing communication methods, budgetary limitations, and decrease in postage discount rates offered by the USPS. Cumulative postage avoidance since 2002/2003 to date is approximately $2.5M. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

24. Measure #17: Payroll—Cost-per-Paycheck (R.1) DESCRIPTION: Over 90% of active employees receive their paychecks using direct deposit, reducing the average cost per paycheck. This measure compares our internal cost to produce a paycheck with other peer institutions in the University of California system. ANALYSIS: An average enrollment for direct deposit is 80% among most universities. The cost per paycheck is based on the number of paychecks the institution produces each year. The frequency of an institution’s pay cycle can affect the cost per unit. UW Payroll process improvements and increased efficiencies such as Employee Self Service have helped decrease the cost per check. Employees can now securely perform functions previously managed by Payroll staff, such as retrieving and changing personal account information on-line. In 2006 and 2008, Payroll conducted customer satisfaction surveys. In 2008, approximately 400 UW payroll coordinators were surveyed ,with a response rate of approximately 40%. The next survey is expected in summer 2010. Also, Payroll is targeting coordinators and other Campus administrative personnel in the Financial Management Customer Satisfaction Survey, currently underway. Target = 2.25 Average cost per paycheck for displayed California schools Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

25. Measure #18: Purchasing Services—eCommerce Utilization Rate (R.3) Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

26. Measure #19: Custodial Services—Cost Comparison per Gross Square Foot (GSF); GSF Maintained per Custodial FTE (R.2) • DESCRIPTION: • This measure compares UW’s 2008 costs for custodial services per square foot with similar Global Challenge peer institutions (state flagship universities with medical schools), which also participate in APPA, a professional association of facilities administrators, primarily at universities and colleges. • ANALYSIS: • Although the University’s cost per gross square foot (GSF) is lower than overall average cost per GSF (when compared to the Global Challenge peers and the entire group of 211 institutions), UW’s self-reported service levels are at level-2, the second highest level of cleanliness) through the period reported. • Overall average GSF cost for all APPA institutions is $1.41 • Overall average GSF cost for Global Challenge peers is $1.53 • UW’s GSF cost is $1.29 • Data are provided by APPA via the Facilities Performance Index (FPI) survey. UW participates in the survey every two years, which is a benchmark study of 170 schools, colleges, universities and other entities focused on performance improvement in facilities management. New APPA benchmark data will be available in March. • * FTE refers to full-time equivalent employees Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

27. Measure #20 DRAFT: Risk Management—Cost of Risk (R.3) DESCRIPTION: Chart shows the total cost of risk to the UW per $1 of operating expenses. ANALYSIS: TBD Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

28. Measure #21: Treasury—Consolidated Endowment Fund (CEF) Performance Returns (R.3) DESCRIPTION: The CEF supports University programs as designated by its donors. Programs supported by the Endowment distributions include scholarships, fellowships, professorships, chairs, and research activities. The CEF consists of over 3,100 separate endowments. ANALYSIS: Endowment (and Invested Funds) reports and analysis may be found at: http://f2.washington.edu/treasury/cef/reports Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

29. Measure #21: Treasury—Invested Funds (IF) Performance Returns (R.3) DESCRIPTION: “Invested Funds” is the term used to describe the investment portfolio that includes the operating funds of the University, which are invested daily. ANALYSIS: Quarterly Invested Funds (and Endowment) reports and analysis may be found at: http://f2.washington.edu/treasury/cef/reports Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

30. Measure #22: Cost of Debt Description: The University of Washington’s Internal Lending Program (ILP) makes loans to internal borrowers at a uniform lending rate. These internal loans are funded through the issuance of University General Revenue debt obligations or through ILP reserves.  The diagram below outlines the relationship between the University's internal borrowers, the Internal Lending Program, and the external debt market: Analysis: TBD ILP = External Non-ILP=Internal Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

31. Measure #23: Finance & Facilities—Percentage of staff highly satisfied with Collaboration (4, 5); 2009 Employee Survey, "I am part of a team working toward shared goals.“ (S.1) Description: F2 conducted a suite of employee satisfaction surveys in spring 2009. The overall response rate was 75%; or 1,170 employees. The survey used a Likert scale (1-5); the “percentage of highly satisfied” refers to the combined percentages of 4s and 5s, or “top box.” Analysis: The “BRL norm” reflects our survey vendor’s composite average top-box scores for the hundreds of companies that complete the same/similar survey. For most questions, UW scores are comparable to the BRL norm. The green line indicates our stretch goal—a composite average score reflecting the “best places to work” in the Northwest. (Fortune Magazine and “Glassdoor.com” compile an annual list of the top 100 companies to work for; our list is made up of companies on both lists that scored 3.3 (out of 5)). The average score for these 8 companies is 3.775, which we apply to each question, assuming that these each of these is strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, and contributes to employees’ engagement within F2’s functional areas. We believe these companies are our “competitors” in recruiting the engaged, talented employees who make up our workforce. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

32. Measure #24: Finance & Facilities—Percentage of staff highly satisfied with Internal Communication (4, 5); 2009 Employee Survey, “The Division’s communications keep me up to date on the Division.”(S.1) Description: F2 conducted a suite of employee satisfaction surveys in spring 2009. The overall response rate was 75%; or 1,170 employees. The survey used a Likert scale (1-5); the “percentage of highly satisfied” refers to the combined percentages of 4s and 5s, or “top box.” Analysis: The “BRL norm” reflects our survey vendor’s composite average top-box scores for the hundreds of companies that complete the same/similar survey. For most questions, UW scores are comparable to the BRL norm. The green line indicates our stretch goal—a composite average score reflecting the “best places to work” in the Northwest. (Fortune Magazine and “Glassdoor.com” compile an annual list of the top 100 companies to work for; our list is made up of companies on both lists that scored 3.3 (out of 5)). The average score for these 8 companies is 3.775, which we apply to each question, assuming that these each of these is strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, and contributes to employees’ engagement within F2’s functional areas. Current actions include tasking an employee team from across F2 units to conduct focus groups on communication. “Drop-in sessions” for staff and managers highlight root causes and issues that may had led to comparatively lower scores. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

33. Measure #25: Finance & Facilities—Percentage of staff highly satisfied with Leadership (4, 5); 2009 Employee Survey, "I have confidence in the overall leadership…" (S.2) Description: F2 conducted a suite of employee satisfaction surveys in spring 2009. The overall response rate was 75%; or 1170 employees. The survey used a Likert scale (1-5); the “percentage of highly satisfied” refers to the combined percentages of 4s and 5s, or “top box.” Analysis: The “BRL norm” reflects our survey vendor’s composite average top-box scores for the hundreds of companies that complete the same/similar survey. For most questions, UW scores are comparable to the BRL norm. The green line indicates our stretch goal—a composite average score reflecting the “best places to work” in the Northwest. (Fortune Magazine and “Glassdoor.com” compile an annual list of the top 100 companies to work for; our list is made up of companies on both lists that scored 3.3 (out of 5)). The average score for these 8 companies is 3.775, which we apply to each question, assuming that these each of these is strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, and contributes to employees’ engagement within F2’s functional areas. We believe these companies are our “competitors” in recruiting the engaged, talented employees who make up our workforce. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

34. Measure #26: Finance & Facilities—Percentage of staff highly satisfied with Development to Full Potential (4, 5); 2009 Employee Survey, “I have opportunities to learn and grow.” (S.3) Description: F2 conducted a suite of employee satisfaction surveys in spring 2009. The overall response rate was 75%; or 1170 employees. The survey used a Likert scale (1-5); the “percentage of highly satisfied” refers to the combined percentages of 4s and 5s, or “top box.” Analysis: The “BRL norm” reflects our survey vendor’s composite average top-box scores for the hundreds of companies that complete the same/similar survey. For most questions, UW scores are comparable to the BRL norm. The green line indicates our stretch goal—a composite average score reflecting the “best places to work” in the Northwest. (Fortune Magazine and “Glassdoor.com” compile an annual list of the top 100 companies to work for; our list is made up of companies on both lists that scored 3.3 (out of 5)). The average score for these 8 companies is 3.775, which we apply to each question, assuming that these each of these is strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, and contributes to employees’ engagement within F2’s functional areas. We believe these companies are our “competitors” in recruiting the engaged, talented employees who make up our workforce. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

35. Measure #27: Finance & Facilities—Percent of staff highly satisfied (4, 5); 2009 Employee Survey "overall satisfaction" question (S.3) Description: F2 conducted a suite of employee satisfaction surveys in spring 2009. The overall response rate was 75%; or 1170 employees. The survey used a Likert scale (1-5); the “percentage of highly satisfied” refers to the combined percentages of 4s and 5s, or “top box.” Analysis: The “BRL norm” reflects our survey vendor’s composite average top-box scores for the hundreds of companies that complete the same/similar survey. For most questions, UW scores are comparable to the BRL norm. The green line indicates our stretch goal—a composite average score reflecting the “best places to work” in the Northwest. (Fortune Magazine and “Glassdoor.com” compile an annual list of the top 100 companies to work for; our list is made up of companies on both lists that scored 3.3 (out of 5)). The average score for these 8 companies is 3.775, which we apply to each question, assuming that these each of these is strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, and contributes to employees’ engagement within F2’s functional areas. We believe these companies are our “competitors” in recruiting the engaged, talented employees who make up our workforce. Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

36. Glossary Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

37. Glossary Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

38. Glossary Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu

39. Glossary Report Contact: F2MR@uw.edu