nacufs cs 2016 report - boilerplate part 1 packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · nacufs cs 2016 report -...

154
Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report prepared exclusively for: California Polytechnic University, Pomona CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2017. The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Upload: others

Post on 22-Sep-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report prepared exclusively for:

California Polytechnic University, Pomona

CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2017. The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 2: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016
Page 3: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey About This Report

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. i

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey report is designed to assist your institution’s decision-makers in measuring, evaluating and benchmarking the characteristics, needs and opinions of your customers with regard to the food services they receive from your institution. In addition to providing an overall picture of your institution’s performance in terms of customer satisfaction, this report is also designed to provide a detailed look at the satisfaction ratings of your individual all you care to eat (dining hall) and retail establishments, as well as the overall aggregated results of the other NACUFS institutions that conducted this survey.

The ultimate goal of the report is to assist you and your institution in providing the best possible service to your customers.

The survey and this subsequent report focus on such key issues as:

Demographics of the customers, including respondent type (student, faculty, administration/staff and other); student class status (first year, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate or other); gender; and housing arrangements (on campus/university-owned housing or off campus)

Demographics of the institution, including NACUFS region, institution type (public/private, two-year/four-year), number of students enrolled, and type of operation (self-operated/contracted/both)

General satisfaction with the overall dining services provided

Importance of various food service factors, such as food, menu, service, cleanliness, dining environment and environmental stewardship/sustainability

Satisfaction with these food service factors. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

For the 17th consecutive year, this study was conducted by Industry Insights, Inc., an independent research firm headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Although NACUFS was deeply involved in the set-up and design of the questionnaire and study, it is important to note that

no one at NACUFS will ever see your institution’s survey results unless you decide to show them.

The confidentiality of your data is 100% guaranteed.

The research instrument used for this survey was designed based on the extensive input of representatives from various NACUFS member institutions to ensure the information gathered would be relevant and useful (a copy of the survey form can be found in this report’s Appendix).

Since 2004, members have had the option of choosing to administer their survey online. Of the 101 schools that used the survey in 2016, 81 chose this option, thus avoiding significant printing and shipping costs, as well as “going green.”

These online schools distributed unique identifiers (usually via e-mail) to their students, staff and faculty, allowing respondents to access a central survey website. This online system permitted respondents to rate as many locations as they wished and was customized for each participating institution, showing only their school’s dining establishments.

This online option provided several advantages, including considerable cost savings over the traditional printed methodology, as well as increased convenience on the part of the respondent. In addition, the open-ended comments provided by online respondents are sent to the schools in an electronic format for easier analysis.

E-mails with a link to the website or paper forms, as appropriate, were distributed by the participating institutions in late October and into November. Completed paper forms were shipped by the schools directly to Industry Insights, where the data from the questionnaires were scanned electronically for processing and checks were run to ensure data validity. Online responses went directly to an Industry Insights server.

The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, 25 operating characteristics as they applied to that particular dining facility in general, without regard to any specific meal.

Page 4: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey About This Report

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. ii

The 25 operating characteristics measured were:

Food: Overall Taste Eye appeal Freshness Nutritional content Value

Menu: Availability of posted menu items Variety of menu choices Variety of healthy menu choices Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Service: Overall Speed of service Hours of operation Helpfulness of staff Friendliness of staff

Cleanliness: Overall Serving areas Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Dining Environment: Location Layout of facility Appearance Availability of seating Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Environmental Stewardship/Sustainability: Environmentally friendly practices related to food Social/ethical practices related to food

All told, 101 institutions took part in this year’s survey, and 129,062 useable questionnaires were submitted to Industry Insights for processing. Forms that had less than a minimal number of response fields completed were removed from the sample. Also, unless otherwise noted, responses of “Not Applicable” have been removed from the survey data.

The results displayed in this report for your institution include all reasonably complete and usable forms that were returned, regardless of whether required minimum quantities for a particular location(s) were met.

HOW TO USE THIS DATA

Definition of Rating Scales

Unless otherwise noted, “mean rating” figures throughout this report are based on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1=very dissatisfied/not at all important, 2=somewhat dissatisfied/not very important, 3=mixed, 4=somewhat satisfied/somewhat important, and 5=very satisfied/very important.

Sampling Error

To assist in analysis of the survey results, the “Sampling Error” (also known as the “Standard Error of the Mean”) is shown for each mean rating score in the Detailed Survey Results tables.

The Sampling Error is important in that it shows the extent to which the sample mean rating (based on those who responded to the survey) is a statistically accurate predictor of the population mean rating (that is, all people who use the institution’s dining halls and retail units).

About two-thirds (68.2%) of all sample means will be within one Sampling Error (or Standard Error) of the population mean, while 95.4% of all sample means will be within two Sampling Errors of the population mean, and 99.7% of all sample means will be within three Sampling Errors of the population mean.

In other words, if your institution were to repeat this survey 100 times on the same population, 68 of those times, the sample mean would be within one Sampling Error of the population mean, 95 times it would be within two Sampling Errors, and it would almost always be within three Sampling Errors of the population mean.

In the example below, XYZ University had a mean satisfaction rating of 3.99 with regard to “Food: Overall” and a Sampling Error of .09. This means that XYZ can be 95% confident that the population mean satisfaction is between 3.81 and 4.17.

Food: Overall XYZ

Sample Mean

Sampling Error

95% Confidence

(2 x Sampling Error)

Range

3.99 .09 .18 3.81 to 4.17

An important, and intuitive, implication is that the more surveys received, the lower the Sampling Error, and thus the more accurate the prediction of the overall population mean.

Page 5: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey About This Report

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. iii

REPORT ORGANIZATION

To make this report meaningful and informative, yet easy to use, it has been divided into three main sections: “Industry Overview,” “Executive Summary,” and “Detailed Survey Results.”

The “Industry Overview” presents a user-friendly summary of the survey’s overall findings, based on the aggregated data from all participating institutions (“Entire Sample”). This section shows the demographic make-up of the institutions that participated in the study and provides a look at how these institutions fared overall in terms of customer satisfaction.

Members asked for survey improvements, and NACUFS listened…

The “Executive Summary” is an important enhancement to the report that was added based on extensive feedback from NACUFS members. This section includes…

Predictors of Overall Satisfaction Priority Matrixes Comparative Tables Three Year Trend Data Location-specific Results

These additions to the report will be described in further detail at the beginning of the Executive Summary.

NACUFS is continually striving to provide its members with the information they need to successfully run their operations, and the Executive Summary is a result of this commitment to member satisfaction.

The “Detailed Survey Results” section, as the name suggests, presents the survey data in greater detail, showing both the frequency distributions and mean results for your institution and the entire sample broken down by various respondent and institutional characteristics. Note that the first table in this section shows the demographics characteristics of your survey’s respondents. The first row of this table shows the total number of useable submissions your survey received. The number of responses shown for

subsequent questions may be less than this total since not all respondents answered all questions. ABOUT THE STUDY

It is believed the data presented in this report represent a valid cross-section of your customers and is representative of the customers in total, within the statistical limits discussed above. However, the statistical validity of responses for any given question varies somewhat depending on sample sizes and the demographics of response. Industry Insights, therefore, makes no representations or warranties with respect to the results of this study and shall not be liable to NACUFS, your institution or anyone else for any informational inaccuracies, errors, or omissions in content.

At the completion of this project, all paper questionnaires received by Industry Insights will be returned to their institutions so the open-ended comments that respondents gave can be examined. Institutions utilizing the online form will receive their comments electronically. CONTACT INFORMATION

Participating institutions that wish to have Industry Insights run special customized reports based on the survey data should please contact:

Steve Kretzer e-mail: [email protected]

(614) 389-2100 ext 106 Industry Insights, Inc.

6235 Emerald Parkway Dublin, OH 43016

Please address any questions you may have regarding the report or data compilation to either Steve Kretzer (see contact info above) or Shannon McLaughlin of NACUFS (517) 332-2494 email: [email protected].

NACUFS and Industry Insights, Inc., are pleased to provide you with this report and hope you will find it most useful.

Page 6: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey About This Report

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. iv

The table below shows the names of the dining halls and retail establishments that your institution surveyed. Throughout the Executive Summary and Detailed Survey Results sections of this report, the dining halls and retail establishments are referred to by their corresponding number from this table.

Dining Halls Retail Establishments 1 Los Olivos Dining Commons 1 Carls Jr. at Campus Center Marketplace 2 2 Fresh Escape Jamba Express at Campus

Center Marketplace 3 3 Jamba Juice at the BRIC 4 4 Peets Freshens at BSC 5 5 International Grounds at Campus Center

Marketplace 6 6 Innovation Brew Works 7 7 Hibachi San at BSC 8 8 Panda Express at Campus Center

Marketplace 9 9 Poly Fresh Market at BSC 10 10 Pony Express Market at Campus Center

Marketplace 11 11 Einsteins Bagels at The College of Business 12 12 Pony Express Market at The College of

Business 13 13 Round Table Pizza at BSC 14 14 Starbucks at the Library 15 15 Subway at BSC 16 16 Taco Bell at Campus Center Marketplace 17 17 The Den by Dennys at the Suites 18 18 Vista Market at the Suites 19 19 QDoba at BSC 20 20 Poly Trolley Food Truck

NACUFS Regions: Continental

Alberta, Colorado, Idaho, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Mid-Atlantic Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Midwest Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin

Northeast Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec

Pacific Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Australia, China, Fiji, Mexico, New Zealand

Southern Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands

Page 7: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

Industry Overview

Page 8: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016
Page 9: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 1

The overall results of the 2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey are outlined below. Users of this information should bear in mind that because studies of this type measure perceptions and attitudes in addition to concrete facts, a certain amount of bias may have been introduced based on how individual respondents might have interpreted specific questions. The questions asked in this study were designed and phrased to be as clear and unambiguous as possible; it is therefore believed any such biases are minimal and the data reported are representative of the overall universe.

Respondent Demographics - All Schools

To provide context, the demographic makeup of the entire survey’s respondents for 2012 through 2016 can be seen in the graphs below. As shown, the demographic characteristics of the individual respondents have remained consistent across the past five survey years. (All sample sizes shown are based on the 2016 survey results.)

1%

4%

9%

86%

1%

4%

10%

85%

1%

3%

9%

87%

1%

3%

11%

85%

1%

3%

9%

87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Faculty

Administration/Staff

Student

Respondent TypeSample Size = 128,794

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

1%

5%

15%

17%

23%

39%

1%

6%

16%

17%

22%

38%

1%

6%

16%

18%

22%

37%

1%

7%

16%

17%

21%

38%

1%

6%

14%

16%

21%

42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Other

Graduate

Senior

Junior

Sophomore

First year

Student Class StatusSample Size = 111,726

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

0%

0%

39%

60%

1%

0%

39%

60%

1%

0%

41%

58%

1%

0%

39%

59%

1%

0%

39%

60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other Identity

Transgender

Male

Female

Respondent Gender Identity ("Identity" new in 2012)Sample Size = 128,232

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

60%

40%

59%

41%

59%

41%

58%

42%

62%

38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

On campus

Off campus

Live…Sample Size = 127,330 2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Page 10: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 2

Institutional Demographics – All Schools (based on total responses received) Demographic characteristics of the participating institutions are displayed below. The figures shown are based on the percentage of total responses that came from institutions of that type. For example, 17% of all questionnaires received in 2016 came from institutions in the Northeast Region, while 78% came from mainly self-operated institutions and 99% came from primarily four-year colleges. Of the 129,062 useable survey responses received, 45.5% were for dining halls, while the remaining 54.5% were for retail units. Of the retail unit types, food courts (34%) and express units (23%) received the highest number of surveys.

11%

10%

25%

19%

21%

14%

11%

11%

27%

17%

16%

17%

11%

8%

25%

19%

19%

18%

9%

8%

25%

22%

17%

19%

13%

9%

29%

17%

16%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Continental

Mid-Atlantic

Midwest

Northeast

Pacific

Southern

NACUFS RegionSample Size = 129,062

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2%

14%

8%

14%

20%

18%

26%

0%

12%

6%

14%

24%

14%

30%

0%

14%

6%

13%

24%

10%

34%

0%

11%

6%

14%

25%

12%

31%

0%

13%

4%

14%

23%

12%

34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

No type given

Convenience Store

Sit-down Restaurant

Specialty Coffee Shop/JuiceBar

Express Unit

Marketplace

Food Court

Type of Retail UnitSample Size = 70,373

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

4%

96%

1%

99%

4%

96%

3%

97%

1%

99%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Primarily 2-year

Primarily 4-year

Institution TypeSample Size = 129,062

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

3%

16%

81%

2%

22%

76%

5%

25%

71%

3%

21%

76%

1%

21%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Combination ofBoth

Mainly Contracted

Mainly Self-operated

Operation TypeSample Size = 129,062

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Page 11: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 3

5%

20%

25%

50%

3%

28%

21%

48%

4%

24%

30%

41%

5%

20%

32%

43%

5%

23%

28%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,000

10,001 to 20,000

Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment (Fulltime + Part-time Students)Sample Size = 129,062

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

74%

26%

77%

23%

77%

23%

77%

23%

75%

25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Public

Private

Institution TypeSample Size = 129,062 2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Satisfaction Ratings

As shown below, the mean (average) level of satisfaction with the participating institutions’ dining services reached its highest level of the past five years (3.92 on the five-point scale, where 1 = low and 5 = high satisfaction, versus 3.81 in 2015). In fact, this year’s mean satisfaction level was the highest reported in the survey’s 17 years. Overall, almost three-quarters of the valid respondents (73%) were very or somewhat satisfied with their institution’s dining services in 2016.

4%

7%

17%

41%

32%

4%

8%

17%

40%

31%

4%

7%

18%

40%

30%

4%

8%

19%

40%

28%

3%

6%

17%

41%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

(2) Somewhat Dissatisfied

(3) Mixed

(4) Somewhat Satisfied

(5) Very Satisfied

In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the dining services provided by your college/university?

Sample Size = 108,903

2016 Mean = 3.92

2015 Mean = 3.81

2014 Mean = 3.84

2013 Mean = 3.85

2012 Mean = 3.90

Page 12: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 4

In addition to rating their overall satisfaction with their institutions’ dining services, the respondents were also asked to rate the importance of specific dining attributes and their satisfaction with each attribute. The results are summarized beginning below.

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)

(1)

Not at All Important

(2) Not Very Important

(3) Mixed

(4) Somewhat Important

(5) Very

Important

Mean Importance

Number of Responses

FOOD

Overall 0% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 104,745

Taste 0% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 104,826

Eye appeal 3% 12% 20% 34% 32% 3.81 104,359

Freshness 0% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 104,229

Nutritional content 1% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.35 103,914

Value 1% 2% 12% 29% 56% 4.38 102,728

MENU

Availability of posted menu items 1% 4% 12% 36% 48% 4.25 101,867

Variety of menu choices 0% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.40 102,525

Variety of healthy menu choices 2% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 101,670

Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18% 12% 15% 21% 34% 3.43 86,991

SERVICE

Overall 0% 1% 8% 32% 58% 4.46 102,895

Speed of service 0% 2% 8% 33% 57% 4.44 103,018

Hours of operation 1% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 102,815

Helpfulness of staff 1% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 102,432

Friendliness of staff 1% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 102,572

CLEANLINESS

Overall 0% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 102,635

Serving areas 0% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.53 101,840

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 1% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.50 100,346

DINING ENVIRONMENT

Location 1% 4% 12% 34% 50% 4.27 102,348

Layout of facility 2% 8% 17% 38% 35% 3.97 101,870

Appearance 2% 7% 18% 37% 36% 3.97 101,622

Availability of seating 1% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.30 100,045

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 1% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.19 99,660

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY

Environmentally friendly practices related to food 5% 6% 16% 28% 45% 4.04 93,036

Social/ethical practices related to food 5% 6% 17% 28% 43% 3.97 90,892

Page 13: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 5

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)

(1)

Very Dissatisfied

(2) Somewhat

Dissatisfied

(3) Mixed

(4) Somewhat Satisfied

(5) Very

Satisfied

Mean Satisfaction

Number of Responses

FOOD

Overall 3% 6% 17% 42% 31% 3.93 126,532

Taste 3% 7% 19% 39% 31% 3.89 126,438

Eye appeal 3% 8% 22% 36% 31% 3.86 125,862

Freshness 4% 10% 22% 34% 31% 3.79 125,956

Nutritional content 5% 11% 26% 32% 25% 3.60 124,740

Value 7% 12% 25% 31% 25% 3.55 123,623

MENU

Availability of posted menu items 3% 7% 16% 33% 40% 4.00 123,753

Variety of menu choices 6% 12% 20% 32% 30% 3.68 125,076

Variety of healthy menu choices 7% 13% 23% 31% 26% 3.56 123,518

Variety of vegetarian menu choices 7% 11% 25% 28% 29% 3.61 95,846

SERVICE

Overall 2% 3% 12% 34% 49% 4.24 125,648

Speed of service 3% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.08 125,539

Hours of operation 5% 10% 15% 29% 40% 3.88 125,151

Helpfulness of staff 2% 4% 12% 29% 53% 4.28 124,775

Friendliness of staff 2% 4% 11% 27% 56% 4.31 125,087

CLEANLINESS

Overall 2% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.25 125,527

Serving areas 2% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 124,439

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.02 122,564

DINING ENVIRONMENT

Location 1% 2% 8% 28% 60% 4.44 125,306

Layout of facility 2% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.29 124,798

Appearance 1% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.33 124,654

Availability of seating 3% 7% 16% 31% 43% 4.02 122,445

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

2% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.16 122,567

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

3% 4% 19% 34% 40% 4.06 112,171

Social/ethical practices related to food

2% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.08 109,591

Page 14: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 6

The following series of graphs shows the mean satisfaction ratings for the various dining service attributes over the past five years on the one to five scale. As shown, there were across the board increases in mean satisfaction ratings for 2016.

Mean* Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General without Regard to Any Specific Meal

3.50

3.55

3.80

3.86

3.89

3.93

3.49

3.54

3.77

3.85

3.88

3.91

3.48

3.53

3.73

3.81

3.84

3.88

3.42

3.51

3.70

3.78

3.81

3.84

3.55

3.60

3.79

3.86

3.89

3.93

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Value

Nutritional content

Freshness

Eye appeal

Taste

Food: Overall

FOOD

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

3.53

3.62

3.70

4.05

3.51

3.58

3.69

4.04

3.50

3.57

3.66

3.99

3.48

3.53

3.63

3.95

3.56

3.61

3.68

4.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Variety of healthy menu choices

Variety of vegetarian menuchoices

Variety of menu choices

Availability of posted menuitems

MENU

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

* 1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction ("Not Applicable" Responses Removed)

Page 15: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 7

Mean* Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General without Regard to Any Specific Meal

3.86

4.06

4.22

4.24

4.28

3.86

4.02

4.19

4.22

4.26

3.84

4.01

4.18

4.21

4.25

3.84

4.00

4.16

4.20

4.24

3.88

4.08

4.24

4.28

4.31

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Hours ofoperation

Speed ofservice

Service:Overall

Helpfulness ofstaff

Friendliness ofstaff

SERVICE

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

4.07

4.28

4.31

4.03

4.24

4.27

4.01

4.21

4.25

3.98

4.20

4.24

4.02

4.25

4.30

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Eating areas(tables, chairs,

etc.)

Cleanliness:Overall

Serving areas

CLEANLINESS

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

3.99

4.14

4.24

4.30

4.40

3.96

4.12

4.23

4.29

4.39

3.96

4.12

4.22

4.27

4.38

3.96

4.09

4.23

4.27

4.39

4.02

4.16

4.29

4.33

4.44

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Availability ofseating

Comfort(seats,

temperature,lighting, sound

level, etc.)

Layout offacility

Appearance

Location

DINING ENVIRONMENT2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

4.06

4.08

4.04

4.05

4.03

4.04

3.98

4.00

4.06

4.08

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Environmentally friendlypractices related to food

Social/ethical practices relatedto food

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

* 1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction ("Not Applicable" Responses Removed)

Page 16: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 8

Examining the difference between an item’s mean importance and mean satisfaction ratings can yield significant insights. Using this “gap analysis,” areas where importance significantly outscored satisfaction should be looked at as possible opportunities for improvement. The graphs below and on the following page illustrate the areas where this gap was the largest for the overall survey sample. This report also includes the gap analysis for your specific institution in the “Executive Summary” section.

3.61

3.86

4.29

4.08

4.33

4.06

4.16

4.00

4.44

3.56

4.02

3.60

4.28

3.55

4.31

3.68

3.88

4.08

4.24

4.02

4.30

3.93

3.79

4.25

3.89

3.43

3.81

3.97

3.97

3.97

4.04

4.19

4.25

4.27

4.29

4.30

4.35

4.36

4.38

4.40

4.40

4.42

4.44

4.46

4.50

4.53

4.53

4.58

4.58

4.67

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Eye appeal

Layout of facility

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Appearance

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Availability of posted menu items

Location

Variety of healthy menu choices

Availability of seating

Nutritional content

Helpfulness of staff

Value

Friendliness of staff

Variety of menu choices

Hours of operation

Speed of service

Service: Overall

Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Cleanliness: Serving areas

Food: Overall

Freshness

Cleanliness: Overall

Taste

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Value = Higher Importance/Satisfaction

Mean* Importance of, and Satisfaction with,Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

Mean* Importance Mean* Satisfaction

Page 17: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 9

As shown below, value, freshness, taste, nutritional content and variety of healthy menu options were the areas where importance outscored satisfaction by the largest margins. This has also been the case over the last several years.

-0.36

-0.31

-0.18

-0.17

-0.11

-0.05

-0.02

0.03

0.08

0.09

0.22

0.23

0.25

0.28

0.33

0.37

0.48

0.54

0.60

0.72

0.74

0.75

0.78

0.79

0.83

-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

Appearance

Layout of facility

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Location

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Eye appeal

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Helpfulness of staff

Friendliness of staff

Service: Overall

Cleanliness: Serving areas

Availability of posted menu items

Availability of seating

Cleanliness: Overall

Speed of service

Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Hours of operation

Food: Overall

Variety of menu choices

Variety of healthy menu choices

Nutritional content

Taste

Freshness

Value

"Gap Analysis"Importance minus Satisfaction

Page 18: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016
Page 19: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

Executive Summary

Page 20: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016
Page 21: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 11

As part of its ongoing efforts to make this survey as useful and beneficial as possible for the membership, a committee of NACUFS members met at Industry Insights in Columbus, OH, to discuss how the survey could be improved. The result of this meeting and several subsequent conference calls was this Executive Summary. This important enhancement to the report contains data specific to your institution and includes…

Predictors of Overall Satisfaction Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the “Key Drivers” of overall satisfaction for your institution. These Key Drivers are shown alongside the mean satisfaction and gap1 ratings for both your institution and the overall survey sample benchmarks. This section is described in more detail below.

Priority Matrixes

These graphs illustrate your institution’s mean importance and satisfaction ratings for each of the survey’s operating characteristics over the past three surveyed years, as well as highlighting the Key Drivers as determined by the regression analysis. This section is described in more detail below.

Comparative Tables

These tables present the mean satisfaction and gap ratings for your institution displayed by respondent characteristics and shown alongside the appropriate benchmark comparison groups. The data is also summarized by all you care to eat facilities (dining halls) versus retail units.

Three Year Trend Data

This section shows your institution’s mean satisfaction and gap ratings for each of the past three years in both tabular and graphic form (based on your institution’s past participation in this survey) so that performance trends can be examined over time. The trend graphs also show how the overall industry has performed over the past three years. This section is described in more detail below.

Location-specific Results

These tables show the mean satisfaction and gap ratings for each of your surveyed locations. PREDICTORS OF OVERALL SATISFACTION For this report, multiple regression analysis was the statistical method used for examining the relationship between an outcome variable (also known as the dependent variable) and several predictor (independent) variables. This “Key Driver” analysis is extremely useful when examining customer satisfaction survey data because it allows one to combine many independent variables into one predictive equation and also determine the unique role each variable plays in influencing the outcome. Multiple regression analysis provides a measure of the total explanatory power of the model and also provides an estimate of whether a given variable is a statistically significant outcome predictor. In other words, multiple regression analysis is used to determine the relative weight each performance attribute’s ratings have on overall satisfaction. The attributes with the largest regression coefficients can be considered the most important drivers of overall satisfaction.

1 As discussed in the Industry Overview, gap analysis involves comparing the mean importance rating for an item versus the item’s mean satisfaction rating. Items where the importance is significantly higher than the satisfaction are potential areas for improvement. As an enhancement to the report this year, this gap analysis has been included in many of the tables found in this Executive Summary section.

Page 22: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 12

For purposes of this report, stepwise multiple regression was used. This is among the most commonly used methods of regression analysis for customer satisfaction survey data, as it helps lessen the impact of multi-collinearity2, which commonly occurs in these types of surveys. For this report, the survey question “In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the dining services provided by your college/university?” was used as the dependent variable that represents overall satisfaction, while each of the 25 performance attributes listed on page ii were the independent variables. Thus, our regression analysis examines the role each of the 25 performance attributes played in determining overall satisfaction. When analyzing regression data, the following items need to be examined:

The coefficient of determination (“Adjusted R2” )

Significance of model test (“Sig.” of the model)

Significance of variable (“Sig.”)

Regression coefficients for each variable (“Unstandardized Coefficient B”)

The coefficient of determination (Adjusted R2) shows the proportion of the variance in overall satisfaction that is explained by the 25 attributes. Put another way, Adjusted R2 shows how well our model (overall satisfaction as a function of the 25 performance attributes) works. An Adjusted R2 of .456, for example, means that 45.6% of the variance in overall satisfaction responses is explained by the 25 attributes. (For comparison, historically, the Adjusted R2 generally ranges from around .3 to .5 for the schools in this survey.) It is also important to consider if the set of independent variables is statistically significant at predicting overall customer satisfaction, and this is illustrated by “Sig.” shown in “Model Summary” in Figure 1. Figures less than .05 indicate that the model was significant at the five percent level. This means that there is less than a 5% likelihood that our regression results occurred by chance. To determine which specific attributes were significant predictors in our model, we check the significance of each variable (“Sig.”). The regression model was set to allow significance of .05 or less, and only those attributes that met this criterion are shown. Finally, we examine the regression coefficients (“Unstandardized Coefficient B”) to assess the effect of each predictor - the higher the number, the greater the effect of the predictor on overall satisfaction. For example, a B of .327 means that for every one unit increase in the response to this question, we could expect overall satisfaction to increase by .327 units on our five point satisfaction scale. In other words, if “Nutritional Content” had a B of .327 and we compared respondents who rated nutritional content a 4 (somewhat satisfied) versus those who rated nutritional content a 5 (very satisfied), according to our model, we would expect that the latter group would have an overall satisfaction rating .327 units higher. Figures 1 and 2 on the following pages are based on fictitious data and are intended as examples to illustrate how to interpret the tables beginning on page 16 that have been customized for your institution.

2 Multi-collinearity arises in customer satisfaction survey data when respondent ratings for different performance attributes are correlated. For example, a respondent’s opinion regarding dining environment layout and dining environment appearance may be closely related.

Page 23: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 13

Summary of Figure 1

In “Model Summary,” the coefficient of determination (“Adjusted R2”) of .39 means our model explains 39% of the variance in overall satisfaction

In “Model Summary,” the “Sig.” of 0.00 means it is highly unlikely that our model’s findings are based on random chance

The significance of the variables (“Sig.” under “Your Institution”) shows that each of the five predictor variables is a significant predictor of overall satisfaction at a 95% confidence level, since all the values are less than .05

The regression coefficients for each variable (“Unstandardized Coefficient B” under “Your Institution”) show the extent to which that variable predicts overall satisfaction.

Figure 1

Predictor Status**

Unstandardized Coefficient

B (Extent to w hich

item predicts Overall

Satisfaction)

Sig. (Likelihood that this

item's predictor status w as due to random chance)

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap***

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap***

Variety of vegetarian menu choices Top Predictor 0.29 0.00 3.87 0.51 3.52 -0.14Eye appeal 2nd Predictor 0.19 0.00 3.60 0.71 3.80 0.09Social/ethical practices related to food 3rd Predictor 0.15 0.00 3.58 0.83 4.00 -0.02Layout of facility 4th Predictor 0.14 0.01 3.83 0.75 4.21 -0.19Appearance 5th Predictor 0.08 0.01 4.10 -0.07 4.26 -0.23Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.66 0.37 3.97 0.07Availability of posted menu items 3.58 0.98 4.01 0.20Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.51 0.77 4.08 0.18Location 3.93 0.22 4.40 -0.10Variety of healthy menu choices 3.52 0.68 3.44 0.90Helpfulness of staff 3.49 -0.20 4.18 0.17Availability of seating 4.14 0.20 3.95 0.40Nutritional content 4.06 0.26 3.46 0.93Friendliness of staff 3.77 0.53 4.22 0.18Value 4.12 0.12 3.40 1.03Variety of menu choices 4.22 0.09 3.61 0.82Hours of operation 4.11 0.42 3.79 0.64Speed of service 4.11 0.36 4.00 0.45Service: Overall 4.03 0.46 4.16 0.31Food: Overall 4.33 -0.09 3.85 0.69Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.97 0.13 4.01 0.54Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.11 0.15 4.26 0.31Cleanliness: Overall 4.00 0.24 4.24 0.38Freshness 4.11 0.15 3.75 0.89Taste 4.00 0.24 3.83 0.86

Adjusted R2 = 0.39

Adjusted R Square Sig.

0.000

Model Summary

Extent to Which Various Factors Predict Overall Satisfaction*

* Items have been sorted by predictor status for your institution. Items that are not predictors are listed in the sequence in which they were presented on the survey form.** If cell is blank, that item was not a predictor of overall satisfaction.*** Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

All RespondentsYour Institution

Page 24: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 14

PRIORITY MATRIXES

Another important component of this report is comprised of the three Priority Matrix graphs (one for each of the past three survey years). These graphs are intended to help decision makers prioritize their efforts and hone in on the areas where the greatest impact on overall customer satisfaction can be achieved.

In the example below (Figure 2), again based on fictitious data, satisfaction ratings are plotted on the vertical axis, with importance ratings on the horizontal axis. Each of the 25 attributes has been graphed based on the mean satisfaction and mean importance ratings they were given by this institution’s respondents. The vertical line in the graph represents the overall mean importance for all of the attributes combined, as rated by your respondents, and similarly, the horizontal line represents the overall mean satisfaction for all of the attributes combined. The lines divide the graph into four priority quadrants.

Summary of Figure 2

Sustain = High Satisfaction, Low Importance (Institution may be “overachieving” here.)

Sustain or Improve = High Satisfaction, High Importance (In general, institution is doing well here. Monitor to make sure there are no drops in satisfaction for these important items.)

Action Area = Low Satisfaction, High Importance (May want to concentrate efforts here first.)

Watch = Low Satisfaction, Low Importance (In general, no action needed, although monitor to ensure that none of these low satisfaction areas move into the “important” quadrant, where they would become an Action Area.)

Items in bold were the “Key Drivers” as determined by the regression analysis.

Figure 2

Priority Matrixes

1 = Food: Overall 2 = Taste 3 = Eye appeal 4 = Freshness 5 = Nutritional content 6 = Value 7 = Availability of posted menu items 8 = Variety of menu choices 9 = Variety of healthy menu choices 10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices11 = Service: Overall 12 = Speed of service 13 = Hours of operation 14 = Helpfulness of staff 15 = Friendliness of staff 16 = Cleanliness: Overall 17 = Cleanliness: Serving areas 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas 19 = Location 20 = Layout of facility 21 = Appearance 22 = Availability of seating 23 = Comfort 24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food 25 = Social/ethical practices related to food Items in Bold are “Key Drivers”

In the example above, decision-makers might want to concentrate their efforts on the lower right quadrant (low satisfaction and high importance) items, as well as “variety of vegetarian menu choices” and “eye appeal,” since these are key drivers and are in the “‘watch” quadrant.

2008

12

34

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

1819

20

2122

23

8

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Importance

Sa

tis

fac

tio

n

Sustain High Satisfaction, Low Importance

Action Area Low Satisfaction, High Importance

Sustain or Improve High Satisfaction, High Importance

Watch Low Satisfaction, Low Importance

2016

Page 25: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 15

THREE YEAR TREND DATA This section displays historical data in both tabular and graphic format for the past two survey years alongside this year’s results to allow those institutions that have used the NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Survey package in the past to analyze trends. The trend tables are self-explanatory, and the trend graphs are described below. Trend Graphs These graphs show your institution’s satisfaction ratings for each of the past three survey years, to the extent possible based on your institution’s past participation. The graphs also show how the overall survey sample has trended over this period. Each of the 25 graphs represents one surveyed attribute. For each graph, the X and solid blue line represent your institution’s mean satisfaction figure for that attribute, while the and dashed green line show the mean satisfaction for the overall sample (all institutions). The shaded area shows the “middle range” (the area between the 25th and 75th percentile, or the middle 50% of the respondents) for the overall sample.

The remainder of the tables and graphs in this Executive Summary (Comparative Tables, Three Year Trends and Location-specific Results) are self-explanatory.

Eye Appeal

3.68 3.67 3.74

3.84 3.96 3.92

1

2

3

4

5

2014 2015 2016

Page 26: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

Predictor Status**

Unstandardized Coefficient

B (Extent to which item

predicts Overall Satisfaction)

Sig. (Likelihood that this

item's predictor status was due to random chance)

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap***

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap***

Food: Overall Top Predictor 0.33 0.00 4.11 0.45 3.93 0.60Service: Overall 2nd Predictor 0.25 0.00 4.25 0.33 4.24 0.22Value 3rd Predictor 0.11 0.00 3.58 1.00 3.55 0.83Variety of menu choices 4th Predictor 0.09 0.01 3.99 0.43 3.68 0.72Taste 4.10 0.58 3.89 0.78Eye appeal 4.03 -0.01 3.86 -0.05Freshness 3.99 0.61 3.79 0.79Nutritional content 3.73 0.53 3.60 0.75Availability of posted menu items 4.13 0.31 4.00 0.25Variety of healthy menu choices 3.75 0.41 3.56 0.74Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.70 -0.26 3.61 -0.18Speed of service 4.13 0.47 4.08 0.37Hours of operation 4.00 0.48 3.88 0.54Helpfulness of staff 4.29 0.20 4.28 0.08Friendliness of staff 4.32 0.22 4.31 0.09Cleanliness: Overall 4.34 0.31 4.25 0.33Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.28 0.27 4.30 0.23Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.98 0.55 4.02 0.48Location 4.24 0.08 4.44 -0.17Layout of facility 4.18 -0.10 4.29 -0.31Appearance 4.20 -0.10 4.33 -0.36Availability of seating 3.64 0.74 4.02 0.28Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.85 0.41 4.16 0.03Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.07 0.00 4.06 -0.02Social/ethical practices related to food 4.10 -0.04 4.08 -0.11

Adjusted R2 = 0.404

Adjusted R Square(Amount of variance in Overall Satisfaction

explained by our model)

Sig.(Likelihood that our model's findings

were due to random chance)

0.000

Model Summary

Extent to Which Various Factors Predict Overall Satisfaction*

* Items have been sorted by predictor status for your institution. Items that are not predictors are listed in the sequence in which they were presented on the survey form.** If cell is blank, that item was not a predictor of overall satisfaction.*** Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

All RespondentsYour Institution

16 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 27: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Priority Matrixes

9 = Variety of healthy menu choices 17 = Cleanliness: Serving areas10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)11 = Service: Overall 19 = Location12 = Speed of service 20 = Layout of facility13 = Hours of operation 21 = Appearance14 = Helpfulness of staff 22 = Availability of seating

2 = Taste3 = Eye appeal4 = Freshness5 = Nutritional content6 = Value

15 = Friendliness of staff16 = Cleanliness: Overall

23 = Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food25 = Social/ethical practices related to food

1 = Food: Overall

7 = Availability of posted menu items8 = Variety of menu choices

1 23 4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14 15 1617

18

192021

22

23

2425

3

4

5

3 4 5

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

2016

Bold Items Are "Key Drivers" 17 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 28: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Priority Matrixes

9 = Variety of healthy menu choices 17 = Cleanliness: Serving areas10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)11 = Service: Overall 19 = Location12 = Speed of service 20 = Layout of facility13 = Hours of operation 21 = Appearance14 = Helpfulness of staff 22 = Availability of seating

25 = Social/ethical practices related to food

3 = Eye appeal4 = Freshness5 = Nutritional content

16 = Cleanliness: Overall

6 = Value

24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food23 = Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

8 = Variety of menu choices

2 = Taste1 = Food: Overall

7 = Availability of posted menu items 15 = Friendliness of staff

1 23

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

1213

1415 1617

18

192021

22

23

2425

3

4

5

3 4 5

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

2015

Bold Items Are "Key Drivers" 18 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 29: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Priority Matrixes

9 = Variety of healthy menu choices 17 = Cleanliness: Serving areas10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)11 = Service: Overall 19 = Location12 = Speed of service 20 = Layout of facility13 = Hours of operation 21 = Appearance14 = Helpfulness of staff 22 = Availability of seating

8 = Variety of menu choices25 = Social/ethical practices related to food

4 = Freshness

1 = Food: Overall2 = Taste

23 = Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)16 = Cleanliness: Overall 24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food

6 = Value

3 = Eye appeal

5 = Nutritional content

7 = Availability of posted menu items 15 = Friendliness of staff

1 23 4

5

6

7

8

910

11

1213

141516

17

18

1920 21

22

23

2425

3

4

5

3 4 5

Satis

fact

ion

Importance

2014

Bold Items Are "Key Drivers" 19 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 30: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

All Survey Respondents By Respondent Demographics

Satis Gap* Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis GapFood: Overall 4.11 0.45 4.07 0.46 4.40 -0.07 4.27 0.43 4.33 0.67 4.01 0.50 4.07 0.37 4.12 0.40 4.09 0.49 4.02 0.65 4.33 0.50 4.16 0.48 4.04 0.42 3.80 1.00 3.56 0.44 3.85 0.57 4.20 0.41Taste 4.10 0.58 4.06 0.59 4.40 0.27 4.27 0.56 4.33 0.67 3.90 0.75 4.10 0.47 4.10 0.50 4.17 0.56 4.02 0.72 4.18 0.60 4.14 0.62 4.04 0.54 4.20 0.60 3.80 0.31 3.75 0.83 4.22 0.49Eye appeal 4.03 -0.01 3.98 -0.01 4.50 -1.17 4.33 0.03 4.33 0.42 3.86 -0.08 3.95 -0.02 3.99 0.08 4.08 -0.07 3.94 0.20 4.18 0.04 4.10 0.11 3.94 -0.14 4.60 -1.80 3.40 -0.51 3.76 -0.04 4.13 0.00Freshness 3.99 0.61 3.94 0.63 4.60 -0.27 4.26 0.53 3.83 1.17 3.88 0.68 3.94 0.58 3.99 0.57 3.97 0.65 3.87 0.84 4.05 0.67 4.05 0.67 3.93 0.54 4.40 0.00 3.09 0.80 3.69 0.79 4.10 0.55Nutritional content 3.73 0.53 3.69 0.57 4.10 -0.10 3.98 0.28 4.00 0.75 3.65 0.60 3.57 0.57 3.76 0.52 3.71 0.57 3.66 0.78 3.81 0.75 3.75 0.63 3.73 0.38 4.00 -0.60 2.45 1.77 3.46 0.77 3.83 0.44Value 3.58 1.00 3.55 1.00 4.30 0.70 3.71 1.08 3.50 1.50 3.73 0.70 3.49 0.97 3.52 1.05 3.41 1.27 3.48 1.11 3.82 0.63 3.60 1.03 3.55 0.97 4.50 -0.10 2.70 1.43 3.49 0.86 3.61 1.06Availability of posted menu items 4.13 0.31 4.08 0.33 4.40 0.27 4.38 0.28 4.83 -0.08 3.91 0.36 4.07 0.25 4.15 0.29 4.19 0.32 4.10 0.61 4.10 0.55 4.15 0.37 4.11 0.24 4.80 -0.30 3.64 0.59 3.83 0.38 4.24 0.29Variety of menu choices 3.99 0.43 3.95 0.46 4.80 -0.47 4.23 0.36 4.40 -0.20 3.69 0.73 4.02 0.32 4.02 0.36 4.07 0.35 3.98 0.62 4.43 0.16 4.00 0.52 3.98 0.33 4.40 0.00 4.27 -0.16 3.60 0.75 4.14 0.32Variety of healthy menu choices 3.75 0.41 3.70 0.46 4.25 0.75 4.03 0.12 4.17 0.33 3.52 0.70 3.65 0.50 3.82 0.31 3.80 0.30 3.60 0.83 3.48 0.88 3.74 0.64 3.77 0.12 4.00 -0.60 3.25 0.85 3.40 0.78 3.88 0.28Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.70 -0.26 3.65 -0.21 4.33 0.67 3.94 -0.51 3.75 -0.08 3.52 -0.16 3.55 -0.05 3.76 -0.32 3.75 -0.28 3.58 0.04 3.13 0.31 3.66 0.03 3.76 -0.67 3.67 -0.47 3.22 0.90 3.42 -0.18 3.80 -0.28Service: Overall 4.25 0.33 4.24 0.31 4.80 -0.47 4.30 0.53 4.33 -0.13 4.25 0.22 4.12 0.41 4.24 0.31 4.28 0.33 4.27 0.53 4.24 0.53 4.24 0.42 4.27 0.22 4.60 0.20 3.92 -0.03 4.14 0.30 4.29 0.35Speed of service 4.13 0.47 4.13 0.44 4.40 0.60 4.12 0.67 4.40 -0.40 4.21 0.30 3.98 0.51 4.12 0.47 4.17 0.47 4.02 0.74 3.76 1.06 4.11 0.56 4.16 0.37 4.80 0.00 4.42 -0.42 4.05 0.44 4.16 0.48Hours of operation 4.00 0.48 3.95 0.52 4.80 -0.80 4.26 0.31 4.50 0.50 3.82 0.68 3.79 0.56 4.06 0.32 4.03 0.51 3.87 0.89 4.05 0.60 4.02 0.56 3.97 0.37 4.40 0.40 3.82 0.18 3.69 0.81 4.11 0.36Helpfulness of staff 4.29 0.20 4.26 0.20 5.00 -1.00 4.42 0.30 4.67 0.33 4.28 0.12 4.12 0.23 4.25 0.23 4.33 0.17 4.29 0.42 4.25 0.57 4.28 0.32 4.31 0.06 4.80 -0.80 4.08 -0.08 4.12 0.21 4.35 0.20Friendliness of staff 4.32 0.22 4.28 0.22 4.90 -0.90 4.47 0.26 4.83 0.17 4.28 0.18 4.18 0.25 4.27 0.23 4.35 0.20 4.34 0.37 4.20 0.56 4.30 0.34 4.35 0.06 5.00 -1.00 4.00 0.11 4.15 0.21 4.38 0.22Cleanliness: Overall 4.34 0.31 4.31 0.32 5.00 -0.67 4.50 0.36 4.80 -0.60 4.32 0.29 4.25 0.24 4.27 0.35 4.35 0.33 4.31 0.39 4.25 0.63 4.36 0.37 4.31 0.25 5.00 -0.60 3.83 0.83 4.25 0.33 4.37 0.31Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.28 0.27 4.26 0.27 4.90 -0.57 4.38 0.35 4.80 0.20 4.32 0.20 4.14 0.22 4.24 0.30 4.29 0.29 4.15 0.39 4.21 0.54 4.28 0.38 4.29 0.14 5.00 -0.25 4.17 -0.28 4.26 0.24 4.29 0.28Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.98 0.55 3.94 0.58 4.90 -0.57 4.14 0.44 4.50 0.50 4.06 0.44 3.77 0.60 3.92 0.61 3.91 0.65 4.05 0.45 3.89 1.11 3.97 0.64 4.00 0.44 4.00 0.00 3.55 0.34 3.99 0.52 3.98 0.56Location 4.24 0.08 4.20 0.08 4.70 -0.03 4.47 0.14 4.83 0.17 4.26 -0.09 4.07 0.17 4.17 0.13 4.24 0.14 4.17 0.20 4.10 0.46 4.26 0.16 4.21 -0.01 4.60 -0.60 4.00 0.38 4.22 -0.07 4.25 0.14Layout of facility 4.18 -0.10 4.17 -0.12 4.60 -0.60 4.23 0.06 4.80 -0.80 4.28 -0.31 4.09 -0.14 4.09 -0.05 4.19 -0.06 4.15 -0.01 3.61 0.92 4.19 0.00 4.17 -0.24 4.75 -0.50 4.09 0.28 4.22 -0.29 4.17 -0.03Appearance 4.20 -0.10 4.16 -0.11 4.60 -0.60 4.38 -0.01 4.60 -0.40 4.16 -0.17 4.10 -0.15 4.13 -0.04 4.25 -0.11 4.17 -0.14 4.05 0.39 4.23 0.01 4.16 -0.24 4.60 -1.20 4.00 0.13 4.13 -0.25 4.22 -0.04Availability of seating 3.64 0.74 3.59 0.80 4.60 -0.27 3.91 0.38 4.00 1.00 3.82 0.56 3.33 0.96 3.58 0.84 3.47 0.93 3.59 0.69 3.68 0.98 3.59 0.84 3.73 0.59 3.50 0.50 2.91 1.23 3.87 0.43 3.56 0.85Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.85 0.41 3.83 0.42 4.60 -0.60 3.90 0.37 3.67 1.08 3.96 0.29 3.68 0.43 3.83 0.43 3.76 0.52 3.77 0.60 3.84 0.76 3.81 0.52 3.90 0.26 3.50 0.50 3.36 0.92 3.93 0.22 3.82 0.49Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.07 0.00 4.04 0.02 4.38 0.63 4.22 -0.17 4.80 0.20 4.04 -0.06 4.09 -0.32 4.06 0.00 4.03 0.18 3.76 0.71 4.06 0.34 4.05 0.20 4.11 -0.28 4.50 -1.30 2.67 1.83 3.88 0.03 4.14 -0.02Social/ethical practices related to food 4.10 -0.04 4.07 -0.02 4.38 0.63 4.22 -0.16 4.50 -0.67 4.06 -0.16 4.19 -0.35 4.07 -0.01 4.08 0.13 3.74 0.69 4.06 0.27 4.07 0.15 4.14 -0.31 4.50 -1.30 3.33 1.17 3.94 -0.05 4.15 -0.04

Satis Gap* Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis GapFood: Overall 3.93 0.60 3.90 0.62 4.03 0.56 4.17 0.46 4.33 0.22 3.89 0.63 3.84 0.69 3.92 0.60 3.98 0.57 3.94 0.51 3.86 0.54 3.93 0.64 3.94 0.54 3.75 0.64 3.73 0.62 3.84 0.69 4.08 0.46Taste 3.89 0.78 3.85 0.81 4.03 0.70 4.18 0.60 4.30 0.39 3.81 0.86 3.80 0.86 3.88 0.76 3.96 0.71 3.90 0.69 3.84 0.78 3.89 0.84 3.89 0.70 3.73 0.82 3.73 0.77 3.77 0.89 4.07 0.61Eye appeal 3.86 -0.05 3.82 -0.05 4.03 -0.07 4.16 -0.01 4.25 -0.03 3.81 -0.05 3.76 0.00 3.82 -0.03 3.88 -0.05 3.93 -0.22 3.87 -0.11 3.88 0.03 3.83 -0.16 3.75 -0.18 3.73 -0.26 3.76 -0.01 4.02 -0.10Freshness 3.79 0.79 3.73 0.83 4.10 0.60 4.21 0.54 4.28 0.32 3.70 0.86 3.66 0.89 3.75 0.80 3.80 0.76 3.94 0.62 3.81 0.72 3.77 0.90 3.82 0.62 3.65 0.74 3.67 0.70 3.65 0.91 4.01 0.60Nutritional content 3.60 0.75 3.55 0.80 3.86 0.57 3.98 0.37 4.11 0.24 3.54 0.81 3.51 0.85 3.57 0.77 3.59 0.75 3.70 0.67 3.51 0.81 3.56 0.90 3.68 0.52 3.50 0.56 3.53 0.66 3.50 0.86 3.78 0.56Value 3.55 0.83 3.52 0.83 3.70 0.81 3.72 0.87 4.07 0.38 3.60 0.68 3.45 0.90 3.47 0.94 3.47 0.99 3.49 1.00 3.45 0.92 3.54 0.89 3.57 0.75 3.46 0.69 3.41 0.77 3.51 0.78 3.60 0.92Availability of posted menu items 4.00 0.25 3.96 0.27 4.20 0.05 4.27 0.12 4.32 0.07 3.92 0.27 3.93 0.32 3.99 0.28 4.06 0.25 4.09 0.13 3.95 0.21 4.01 0.30 4.00 0.17 3.73 0.50 3.88 0.22 3.90 0.31 4.17 0.15Variety of menu choices 3.68 0.72 3.65 0.75 3.81 0.60 3.96 0.51 4.20 0.21 3.61 0.81 3.58 0.81 3.69 0.69 3.77 0.62 3.72 0.55 3.68 0.65 3.66 0.81 3.72 0.58 3.43 0.83 3.52 0.67 3.55 0.87 3.90 0.48Variety of healthy menu choices 3.56 0.74 3.51 0.78 3.75 0.65 3.91 0.43 4.10 0.22 3.49 0.80 3.45 0.83 3.54 0.73 3.57 0.72 3.61 0.67 3.46 0.80 3.50 0.94 3.65 0.43 3.44 0.63 3.41 0.73 3.44 0.86 3.75 0.54Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.61 -0.18 3.57 -0.14 3.73 -0.19 3.92 -0.58 4.07 -0.32 3.58 -0.21 3.52 -0.08 3.58 -0.12 3.61 -0.11 3.60 -0.04 3.49 -0.02 3.54 0.07 3.72 -0.59 3.33 0.27 3.37 0.33 3.53 -0.12 3.74 -0.29Service: Overall 4.24 0.22 4.22 0.22 4.33 0.22 4.37 0.27 4.46 0.12 4.25 0.19 4.20 0.23 4.19 0.26 4.21 0.27 4.21 0.21 4.25 0.22 4.26 0.26 4.22 0.18 4.11 0.19 4.17 0.03 4.21 0.22 4.29 0.24Speed of service 4.08 0.37 4.06 0.36 4.15 0.39 4.20 0.40 4.37 0.16 4.09 0.31 4.03 0.38 4.03 0.42 4.03 0.44 4.07 0.38 4.11 0.35 4.08 0.41 4.07 0.30 4.01 0.25 4.05 0.13 4.05 0.34 4.11 0.41Hours of operation 3.88 0.54 3.83 0.60 4.15 0.19 4.30 0.10 4.32 0.03 3.74 0.71 3.86 0.56 3.88 0.54 3.93 0.48 3.92 0.46 3.91 0.43 3.89 0.58 3.87 0.48 3.77 0.51 3.78 0.47 3.77 0.68 4.07 0.32Helpfulness of staff 4.28 0.08 4.25 0.08 4.45 0.05 4.46 0.14 4.48 0.07 4.26 0.05 4.24 0.08 4.24 0.11 4.25 0.11 4.27 0.05 4.34 0.10 4.29 0.14 4.26 -0.01 4.11 0.00 4.26 -0.11 4.25 0.07 4.33 0.10Friendliness of staff 4.31 0.09 4.29 0.09 4.50 0.02 4.49 0.14 4.52 0.05 4.30 0.07 4.27 0.10 4.27 0.12 4.28 0.12 4.31 0.03 4.32 0.12 4.31 0.16 4.31 -0.02 4.16 0.01 4.28 -0.14 4.28 0.08 4.37 0.10Cleanliness: Overall 4.25 0.33 4.22 0.34 4.45 0.26 4.47 0.31 4.47 0.23 4.21 0.34 4.17 0.37 4.23 0.33 4.27 0.31 4.32 0.27 4.22 0.38 4.26 0.40 4.25 0.23 4.05 0.34 4.15 0.24 4.18 0.37 4.37 0.27Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.30 0.23 4.27 0.23 4.45 0.20 4.46 0.25 4.47 0.17 4.29 0.21 4.23 0.26 4.25 0.24 4.28 0.25 4.32 0.19 4.23 0.31 4.30 0.30 4.29 0.12 4.17 0.20 4.21 0.13 4.25 0.24 4.36 0.21Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.02 0.48 3.99 0.50 4.22 0.32 4.23 0.37 4.33 0.26 3.98 0.51 3.95 0.53 3.99 0.50 4.04 0.47 4.11 0.35 3.96 0.56 4.00 0.56 4.06 0.35 3.88 0.42 3.90 0.38 3.96 0.53 4.13 0.40Location 4.44 -0.17 4.42 -0.17 4.53 -0.15 4.57 -0.17 4.50 -0.17 4.46 -0.19 4.41 -0.18 4.38 -0.14 4.40 -0.15 4.38 -0.08 4.36 -0.08 4.47 -0.13 4.39 -0.23 4.28 -0.09 4.31 -0.28 4.44 -0.18 4.44 -0.14Layout of facility 4.29 -0.31 4.29 -0.33 4.23 -0.18 4.30 -0.20 4.40 -0.24 4.36 -0.42 4.26 -0.32 4.22 -0.23 4.22 -0.23 4.20 -0.27 4.19 -0.17 4.32 -0.28 4.24 -0.37 4.12 -0.30 4.14 -0.48 4.31 -0.36 4.25 -0.23Appearance 4.33 -0.36 4.32 -0.38 4.32 -0.21 4.40 -0.20 4.44 -0.23 4.37 -0.43 4.31 -0.38 4.28 -0.31 4.29 -0.33 4.27 -0.35 4.26 -0.26 4.37 -0.31 4.28 -0.42 4.18 -0.47 4.14 -0.57 4.33 -0.40 4.33 -0.28Availability of seating 4.02 0.28 4.00 0.30 4.15 0.11 4.18 0.11 4.32 0.03 4.11 0.19 3.94 0.37 3.90 0.43 3.89 0.43 3.97 0.26 3.98 0.35 4.02 0.34 4.04 0.18 3.88 0.33 3.89 0.18 4.05 0.25 3.98 0.34Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.16 0.03 4.16 0.03 4.14 0.05 4.17 0.06 4.33 0.03 4.25 -0.06 4.14 0.03 4.08 0.13 4.07 0.13 4.07 0.08 4.05 0.18 4.17 0.07 4.15 -0.04 3.98 0.11 3.94 0.08 4.19 -0.02 4.10 0.11Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.06 -0.02 4.04 -0.01 4.03 0.10 4.21 -0.12 4.29 -0.14 4.11 -0.11 4.00 0.01 4.00 0.05 3.98 0.11 3.98 0.11 3.97 0.09 4.06 0.13 4.07 -0.25 3.75 0.20 3.80 0.22 4.04 -0.03 4.08 0.00Social/ethical practices related to food 4.08 -0.11 4.07 -0.10 4.01 0.01 4.20 -0.23 4.31 -0.19 4.14 -0.20 4.03 -0.08 4.04 -0.04 4.00 0.04 4.00 0.02 4.01 0.01 4.08 0.05 4.09 -0.36 3.75 0.16 3.81 0.19 4.07 -0.12 4.10 -0.09

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

Male Transgender

YOUR INSTITUTION

OVERALL SAMPLE

First yearOtherAdmin/StaffFaculty Transgender

On campus

Live...

On campusMale

Gender Identity

Student Junior

Faculty

All Valid Respondents

Respondent Type

Other First year

Student Class Status

Other

SophomoreAll Valid

Respondents

Respondent Type

Admin/StaffStudent

Live...

FemaleJunior Senior

Sophomore Graduate

Other

Senior Female Off campusOther

Gender Identity

OtherGraduate Off campus

Student Class Status

20 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 31: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Institutional Demographics

This table summarizes the survey results for your institution as well as the overall survey sample of all participating institutions.

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 4.11 0.45 3.93 0.60 3.86 0.62 3.93 0.59 3.93 0.60 3.96 0.58 3.94 0.60Taste 4.10 0.58 3.89 0.78 3.81 0.81 3.89 0.78 3.89 0.78 3.91 0.76 3.89 0.79Eye appeal 4.03 -0.01 3.86 -0.05 3.84 -0.09 3.86 -0.03 3.86 -0.05 3.87 -0.05 3.87 -0.10Freshness 3.99 0.61 3.79 0.79 3.78 0.75 3.80 0.79 3.79 0.79 3.81 0.77 3.80 0.79Nutritional content 3.73 0.53 3.60 0.75 3.59 0.74 3.61 0.74 3.60 0.75 3.62 0.74 3.58 0.77Value 3.58 1.00 3.55 0.83 3.46 0.91 3.56 0.83 3.55 0.83 3.58 0.80 3.53 0.88Availability of posted menu items 4.13 0.31 4.00 0.25 3.90 0.34 4.00 0.27 4.00 0.25 4.02 0.23 4.00 0.27Variety of menu choices 3.99 0.43 3.68 0.72 3.64 0.72 3.69 0.72 3.68 0.72 3.70 0.71 3.69 0.71Variety of healthy menu choices 3.75 0.41 3.56 0.74 3.54 0.72 3.56 0.73 3.56 0.74 3.57 0.73 3.53 0.76Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.70 -0.26 3.61 -0.18 3.60 -0.07 3.61 -0.16 3.61 -0.18 3.64 -0.21 3.57 -0.22Service: Overall 4.25 0.33 4.24 0.22 4.19 0.23 4.22 0.24 4.24 0.22 4.27 0.19 4.21 0.25Speed of service 4.13 0.47 4.08 0.37 4.01 0.41 4.08 0.37 4.08 0.36 4.11 0.33 4.05 0.41Hours of operation 4.00 0.48 3.88 0.54 3.84 0.55 3.88 0.55 3.88 0.54 3.90 0.53 3.86 0.55Helpfulness of staff 4.29 0.20 4.28 0.08 4.24 0.09 4.25 0.11 4.28 0.08 4.31 0.05 4.25 0.09Friendliness of staff 4.32 0.22 4.31 0.09 4.30 0.07 4.28 0.13 4.31 0.09 4.34 0.06 4.27 0.10Cleanliness: Overall 4.34 0.31 4.25 0.33 4.22 0.31 4.24 0.35 4.25 0.33 4.27 0.32 4.24 0.35Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.28 0.27 4.30 0.23 4.25 0.22 4.28 0.25 4.29 0.23 4.32 0.22 4.29 0.24Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.98 0.55 4.02 0.48 3.98 0.47 4.00 0.51 4.02 0.48 4.03 0.48 3.97 0.53Location 4.24 0.08 4.44 -0.17 4.36 -0.14 4.43 -0.14 4.44 -0.17 4.45 -0.18 4.43 -0.15Layout of facility 4.18 -0.10 4.29 -0.31 4.25 -0.33 4.28 -0.29 4.29 -0.31 4.30 -0.32 4.27 -0.33Appearance 4.20 -0.10 4.33 -0.36 4.26 -0.33 4.33 -0.34 4.33 -0.36 4.35 -0.37 4.32 -0.38Availability of seating 3.64 0.74 4.02 0.28 3.94 0.30 4.01 0.31 4.02 0.28 4.04 0.27 3.93 0.39Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.85 0.41 4.16 0.03 4.06 0.09 4.15 0.05 4.16 0.03 4.18 0.02 4.12 0.06Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.07 0.00 4.06 -0.02 4.09 -0.01 4.07 0.00 4.06 -0.02 4.09 -0.05 4.06 -0.04Social/ethical practices related to food 4.10 -0.04 4.08 -0.11 4.07 -0.07 4.09 -0.09 4.08 -0.11 4.11 -0.13 4.08 -0.13

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

ALL SURVEY RESPONDENTS (BOTH "ALL YOU CARE TO EAT DINING FACILITIES (DINING HALLS)" AND RETAIL UNITS)

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM ALL PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

Institution TypeAll Valid RespondentsYour Institution Mainly Self-operated Over 20,000Pacific Public Primarily 4-year

Institution Type Operation TypeTotal Current Enrollment

(Fulltime + Part-time)NACUFS Region

21 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 32: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Institutional Demographics

This table summarizes the survey results for your institution as well as the overall survey sample of all participating institutions.

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 3.67 0.75 3.76 0.77 3.62 0.85 3.77 0.75 3.76 0.77 3.79 0.74 3.75 0.80Taste 3.42 1.18 3.65 1.02 3.48 1.13 3.65 1.01 3.65 1.02 3.68 0.98 3.62 1.07Eye appeal 3.56 0.08 3.67 0.05 3.60 -0.03 3.67 0.07 3.67 0.05 3.69 0.04 3.68 0.00Freshness 3.48 1.06 3.59 0.98 3.56 0.92 3.59 0.97 3.59 0.98 3.62 0.95 3.57 1.02Nutritional content 3.46 0.82 3.51 0.86 3.50 0.84 3.51 0.85 3.51 0.86 3.54 0.84 3.46 0.94Value 3.54 0.72 3.54 0.70 3.47 0.65 3.55 0.69 3.54 0.70 3.58 0.66 3.51 0.75Availability of posted menu items 3.65 0.40 3.85 0.31 3.65 0.44 3.84 0.34 3.85 0.31 3.88 0.29 3.81 0.35Variety of menu choices 3.42 0.92 3.48 0.95 3.36 0.99 3.50 0.93 3.48 0.95 3.51 0.91 3.46 0.98Variety of healthy menu choices 3.38 0.86 3.45 0.87 3.43 0.82 3.46 0.86 3.45 0.87 3.48 0.84 3.40 0.95Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.27 -0.02 3.53 -0.14 3.52 -0.10 3.53 -0.13 3.53 -0.14 3.57 -0.18 3.47 -0.13Service: Overall 4.12 0.22 4.22 0.18 4.19 0.12 4.19 0.20 4.22 0.18 4.25 0.15 4.20 0.20Speed of service 4.15 0.22 4.13 0.21 4.09 0.20 4.13 0.23 4.13 0.21 4.16 0.19 4.14 0.22Hours of operation 3.58 0.85 3.75 0.67 3.63 0.77 3.77 0.66 3.75 0.67 3.76 0.67 3.72 0.71Helpfulness of staff 4.12 0.09 4.25 0.04 4.27 -0.03 4.21 0.07 4.25 0.04 4.27 0.01 4.21 0.06Friendliness of staff 4.10 0.17 4.27 0.06 4.31 -0.05 4.22 0.10 4.27 0.06 4.29 0.03 4.21 0.10Cleanliness: Overall 4.15 0.43 4.13 0.45 4.10 0.40 4.10 0.48 4.13 0.45 4.16 0.42 4.11 0.48Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.26 0.26 4.24 0.29 4.19 0.25 4.21 0.32 4.24 0.29 4.26 0.27 4.24 0.30Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.06 0.49 3.92 0.61 3.93 0.53 3.88 0.66 3.92 0.61 3.94 0.60 3.88 0.67Location 4.08 0.00 4.43 -0.20 4.35 -0.25 4.41 -0.17 4.43 -0.20 4.44 -0.21 4.43 -0.18Layout of facility 4.21 -0.37 4.30 -0.36 4.24 -0.40 4.29 -0.34 4.30 -0.36 4.32 -0.37 4.30 -0.40Appearance 4.01 -0.17 4.32 -0.40 4.21 -0.39 4.31 -0.38 4.32 -0.40 4.35 -0.41 4.32 -0.43Availability of seating 4.05 0.28 4.05 0.30 3.90 0.38 4.02 0.35 4.05 0.30 4.08 0.28 4.01 0.38Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.98 0.20 4.19 0.01 4.06 0.05 4.18 0.03 4.19 0.01 4.22 -0.01 4.18 0.02Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.84 0.07 4.02 -0.03 4.04 -0.06 4.03 -0.03 4.02 -0.03 4.05 -0.05 4.02 -0.05Social/ethical practices related to food 3.88 -0.01 4.04 -0.12 4.02 -0.10 4.05 -0.12 4.04 -0.12 4.07 -0.14 4.04 -0.14

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

ALL YOU CARE TO EAT DINING FACILITIES (DINING HALLS)

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM ALL PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

Pacific Public Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type Operation Type

Total Current Enrollment (Fulltime + Part-time)NACUFS Region Institution Type

All Valid Respondents Mainly Self-operated Over 20,000Your Institution

22 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 33: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Institutional Demographics

This table summarizes the survey results for your institution as well as the overall survey sample of all participating institutions.

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 4.19 0.40 4.07 0.46 3.98 0.51 4.08 0.46 4.08 0.45 4.10 0.43 4.08 0.45Taste 4.22 0.47 4.09 0.59 3.98 0.65 4.09 0.59 4.09 0.58 4.11 0.57 4.10 0.58Eye appeal 4.12 -0.02 4.02 -0.13 3.96 -0.12 4.02 -0.11 4.02 -0.13 4.03 -0.13 4.02 -0.18Freshness 4.09 0.53 3.96 0.63 3.90 0.66 3.97 0.63 3.96 0.63 3.98 0.61 3.97 0.61Nutritional content 3.78 0.47 3.68 0.65 3.63 0.70 3.70 0.63 3.68 0.65 3.70 0.64 3.67 0.64Value 3.58 1.06 3.55 0.94 3.46 1.04 3.56 0.95 3.56 0.94 3.57 0.92 3.54 0.98Availability of posted menu items 4.22 0.30 4.13 0.20 4.03 0.29 4.14 0.22 4.13 0.20 4.15 0.19 4.14 0.20Variety of menu choices 4.10 0.34 3.85 0.53 3.78 0.59 3.86 0.54 3.85 0.53 3.86 0.53 3.86 0.51Variety of healthy menu choices 3.82 0.33 3.65 0.62 3.59 0.67 3.66 0.62 3.65 0.62 3.66 0.63 3.63 0.62Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.78 -0.30 3.68 -0.22 3.65 -0.06 3.68 -0.19 3.68 -0.22 3.70 -0.24 3.65 -0.29Service: Overall 4.28 0.36 4.25 0.27 4.19 0.28 4.25 0.28 4.25 0.26 4.29 0.23 4.23 0.29Speed of service 4.13 0.52 4.03 0.50 3.98 0.50 4.03 0.50 4.03 0.49 4.05 0.46 3.98 0.56Hours of operation 4.08 0.41 3.99 0.43 3.94 0.44 3.97 0.46 3.99 0.43 4.02 0.40 3.97 0.43Helpfulness of staff 4.32 0.23 4.30 0.12 4.23 0.15 4.28 0.15 4.30 0.12 4.33 0.09 4.27 0.12Friendliness of staff 4.36 0.23 4.34 0.12 4.29 0.12 4.32 0.15 4.34 0.11 4.38 0.09 4.32 0.11Cleanliness: Overall 4.37 0.30 4.36 0.23 4.28 0.26 4.36 0.25 4.36 0.23 4.38 0.22 4.34 0.25Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.29 0.27 4.35 0.18 4.27 0.21 4.35 0.19 4.35 0.17 4.37 0.17 4.32 0.20Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.96 0.56 4.11 0.36 4.00 0.44 4.11 0.38 4.11 0.36 4.12 0.37 4.04 0.43Location 4.27 0.10 4.44 -0.14 4.36 -0.09 4.45 -0.11 4.44 -0.13 4.46 -0.15 4.44 -0.12Layout of facility 4.18 -0.05 4.28 -0.27 4.26 -0.30 4.28 -0.25 4.28 -0.27 4.29 -0.28 4.24 -0.27Appearance 4.23 -0.08 4.34 -0.32 4.28 -0.30 4.34 -0.30 4.34 -0.32 4.35 -0.33 4.31 -0.34Availability of seating 3.56 0.83 4.00 0.26 3.96 0.26 4.00 0.28 4.00 0.26 4.01 0.26 3.87 0.39Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.82 0.46 4.14 0.05 4.06 0.11 4.13 0.07 4.14 0.05 4.15 0.04 4.07 0.09Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.11 -0.02 4.09 -0.01 4.11 0.01 4.10 0.02 4.09 -0.01 4.13 -0.04 4.08 -0.03Social/ethical practices related to food 4.14 -0.05 4.11 -0.10 4.10 -0.05 4.12 -0.06 4.11 -0.10 4.15 -0.13 4.11 -0.11

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

Total Current Enrollment (Fulltime + Part-time)NACUFS Region Institution Type

All Valid Respondents

RETAIL UNITS

Mainly Self-operated Over 20,000Your Institution

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM ALL PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

Pacific Public Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type Operation Type

23 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 34: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap

Satisfaction Versus Prior

Year Satisfaction Gap

Satisfaction Versus Prior

YearFood: Overall 4.18 0.45 4.15 0.43 -0.03 4.11 0.45 -0.04Taste 4.21 0.52 4.17 0.56 -0.04 4.10 0.58 -0.08Eye appeal 4.15 0.08 4.13 0.00 -0.03 4.03 -0.01 -0.09Freshness 4.15 0.50 4.07 0.60 -0.08 3.99 0.61 -0.07Nutritional content 3.84 0.53 3.77 0.61 -0.08 3.73 0.53 -0.03Value 3.68 0.95 3.58 1.03 -0.10 3.58 1.00 -0.01Availability of posted menu items 4.24 0.26 4.25 0.19 0.02 4.13 0.31 -0.12Variety of menu choices 4.06 0.39 4.05 0.37 -0.01 3.99 0.43 -0.06Variety of healthy menu choices 3.86 0.47 3.77 0.52 -0.09 3.75 0.41 -0.02Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.83 -0.07 3.74 -0.17 -0.09 3.70 -0.26 -0.04Service: Overall 4.26 0.41 4.31 0.34 0.05 4.25 0.33 -0.05Speed of service 4.08 0.56 4.19 0.44 0.10 4.13 0.47 -0.06Hours of operation 4.08 0.47 4.10 0.42 0.02 4.00 0.48 -0.10Helpfulness of staff 4.31 0.28 4.35 0.22 0.04 4.29 0.20 -0.05Friendliness of staff 4.34 0.26 4.37 0.22 0.03 4.32 0.22 -0.05Cleanliness: Overall 4.38 0.33 4.39 0.29 0.01 4.34 0.31 -0.05Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.32 0.31 4.33 0.25 0.01 4.28 0.27 -0.05Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.06 0.50 4.02 0.52 -0.04 3.98 0.55 -0.04Location 4.25 0.19 4.28 0.10 0.03 4.24 0.08 -0.04Layout of facility 4.24 -0.05 4.25 -0.14 0.01 4.18 -0.10 -0.07Appearance 4.27 -0.02 4.32 -0.17 0.05 4.20 -0.10 -0.12Availability of seating 3.83 0.57 3.74 0.64 -0.09 3.64 0.74 -0.10Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.98 0.40 3.88 0.44 -0.10 3.85 0.41 -0.04Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.09 0.16 4.09 0.03 0.00 4.07 0.00 -0.02Social/ethical practices related to food 4.12 0.11 4.10 0.02 -0.01 4.10 -0.04 -0.01

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

20162015Your InstitutionYour Institution

2014Your Institution

24 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 35: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

FOOD

Value

4.18 4.15 4.11

3.88 3.84 3.93

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Food: Overall

4.21 4.17 4.10

3.84 3.81 3.89

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Taste

4.15 4.13 4.03

3.81 3.78 3.86

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Eye Appeal

4.15 4.07 3.99

3.73 3.70 3.79

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Freshness

3.84 3.77 3.73

3.53 3.51 3.60

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Nutritional Content

3.68 3.58 3.58

3.48 3.42 3.55

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Value

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

25 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 36: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

Value

MENU

4.24 4.25 4.13

3.99 3.95 4.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Availability of Posted Menu Items

4.06 4.05 3.99

3.66 3.63 3.68

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Variety of Menu Choices

3.86 3.77 3.75

3.50 3.48 3.56

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Variety of Healthy Menu Choices

3.83 3.74 3.70

3.57 3.53 3.61

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Variety of Vegetarian Menu Choices

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

26 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 37: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

Value

SERVICE

4.26 4.31 4.254.18 4.16 4.24

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Service: Overall

4.08 4.19 4.13

4.01 4.00 4.08

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Speed of Service

4.08 4.10 4.00

3.84 3.84 3.88

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Hours of Operation

4.31 4.35 4.29

4.21 4.20 4.28

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Helpfulness of Staff

4.34 4.37 4.324.25 4.24 4.31

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Friendliness of Staff

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

27 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 38: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY

CLEANLINESS

4.38 4.39 4.34

4.21 4.20 4.25

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Cleanliness: Overall

4.32 4.33 4.284.25 4.24 4.30

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Cleanliness: Serving Areas

4.06 4.02 3.984.01 3.98 4.02

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Cleanliness: Eating Areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

4.09 4.09 4.074.03 3.98 4.06

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

4.12 4.10 4.104.04 4.00 4.08

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Social/ethical practices related to food

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

28 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 39: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

Value

DINING ENVIRONMENT

4.25 4.28 4.244.38 4.39 4.44

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Location

4.24 4.25 4.184.22 4.23 4.29

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Layout of Facility

4.27 4.32 4.204.27 4.27 4.33

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Appearance

3.83 3.74 3.643.96 3.96 4.02

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Availability of Seating

3.98 3.88 3.854.12 4.09 4.16

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2014 2015 2016

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

29 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 40: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By All You Care to Eat Dining Facility (Dining Hall) - Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 3.67 0.75Taste 3.42 1.18Eye appeal 3.56 0.08Freshness 3.48 1.06Nutritional content 3.46 0.82Value 3.54 0.72Availability of posted menu items 3.65 0.40Variety of menu choices 3.42 0.92Variety of healthy menu choices 3.38 0.86Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.27 -0.02Service: Overall 4.12 0.22Speed of service 4.15 0.22Hours of operation 3.58 0.85Helpfulness of staff 4.12 0.09Friendliness of staff 4.10 0.17Cleanliness: Overall 4.15 0.43Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.26 0.26Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.06 0.49Location 4.08 0.00Layout of facility 4.21 -0.37Appearance 4.01 -0.17Availability of seating 4.05 0.28Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.98 0.20Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.84 0.07Social/ethical practices related to food 3.88 -0.01

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: OverallTasteEye appealFreshnessNutritional contentValueAvailability of posted menu itemsVariety of menu choicesVariety of healthy menu choicesVariety of vegetarian menu choicesService: OverallSpeed of serviceHours of operationHelpfulness of staffFriendliness of staffCleanliness: OverallCleanliness: Serving areasCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)LocationLayout of facilityAppearanceAvailability of seatingComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)Environmentally friendly practices related to foodSocial/ethical practices related to food

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

1 2 3

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

4 5

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

7 86 10

All You Care to Eat Facility #

9

All You Care to Eat Facility #

30 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 41: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By All You Care to Eat Dining Facility (Dining Hall) - Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: OverallTasteEye appealFreshnessNutritional contentValueAvailability of posted menu itemsVariety of menu choicesVariety of healthy menu choicesVariety of vegetarian menu choicesService: OverallSpeed of serviceHours of operationHelpfulness of staffFriendliness of staffCleanliness: OverallCleanliness: Serving areasCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)LocationLayout of facilityAppearanceAvailability of seatingComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)Environmentally friendly practices related to foodSocial/ethical practices related to food

Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: OverallTasteEye appealFreshnessNutritional contentValueAvailability of posted menu itemsVariety of menu choicesVariety of healthy menu choicesVariety of vegetarian menu choicesService: OverallSpeed of serviceHours of operationHelpfulness of staffFriendliness of staffCleanliness: OverallCleanliness: Serving areasCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)LocationLayout of facilityAppearanceAvailability of seatingComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)Environmentally friendly practices related to foodSocial/ethical practices related to food

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

All You Care to Eat Facility #

16 17 18

11

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

13

All You Care to Eat Facility #

12

All You Care to Eat Facility #

19

14

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

20

All You Care to Eat Facility #

15

All You Care to Eat Facility #

31 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 42: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Retail Unit - Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 3.91 0.55 4.13 0.69 4.53 0.05 3.94 0.31 4.05 0.59Taste 3.94 0.68 4.26 0.62 4.63 -0.09 4.00 0.33 3.95 0.72Eye appeal 3.63 0.30 4.04 0.40 4.53 -0.49 3.88 -0.04 3.72 0.38Freshness 3.68 0.85 4.17 0.71 4.66 -0.08 3.88 0.38 3.83 0.71Nutritional content 3.18 0.80 4.30 0.42 4.58 -0.04 3.80 -0.37 3.61 0.00Value 3.36 1.20 3.95 0.82 4.06 0.65 4.06 -0.15 3.72 0.59Availability of posted menu items 3.95 0.47 3.74 0.87 4.42 0.17 4.21 0.15 4.16 0.61Variety of menu choices 3.88 0.59 3.87 0.85 4.51 -0.01 4.05 0.45 3.83 0.78Variety of healthy menu choices 3.08 0.74 4.43 0.07 4.51 -0.11 4.00 -0.38 3.47 0.68Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.18 -0.09 4.48 -0.53 4.52 -0.81 3.75 -0.75 3.86 0.34Service: Overall 4.06 0.48 4.04 0.73 4.42 -0.01 4.32 0.32 4.14 0.52Speed of service 3.79 0.83 4.00 0.89 4.16 0.29 4.32 -0.04 4.33 0.38Hours of operation 4.02 0.34 3.86 0.91 4.26 0.14 4.11 0.08 4.20 0.30Helpfulness of staff 4.22 0.22 4.17 0.44 4.47 -0.09 4.28 0.36 4.33 0.33Friendliness of staff 4.29 0.18 4.26 0.46 4.54 -0.13 4.32 0.41 4.33 0.33Cleanliness: Overall 4.26 0.31 4.43 0.12 4.61 -0.12 4.11 0.69 4.33 0.45Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.11 0.38 4.35 0.12 4.44 -0.10 3.83 0.67 4.25 0.46Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.81 0.71 4.09 0.44 4.32 0.08 4.13 0.24 4.21 0.22Location 4.16 0.09 4.17 0.53 4.39 0.14 4.58 -0.40 4.24 0.15Layout of facility 4.07 -0.08 4.04 0.12 4.35 -0.04 4.44 -0.17 4.14 -0.07Appearance 4.04 0.05 4.22 0.17 4.37 -0.11 4.28 -0.19 4.42 -0.49Availability of seating 3.33 1.02 4.00 0.53 3.91 0.38 3.63 0.14 4.06 0.17Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.63 0.58 4.05 0.54 3.88 0.38 4.00 -0.31 4.00 0.31Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.87 0.10 4.53 -0.21 4.42 -0.22 4.46 -0.10 4.06 0.52Social/ethical practices related to food 3.99 0.01 4.32 0.00 4.44 -0.23 4.69 -0.39 4.11 0.39

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 4.41 0.33 4.20 0.36 4.23 0.42 4.00 0.69 4.03 0.25Taste 4.42 0.40 4.27 0.49 4.28 0.47 4.00 0.81 3.94 0.46Eye appeal 4.45 -0.26 4.26 -0.22 4.22 -0.15 3.82 0.56 3.68 0.20Freshness 4.37 0.33 4.10 0.62 4.01 0.65 4.05 0.77 3.58 0.86Nutritional content 3.91 0.09 4.16 0.22 3.58 0.63 4.00 0.44 3.39 1.06Value 3.77 0.95 3.32 1.32 3.57 1.09 3.50 1.25 3.47 1.07Availability of posted menu items 4.34 0.29 4.17 0.36 4.37 0.17 3.78 0.61 3.83 0.59Variety of menu choices 4.18 0.40 4.08 0.34 4.30 0.10 3.83 0.55 3.94 0.49Variety of healthy menu choices 3.97 0.01 4.19 0.11 3.77 0.22 3.69 0.90 3.39 1.05Variety of vegetarian menu choices 4.11 -0.58 3.80 -0.34 3.75 -0.46 3.60 -0.10 3.29 0.76Service: Overall 4.50 0.26 4.35 0.30 4.31 0.34 4.20 0.47 4.26 0.03Speed of service 4.28 0.38 4.43 0.11 4.31 0.37 4.35 0.38 3.93 0.48Hours of operation 4.45 0.05 3.92 0.48 4.03 0.49 4.35 0.38 4.09 0.03Helpfulness of staff 4.56 0.13 4.39 0.09 4.21 0.34 4.45 0.28 4.25 0.04Friendliness of staff 4.57 0.13 4.38 0.11 4.15 0.40 4.50 0.23 4.39 0.03Cleanliness: Overall 4.52 0.32 4.48 0.14 4.36 0.41 4.47 0.26 4.10 0.55Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.52 0.22 4.38 0.12 4.29 0.37 4.31 0.15 4.26 -0.09Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.31 0.35 3.88 0.49 3.90 0.64 3.80 0.87 3.93 0.55Location 4.33 0.22 4.19 0.08 4.29 0.06 4.26 0.45 4.30 0.03Layout of facility 4.45 -0.03 4.16 -0.13 4.20 -0.10 4.00 0.14 4.10 0.16Appearance 4.51 -0.06 4.23 -0.23 4.28 -0.17 4.11 0.47 3.77 0.36Availability of seating 4.30 0.30 3.34 0.93 3.58 0.82 3.18 1.36 3.61 0.62Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.20 0.38 3.67 0.38 3.72 0.59 3.56 0.87 3.55 0.62Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.39 -0.26 4.12 0.07 4.06 -0.01 4.06 -0.06 3.81 0.57Social/ethical practices related to food 4.38 -0.35 4.16 0.01 4.11 -0.08 3.94 -0.16 3.73 0.51

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

Retail Unit #96 7

1 2 3Retail Unit #

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #Retail Unit #Retail Unit #4 5

Retail Unit #8 10

Retail Unit #

32 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 43: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Retail Unit - Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 4.49 0.11 3.84 0.59 4.35 0.33 4.26 0.28 4.44 0.19Taste 4.45 0.32 3.89 0.65 4.35 0.43 4.34 0.37 4.38 0.28Eye appeal 4.36 -0.11 3.89 0.25 4.27 -0.06 4.27 0.04 4.24 0.04Freshness 4.36 0.26 3.95 0.77 4.29 0.59 4.26 0.47 4.36 0.37Nutritional content 3.99 0.41 3.68 0.85 3.96 0.46 3.86 0.50 4.36 0.07Value 3.92 0.79 3.42 1.22 3.76 1.05 3.71 1.02 4.03 0.63Availability of posted menu items 4.40 0.18 3.75 0.16 4.44 0.15 4.32 0.26 4.47 0.14Variety of menu choices 4.33 0.11 3.71 0.54 4.12 0.34 4.31 0.18 4.45 0.04Variety of healthy menu choices 4.11 0.10 3.94 -0.02 3.98 0.13 3.93 0.30 4.36 0.12Variety of vegetarian menu choices 4.01 -0.39 3.92 -0.76 4.12 -0.50 3.92 -0.32 4.33 -0.58Service: Overall 4.31 0.34 4.21 0.43 4.35 0.33 4.22 0.58 4.41 0.25Speed of service 4.11 0.56 4.16 0.48 4.14 0.56 3.75 1.07 4.31 0.39Hours of operation 4.12 0.41 4.11 0.47 4.36 0.10 4.13 0.59 4.17 0.35Helpfulness of staff 4.42 0.22 4.17 0.29 4.47 0.12 4.38 0.40 4.40 0.22Friendliness of staff 4.44 0.11 4.16 0.38 4.47 0.27 4.42 0.42 4.40 0.24Cleanliness: Overall 4.34 0.32 4.67 -0.28 4.38 0.39 4.37 0.45 4.50 0.20Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.27 0.23 4.59 -0.50 4.22 0.54 4.23 0.55 4.39 0.20Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.14 0.46 4.35 -0.27 4.04 0.64 4.05 0.64 3.98 0.60Location 4.28 0.14 4.37 0.13 4.47 -0.18 4.51 0.06 4.38 0.01Layout of facility 3.98 0.21 4.16 0.27 4.22 -0.17 4.13 0.16 4.29 -0.05Appearance 4.31 -0.11 4.26 0.12 4.34 -0.24 4.32 0.07 4.23 -0.01Availability of seating 3.41 1.11 3.77 0.32 3.94 0.68 3.30 1.17 3.76 0.66Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.86 0.57 3.86 0.32 4.16 0.27 4.07 0.46 3.94 0.36Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.22 0.02 4.07 -0.70 4.26 -0.10 4.21 0.09 4.29 -0.16Social/ethical practices related to food 4.30 -0.06 4.13 -0.86 4.26 -0.23 4.27 0.03 4.35 -0.25

Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 4.15 0.30 3.93 0.71 3.74 0.61 4.12 0.57 4.17 0.52Taste 4.18 0.36 3.89 0.80 3.83 0.47 4.23 0.52 4.23 0.52Eye appeal 3.95 0.04 3.91 -0.23 3.81 -0.06 4.15 -0.01 4.15 0.05Freshness 3.96 0.41 3.83 0.46 3.55 0.80 4.20 0.45 4.09 0.41Nutritional content 3.45 0.43 3.28 0.89 3.53 0.58 3.79 0.58 3.60 0.99Value 4.00 0.58 3.31 1.36 2.82 1.56 3.16 1.50 3.35 1.29Availability of posted menu items 4.22 0.13 3.93 0.56 3.83 0.49 4.29 0.28 4.26 0.28Variety of menu choices 3.87 0.46 3.48 0.90 3.81 0.61 4.16 0.21 3.87 0.60Variety of healthy menu choices 3.39 0.49 3.10 0.90 3.59 0.49 3.92 0.31 3.65 0.64Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.42 -0.20 3.13 -0.03 3.69 -0.22 3.71 -0.08 3.58 0.17Service: Overall 4.49 0.03 3.94 0.64 4.42 0.15 4.22 0.41 4.11 0.57Speed of service 4.45 0.16 3.52 1.08 4.21 0.31 4.14 0.52 3.96 0.74Hours of operation 3.98 0.26 4.17 0.38 4.37 0.29 3.84 0.66 3.80 0.79Helpfulness of staff 4.46 -0.08 4.04 0.26 4.45 0.07 4.16 0.42 4.17 0.46Friendliness of staff 4.58 -0.10 4.17 0.26 4.53 -0.06 4.18 0.46 4.33 0.36Cleanliness: Overall 4.39 0.11 4.01 0.59 4.58 -0.08 4.31 0.28 4.34 0.46Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.24 0.20 4.17 0.36 4.29 0.08 4.28 0.27 4.31 0.10Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.85 0.62 3.81 0.84 4.12 -0.06 3.77 0.77 3.79 0.25Location 4.29 -0.09 4.00 0.32 3.97 0.11 4.16 0.15 4.23 0.40Layout of facility 4.16 -0.04 4.19 -0.55 4.06 -0.29 4.19 -0.03 4.29 -0.09Appearance 4.05 0.10 4.22 -0.43 4.17 -0.47 4.21 -0.14 4.39 -0.16Availability of seating 3.39 1.15 3.99 0.37 3.62 0.38 3.41 0.99 3.00 0.78Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.72 0.56 4.07 0.10 3.70 -0.11 3.67 0.60 3.19 0.66Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.15 -0.15 3.96 -0.32 3.90 -0.22 3.88 0.14 4.08 0.26Social/ethical practices related to food 4.18 -0.14 3.96 -0.19 3.90 -0.28 3.85 0.29 3.90 0.30

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

Retail Unit #Retail Unit #

20Retail Unit #

15

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #

14

191816 17

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #

11 1312Retail Unit #

33 School #49: California Polytechnic University, Pomona

Page 44: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016
Page 45: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

Detailed Survey Results for California Polytechnic University, Pomona

This section shows the detailed survey results for both the overall industry and for your institution by various data aggregations to allow comparisons between differing respondent groups.

Page 46: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016
Page 47: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

DEMOGRAPHICS

YOUR INSTITUTION

1,77184%

1%15%

0%1,77127%11%31%26%

3%1%

1,49459%40%

0%1%

1,77127%73%

1,771

# ResponsesStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type

Total Resp First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status

Total Resp FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender Identity

Total Resp On campusOff campus

Live...

Total Resp

California PolytechnicUniversity, Pomona

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 48: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 1a

4% 5% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .03 1,433

3% 6% 17% 41% 32% 3.92 .00 108,9034% 4% 16% 41% 35% 3.99 .03 1,2213% 5% 16% 41% 35% 4.00 .00 59,7604% 10% 23% 43% 20% 3.66 .07 2124% 8% 19% 42% 27% 3.82 .00 49,1434% 5% 17% 44% 30% 3.90 .03 1,238

20% 20% 60% 4.40 .40 52% 4% 18% 28% 48% 4.17 .07 184

50% 50% 4.50 .22 63% 7% 18% 42% 30% 3.89 .00 95,9504% 6% 15% 35% 40% 3.99 .02 3,0043% 5% 13% 35% 44% 4.12 .01 9,2153% 2% 9% 31% 55% 4.32 .04 6642% 7% 19% 44% 28% 3.87 .05 3473% 6% 13% 42% 36% 4.01 .08 1457% 3% 18% 42% 30% 3.86 .06 3712% 6% 16% 47% 28% 3.92 .05 3259% 3% 19% 38% 31% 3.78 .21 32

6% 11% 50% 33% 4.11 .20 183% 7% 18% 42% 31% 3.91 .00 40,0184% 8% 19% 42% 28% 3.82 .01 20,0824% 6% 17% 42% 30% 3.89 .01 15,4593% 6% 18% 42% 31% 3.92 .01 13,6983% 6% 17% 42% 31% 3.91 .01 5,9034% 5% 19% 42% 31% 3.89 .04 6754% 5% 16% 40% 35% 3.97 .04 8314% 5% 19% 43% 29% 3.90 .04 588

100% 5.00 .00 217% 17% 67% 3.33 .33 12

3% 7% 18% 41% 31% 3.90 .00 65,4023% 6% 16% 41% 33% 3.94 .00 41,7943% 9% 20% 37% 31% 3.85 .05 3655% 8% 21% 42% 25% 3.75 .04 8545% 8% 21% 44% 23% 3.71 .05 3933% 4% 16% 41% 36% 4.02 .03 1,0403% 7% 19% 42% 28% 3.85 .00 67,5433% 5% 15% 39% 37% 4.03 .01 40,0994% 5% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .03 1,4332% 4% 14% 44% 35% 4.05 .01 14,6345% 10% 19% 38% 29% 3.76 .01 10,0753% 6% 16% 42% 32% 3.95 .01 31,8343% 7% 19% 40% 30% 3.87 .01 18,7834% 7% 20% 41% 28% 3.82 .01 17,4534% 6% 16% 39% 35% 3.96 .01 16,1244% 5% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .03 1,4333% 6% 17% 41% 32% 3.92 .00 80,3393% 7% 18% 41% 31% 3.90 .01 28,5644% 5% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .03 1,4335% 8% 15% 34% 38% 3.92 .04 1,0133% 6% 17% 41% 32% 3.92 .00 107,8904% 5% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .03 1,4333% 6% 17% 42% 33% 3.95 .00 83,9314% 8% 19% 40% 28% 3.79 .01 23,4552% 7% 16% 43% 32% 3.96 .02 1,5174% 5% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .03 1,4334% 8% 18% 38% 33% 3.89 .01 5,8383% 6% 18% 42% 30% 3.89 .01 25,1853% 6% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .01 31,1824% 6% 17% 41% 32% 3.92 .00 46,6985% 5% 15% 41% 34% 3.95 .04 7236% 8% 21% 41% 24% 3.68 .14 632% 4% 14% 41% 39% 4.11 .06 2792% 15% 41% 42% 4.22 .11 591% 3% 23% 45% 28% 3.96 .09 973% 6% 17% 41% 33% 3.94 .01 20,2853% 6% 17% 41% 33% 3.94 .01 7,1233% 5% 14% 40% 38% 4.05 .01 13,7773% 5% 15% 41% 36% 4.04 .01 8,3403% 5% 14% 39% 40% 4.08 .02 2,5613% 5% 15% 41% 36% 4.04 .01 7,675

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the diningservices provided by your college/university?

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 49: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 1bMean* Importance of Various Items and Satisfaction with Each Item

(as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in Generalwithout regard to any specific meal)

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

4.564.114.674.104.024.034.613.994.263.734.583.584.444.134.433.994.163.753.443.704.594.254.604.134.484.004.504.294.534.324.654.344.554.284.533.984.324.244.084.184.104.204.383.644.263.854.074.074.054.10

Food: Overall - IMPORTANCEFood: Overall - SATISFACTIONTaste - IMPORTANCETaste - SATISFACTIONEye appeal - IMPORTANCEEye appeal - SATISFACTIONFreshness - IMPORTANCEFreshness - SATISFACTIONNutritional content - IMPORTANCENutritional content - SATISFACTIONValue - IMPORTANCEValue - SATISFACTIONAvailability of posted menu items - IMPORTANCEAvailability of posted menu items - SATISFACTIONVariety of menu choices - IMPORTANCEVariety of menu choices - SATISFACTIONVariety of healthy menu choices - IMPORTANCEVariety of healthy menu choices - SATISFACTIONVariety of vegetarian menu choices - IMPORTANCEVariety of vegetarian menu choices - SATISFACTIONService: Overall - IMPORTANCEService: Overall - SATISFACTIONSpeed of service - IMPORTANCESpeed of service - SATISFACTIONHours of operation - IMPORTANCEHours of operation - SATISFACTIONHelpfulness of staff - IMPORTANCEHelpfulness of staff - SATISFACTIONFriendliness of staff - IMPORTANCEFriendliness of staff - SATISFACTIONCleanliness: Overall - IMPORTANCECleanliness: Overall - SATISFACTIONCleanliness: Serving areas - IMPORTANCECleanliness: Serving areas - SATISFACTIONCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) - IMPORTANCECleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) - SATISFACTIONLocation - IMPORTANCELocation - SATISFACTIONLayout of facility - IMPORTANCELayout of facility - SATISFACTIONAppearance - IMPORTANCEAppearance - SATISFACTIONAvailability of seating - IMPORTANCEAvailability of seating - SATISFACTIONComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) - IMPORTANCEComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) - SATISFACTIONEnvironmentally friendly practices related to food - IMPORTANCEEnvironmentally friendly practices related to food - SATISFACTIONSocial/ ethical practices related to food - IMPORTANCESocial/ ethical practices related to food - SATISFACTION

California PolytechnicUniversity, Pomona

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance/Satisfaction

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 50: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 2aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Overall

0% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .02 1,370

0% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 104,7450% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.58 .02 1,1420% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 56,2590% 3% 11% 27% 59% 4.41 .05 2280% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 48,4860% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .02 1,191

67% 33% 4.33 .33 3 1% 4% 18% 77% 4.70 .05 172 100% 5.00 .00 4

0% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .00 91,8550% 1% 5% 26% 68% 4.59 .01 2,9060% 0% 4% 27% 68% 4.62 .01 9,2201% 2% 8% 22% 68% 4.55 .03 588

2% 10% 24% 64% 4.50 .04 320 1% 7% 36% 55% 4.45 .06 137

1% 1% 10% 20% 67% 4.52 .04 3670% 1% 5% 27% 66% 4.58 .04 310

13% 8% 79% 4.67 .11 39 17% 83% 4.83 .09 18

0% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .00 38,8460% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .01 19,0770% 1% 9% 26% 64% 4.52 .01 14,7770% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.54 .01 13,0550% 1% 9% 31% 58% 4.45 .01 5,3530% 2% 11% 31% 55% 4.39 .03 6340% 1% 6% 22% 72% 4.64 .02 7670% 2% 11% 26% 61% 4.46 .03 589

20% 80% 4.80 .20 5 11% 11% 44% 33% 4.00 .33 9

0% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57 .00 62,0120% 1% 9% 29% 61% 4.49 .00 41,0031% 3% 10% 29% 57% 4.39 .04 3561% 2% 13% 28% 56% 4.35 .03 7840% 2% 11% 28% 58% 4.42 .04 3800% 1% 7% 22% 70% 4.61 .02 9900% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 64,8300% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.54 .00 38,5760% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .02 1,3700% 1% 8% 29% 62% 4.51 .01 14,6030% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .01 9,9700% 1% 8% 28% 63% 4.52 .00 30,4340% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.56 .01 18,0170% 1% 9% 28% 61% 4.48 .01 16,0760% 1% 8% 25% 66% 4.56 .01 15,6450% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .02 1,3700% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.53 .00 78,1890% 1% 7% 27% 65% 4.55 .00 26,5560% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .02 1,3700% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.53 .02 9570% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 103,7880% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .02 1,3700% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 82,0860% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 21,284

1% 8% 27% 64% 4.54 .02 1,3750% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .02 1,3700% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.58 .01 5,9120% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.54 .00 23,5670% 1% 8% 28% 63% 4.51 .00 29,6290% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.54 .00 45,6370% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.58 .03 685

5% 26% 69% 4.64 .08 581% 1% 8% 19% 72% 4.59 .05 247

4% 18% 78% 4.74 .06 68 4% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .09 84

0% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .01 19,2340% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.54 .01 6,9000% 1% 7% 27% 65% 4.55 .01 12,9141% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.52 .01 7,5040% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.61 .01 2,4141% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.50 .01 7,294

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Food: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 51: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 2bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Overall

2% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.11 .02 1,734

3% 6% 17% 42% 31% 3.93 .00 126,5323% 4% 12% 35% 46% 4.19 .03 1,4622% 5% 14% 41% 38% 4.07 .00 68,6362% 10% 26% 44% 18% 3.67 .06 2723% 8% 21% 44% 23% 3.76 .00 57,8962% 5% 14% 38% 40% 4.07 .03 1,467

20% 20% 60% 4.40 .27 102% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.27 .06 251

17% 33% 50% 4.33 .33 63% 6% 18% 43% 29% 3.90 .00 110,0884% 6% 13% 37% 40% 4.03 .02 3,7482% 5% 12% 36% 45% 4.17 .01 11,6942% 3% 10% 30% 55% 4.33 .03 7792% 6% 17% 39% 36% 4.01 .05 4053% 3% 14% 44% 36% 4.07 .07 1693% 5% 13% 35% 44% 4.12 .05 4472% 6% 15% 38% 40% 4.09 .05 3786% 4% 11% 38% 40% 4.02 .17 47

10% 48% 43% 4.33 .14 212% 6% 19% 44% 28% 3.89 .00 46,0703% 7% 20% 42% 28% 3.84 .01 23,0083% 7% 17% 42% 31% 3.92 .01 17,7553% 5% 16% 44% 32% 3.98 .01 15,6853% 6% 15% 45% 30% 3.94 .01 6,6415% 6% 18% 41% 31% 3.86 .04 7822% 5% 12% 35% 45% 4.16 .03 1,0152% 5% 17% 38% 38% 4.04 .04 705

20% 40% 40% 3.80 .73 511% 22% 56% 11% 3.56 .38 9

3% 6% 18% 42% 32% 3.93 .00 75,7353% 6% 17% 43% 31% 3.94 .00 48,6694% 9% 21% 38% 27% 3.75 .05 4345% 7% 23% 38% 27% 3.73 .03 9673% 8% 20% 41% 28% 3.85 .05 4672% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.20 .03 1,2673% 7% 20% 43% 27% 3.84 .00 77,4202% 5% 13% 41% 39% 4.08 .00 47,5122% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.11 .02 1,7342% 4% 15% 46% 33% 4.05 .01 16,9054% 8% 20% 40% 28% 3.80 .01 11,5492% 6% 17% 44% 31% 3.95 .01 36,9013% 7% 19% 40% 30% 3.88 .01 21,7773% 7% 20% 42% 28% 3.86 .01 20,0923% 6% 15% 40% 36% 4.01 .01 19,3082% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.11 .02 1,7343% 6% 17% 42% 31% 3.93 .00 94,7172% 7% 18% 42% 31% 3.92 .01 31,8152% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.11 .02 1,7345% 7% 15% 35% 38% 3.95 .03 1,2623% 6% 17% 42% 31% 3.93 .00 125,2702% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.11 .02 1,7342% 6% 17% 43% 32% 3.96 .00 98,2404% 8% 18% 41% 29% 3.84 .01 26,7002% 5% 17% 43% 32% 3.99 .02 1,5922% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.11 .02 1,7343% 7% 18% 41% 32% 3.92 .01 6,8753% 6% 18% 42% 31% 3.92 .01 28,7812% 6% 18% 43% 30% 3.93 .01 35,8323% 6% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .00 55,0442% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.17 .03 8806% 6% 15% 38% 36% 3.93 .13 722% 2% 10% 30% 55% 4.34 .05 3203% 8% 33% 56% 4.41 .10 784% 10% 15% 37% 35% 3.89 .10 1123% 5% 16% 42% 34% 4.00 .01 23,3882% 5% 15% 42% 35% 4.04 .01 8,2652% 5% 13% 38% 42% 4.15 .01 15,7772% 4% 13% 39% 42% 4.16 .01 9,3002% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.17 .02 3,0242% 5% 15% 42% 36% 4.05 .01 8,883

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Food: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 52: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 3aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Taste

1% 1% 6% 18% 75% 4.67 .02 1,367

0% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 104,8260% 1% 5% 17% 77% 4.69 .02 1,1370% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 56,2661% 0% 7% 23% 70% 4.60 .05 2300% 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.67 .00 48,5601% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.65 .02 1,185

33% 67% 4.67 .33 3 1% 2% 12% 86% 4.83 .03 175 100% 5.00 .00 4

0% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.66 .00 91,8510% 1% 3% 18% 78% 4.73 .01 2,9290% 0% 2% 16% 82% 4.79 .01 9,2801% 1% 5% 17% 77% 4.69 .03 5871% 0% 7% 18% 74% 4.65 .04 319

1% 10% 20% 69% 4.57 .06 1361% 0% 7% 21% 71% 4.60 .04 3640% 1% 4% 17% 78% 4.73 .03 310

8% 11% 82% 4.74 .10 38 22% 78% 4.78 .10 18

0% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 38,8790% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.66 .00 19,0560% 1% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .01 14,7670% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.67 .01 13,0540% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .01 5,3460% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .03 6360% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .02 7671% 1% 8% 21% 70% 4.58 .03 586

20% 80% 4.80 .20 5 22% 22% 56% 4.11 .42 9

0% 0% 4% 18% 78% 4.72 .00 62,1480% 1% 7% 24% 69% 4.59 .00 40,9460% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.55 .04 3632% 2% 8% 22% 67% 4.50 .03 7801% 1% 9% 20% 70% 4.58 .04 3790% 1% 4% 17% 78% 4.71 .02 9880% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.66 .00 64,8570% 1% 4% 20% 75% 4.69 .00 38,6221% 1% 6% 18% 75% 4.67 .02 1,3670% 1% 5% 22% 73% 4.66 .01 14,6410% 0% 4% 19% 77% 4.71 .01 9,9870% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.66 .00 30,4680% 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.69 .00 18,0020% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 16,0780% 1% 4% 19% 76% 4.70 .00 15,6501% 1% 6% 18% 75% 4.67 .02 1,3670% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 78,1950% 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.67 .00 26,6311% 1% 6% 18% 75% 4.67 .02 1,3670% 1% 3% 17% 79% 4.73 .02 9650% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 103,8611% 1% 6% 18% 75% 4.67 .02 1,3670% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 82,1290% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.68 .00 21,328

1% 4% 21% 74% 4.69 .02 1,3691% 1% 6% 18% 75% 4.67 .02 1,3670% 1% 4% 19% 76% 4.70 .01 5,9110% 1% 5% 20% 75% 4.68 .00 23,6040% 1% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .00 29,6300% 1% 5% 20% 75% 4.68 .00 45,6810% 0% 5% 18% 76% 4.69 .02 685

2% 5% 16% 77% 4.68 .09 571% 5% 13% 80% 4.71 .04 246

1% 15% 84% 4.82 .05 68 4% 9% 25% 63% 4.47 .09 81

0% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 19,2600% 1% 4% 20% 75% 4.69 .01 6,9010% 1% 5% 20% 75% 4.69 .01 12,9280% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.66 .01 7,5070% 1% 3% 15% 81% 4.76 .01 2,4031% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 7,268

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Taste

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 53: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 3bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Taste

2% 6% 15% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 1,725

3% 7% 19% 39% 31% 3.89 .00 126,4382% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.22 .03 1,4542% 5% 15% 38% 40% 4.09 .00 68,5654% 14% 32% 38% 13% 3.42 .06 2714% 10% 25% 40% 21% 3.65 .00 57,8732% 6% 15% 36% 40% 4.06 .03 1,458

10% 30% 60% 4.40 .31 102% 5% 12% 25% 56% 4.27 .06 251

17% 33% 50% 4.33 .33 63% 8% 20% 39% 30% 3.85 .00 110,0023% 6% 14% 38% 39% 4.03 .02 3,7462% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.18 .01 11,6902% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.30 .03 7743% 9% 21% 30% 37% 3.90 .05 3992% 3% 17% 38% 40% 4.10 .07 1673% 5% 11% 39% 42% 4.10 .05 4441% 3% 15% 38% 42% 4.17 .05 3794% 9% 11% 34% 43% 4.02 .17 475% 5% 5% 41% 45% 4.18 .22 223% 8% 22% 39% 28% 3.81 .00 46,0644% 8% 21% 39% 28% 3.80 .01 22,9873% 7% 19% 39% 31% 3.88 .01 17,7273% 6% 17% 41% 33% 3.96 .01 15,6463% 7% 18% 42% 31% 3.90 .01 6,6415% 7% 18% 38% 31% 3.84 .04 7823% 6% 13% 33% 46% 4.14 .03 1,0082% 6% 18% 37% 38% 4.04 .04 702

40% 60% 4.20 .49 510% 10% 60% 20% 3.80 .36 10

3% 8% 19% 38% 32% 3.89 .00 75,6863% 7% 19% 40% 31% 3.89 .00 48,6073% 11% 24% 33% 29% 3.73 .05 4445% 8% 22% 36% 28% 3.73 .04 9704% 10% 22% 36% 28% 3.75 .05 4642% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.22 .03 1,2613% 9% 22% 39% 26% 3.77 .00 77,3753% 5% 14% 38% 40% 4.07 .00 47,4472% 6% 15% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 1,7251% 5% 18% 42% 33% 4.00 .01 16,8945% 9% 20% 37% 29% 3.77 .01 11,5343% 7% 19% 40% 31% 3.91 .01 36,8903% 8% 21% 37% 30% 3.82 .01 21,7373% 8% 21% 39% 28% 3.81 .01 20,0713% 7% 17% 37% 37% 3.98 .01 19,3122% 6% 15% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 1,7253% 7% 19% 39% 31% 3.89 .00 94,6363% 8% 19% 39% 31% 3.89 .01 31,8022% 6% 15% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 1,7254% 6% 14% 34% 42% 4.02 .03 1,2543% 7% 19% 39% 31% 3.89 .00 125,1842% 6% 15% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 1,7253% 7% 19% 39% 32% 3.91 .00 98,1134% 9% 19% 38% 30% 3.81 .01 26,7332% 6% 18% 39% 35% 3.99 .02 1,5922% 6% 15% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 1,7253% 8% 19% 39% 32% 3.90 .01 6,8673% 7% 20% 38% 32% 3.88 .01 28,7552% 7% 20% 40% 30% 3.88 .01 35,7923% 7% 18% 39% 32% 3.89 .00 55,0242% 5% 11% 35% 47% 4.22 .03 8796% 6% 17% 38% 34% 3.89 .13 712% 1% 12% 28% 57% 4.37 .05 3181% 1% 10% 28% 59% 4.42 .09 783% 8% 19% 36% 34% 3.91 .10 1082% 6% 16% 39% 36% 4.01 .01 23,3832% 5% 14% 40% 38% 4.06 .01 8,2392% 5% 12% 36% 45% 4.17 .01 15,7752% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.18 .01 9,3072% 4% 12% 34% 47% 4.19 .02 3,0102% 5% 17% 40% 37% 4.04 .01 8,852

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Taste

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 54: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 4aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Eye appeal

2% 8% 17% 30% 42% 4.02 .03 1,357

3% 12% 20% 34% 32% 3.81 .00 104,3592% 7% 16% 30% 45% 4.09 .03 1,1282% 10% 18% 34% 35% 3.89 .00 55,9975% 14% 22% 32% 28% 3.64 .08 2293% 13% 22% 34% 28% 3.72 .00 48,3623% 9% 17% 30% 40% 3.97 .03 1,178

33% 33% 33% 3.33 .88 31% 2% 14% 28% 55% 4.36 .06 172

25% 75% 4.75 .25 43% 12% 21% 33% 31% 3.77 .00 91,4341% 8% 19% 39% 34% 3.96 .02 2,9111% 5% 13% 39% 41% 4.15 .01 9,2672% 5% 11% 33% 49% 4.21 .04 5814% 12% 19% 30% 34% 3.78 .07 316

11% 22% 31% 36% 3.93 .09 1372% 6% 16% 34% 42% 4.08 .05 3612% 11% 15% 27% 45% 4.01 .06 308

8% 21% 21% 50% 4.13 .17 38 6% 6% 50% 39% 4.22 .19 18

3% 12% 21% 34% 30% 3.75 .01 38,7123% 13% 21% 33% 31% 3.76 .01 18,9793% 12% 20% 33% 32% 3.79 .01 14,7113% 11% 19% 33% 33% 3.83 .01 12,9683% 13% 21% 36% 27% 3.71 .01 5,3183% 12% 22% 32% 31% 3.76 .04 6361% 6% 13% 29% 50% 4.21 .04 7573% 11% 21% 32% 33% 3.80 .05 586

20% 20% 20% 40% 2.80 .58 511% 33% 33% 22% 2.89 .45 9

2% 10% 18% 35% 35% 3.91 .00 61,9374% 13% 23% 33% 27% 3.67 .01 40,7223% 16% 25% 31% 25% 3.57 .06 3585% 18% 25% 28% 24% 3.47 .04 7773% 13% 21% 32% 30% 3.73 .06 3752% 7% 15% 29% 47% 4.13 .03 9823% 13% 21% 34% 30% 3.74 .00 64,6092% 10% 18% 35% 35% 3.92 .01 38,4302% 8% 17% 30% 42% 4.02 .03 1,3573% 13% 22% 36% 27% 3.72 .01 14,5373% 12% 21% 34% 30% 3.77 .01 9,9383% 12% 20% 35% 30% 3.79 .01 30,3762% 10% 19% 33% 36% 3.91 .01 17,9373% 12% 21% 33% 31% 3.75 .01 15,9842% 11% 18% 33% 36% 3.90 .01 15,5872% 8% 17% 30% 42% 4.02 .03 1,3572% 11% 20% 34% 33% 3.84 .00 77,9233% 13% 21% 34% 29% 3.74 .01 26,4362% 8% 17% 30% 42% 4.02 .03 1,3571% 7% 14% 38% 40% 4.08 .03 9623% 12% 20% 34% 32% 3.81 .00 103,3972% 8% 17% 30% 42% 4.02 .03 1,3573% 11% 20% 34% 32% 3.82 .00 81,7863% 12% 20% 33% 32% 3.79 .01 21,2073% 13% 18% 35% 30% 3.77 .03 1,3662% 8% 17% 30% 42% 4.02 .03 1,3573% 12% 19% 35% 32% 3.81 .01 5,8722% 11% 18% 32% 36% 3.89 .01 23,5093% 11% 20% 34% 31% 3.81 .01 29,4913% 12% 21% 35% 30% 3.77 .01 45,4871% 7% 18% 29% 44% 4.08 .04 6795% 12% 23% 28% 32% 3.68 .16 571% 8% 11% 25% 54% 4.24 .07 2411% 6% 15% 28% 50% 4.19 .12 684% 7% 11% 45% 34% 3.98 .11 832% 11% 19% 33% 34% 3.86 .01 19,1333% 11% 21% 36% 30% 3.79 .01 6,8692% 10% 18% 34% 36% 3.91 .01 12,8742% 9% 16% 34% 39% 3.98 .01 7,5071% 7% 14% 36% 42% 4.10 .02 2,3902% 11% 18% 34% 34% 3.87 .01 7,225

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Eye appeal

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 55: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 4bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Eye appeal

2% 6% 18% 35% 39% 4.03 .02 1,726

3% 8% 22% 36% 31% 3.86 .00 125,8622% 5% 16% 34% 43% 4.12 .03 1,4552% 5% 19% 36% 38% 4.02 .00 68,2503% 12% 29% 39% 17% 3.56 .06 2713% 10% 26% 37% 24% 3.67 .00 57,6122% 6% 20% 35% 37% 3.98 .03 1,459

10% 30% 60% 4.50 .22 102% 3% 10% 32% 53% 4.33 .06 251

17% 33% 50% 4.33 .33 63% 8% 23% 36% 29% 3.82 .00 109,5172% 6% 16% 37% 39% 4.03 .02 3,7222% 4% 14% 36% 44% 4.16 .01 11,6313% 3% 13% 29% 52% 4.25 .04 7632% 9% 21% 34% 33% 3.86 .05 4013% 4% 22% 40% 32% 3.95 .08 1673% 5% 20% 35% 37% 3.99 .05 4451% 6% 17% 34% 41% 4.08 .05 3774% 6% 17% 36% 36% 3.94 .16 47

5% 18% 32% 45% 4.18 .19 223% 8% 24% 37% 28% 3.81 .00 45,8733% 9% 24% 35% 28% 3.76 .01 22,8633% 8% 23% 35% 31% 3.82 .01 17,6683% 7% 22% 36% 32% 3.88 .01 15,5973% 6% 20% 39% 33% 3.93 .01 6,5925% 6% 20% 37% 32% 3.87 .04 7752% 6% 15% 35% 42% 4.10 .03 1,0122% 6% 24% 34% 34% 3.94 .04 699

40% 60% 4.60 .24 520% 10% 20% 10% 40% 3.40 .52 10

3% 8% 22% 36% 32% 3.88 .00 75,3683% 7% 23% 37% 29% 3.83 .00 48,3554% 11% 22% 33% 30% 3.75 .05 4385% 9% 23% 32% 30% 3.73 .04 9693% 10% 24% 37% 27% 3.76 .05 4632% 4% 16% 34% 44% 4.13 .03 1,2633% 9% 25% 36% 27% 3.76 .00 77,0302% 5% 18% 36% 38% 4.02 .00 47,2432% 6% 18% 35% 39% 4.03 .02 1,7262% 6% 22% 40% 31% 3.93 .01 16,7945% 10% 24% 33% 28% 3.70 .01 11,4892% 7% 22% 37% 32% 3.88 .01 36,7193% 9% 23% 35% 30% 3.80 .01 21,6413% 7% 23% 37% 30% 3.84 .01 19,9903% 7% 20% 35% 35% 3.93 .01 19,2292% 6% 18% 35% 39% 4.03 .02 1,7263% 7% 22% 36% 31% 3.86 .00 94,2492% 8% 23% 36% 31% 3.84 .01 31,6132% 6% 18% 35% 39% 4.03 .02 1,7264% 8% 17% 33% 39% 3.95 .03 1,2563% 8% 22% 36% 31% 3.86 .00 124,6062% 6% 18% 35% 39% 4.03 .02 1,7262% 7% 22% 37% 31% 3.87 .00 97,6764% 8% 22% 35% 30% 3.80 .01 26,5992% 6% 19% 35% 37% 3.98 .03 1,5872% 6% 18% 35% 39% 4.03 .02 1,7263% 8% 23% 35% 31% 3.84 .01 6,8333% 8% 22% 35% 32% 3.84 .01 28,6442% 7% 24% 37% 30% 3.85 .01 35,5943% 7% 21% 37% 32% 3.87 .00 54,7912% 4% 18% 35% 41% 4.09 .03 8823% 9% 19% 33% 36% 3.91 .13 692% 4% 11% 29% 54% 4.28 .05 3171% 1% 9% 28% 60% 4.45 .09 78

10% 24% 43% 23% 3.79 .09 1092% 6% 21% 37% 33% 3.93 .01 23,2512% 6% 19% 38% 35% 3.97 .01 8,1902% 5% 17% 36% 40% 4.06 .01 15,7022% 4% 14% 34% 46% 4.18 .01 9,3002% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.21 .02 2,9942% 6% 21% 36% 35% 3.95 .01 8,814

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Eye appeal

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 56: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 5aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Freshness

1% 1% 7% 21% 70% 4.61 .02 1,361

0% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 104,2290% 1% 7% 21% 71% 4.62 .02 1,1350% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 55,9831% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.54 .05 2260% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57 .00 48,2461% 1% 8% 23% 69% 4.58 .02 1,181

33% 67% 4.33 .67 3 3% 14% 83% 4.79 .04 173 100% 5.00 .00 4

0% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .00 91,3020% 1% 3% 21% 75% 4.70 .01 2,9170% 0% 3% 18% 79% 4.75 .01 9,2552% 1% 5% 19% 73% 4.61 .03 5841% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.56 .04 316

1% 12% 22% 65% 4.52 .06 1351% 1% 8% 21% 69% 4.56 .04 3640% 1% 6% 21% 71% 4.62 .04 310

5% 18% 76% 4.71 .09 38 28% 72% 4.72 .11 18

0% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .00 38,6420% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .01 18,9220% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.55 .01 14,6870% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.56 .01 12,9691% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.56 .01 5,3420% 2% 9% 24% 66% 4.52 .03 6340% 0% 5% 16% 78% 4.72 .02 7631% 1% 9% 28% 61% 4.47 .03 584

20% 20% 60% 4.40 .40 5 33% 44% 22% 3.89 .26 9

0% 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.68 .00 61,8380% 1% 9% 31% 58% 4.44 .00 40,6890% 3% 11% 30% 56% 4.39 .04 3562% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.37 .03 7821% 1% 10% 26% 62% 4.48 .04 3761% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.65 .02 9850% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .00 64,4530% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .00 38,4651% 1% 7% 21% 70% 4.61 .02 1,3610% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.54 .01 14,5400% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .01 9,9390% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 30,3570% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .00 17,8860% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.53 .01 15,9290% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.62 .01 15,5781% 1% 7% 21% 70% 4.61 .02 1,3610% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 77,8180% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .00 26,4111% 1% 7% 21% 70% 4.61 .02 1,3610% 1% 4% 19% 75% 4.68 .02 9650% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 103,2641% 1% 7% 21% 70% 4.61 .02 1,3610% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 81,6320% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 21,229

1% 6% 26% 66% 4.58 .02 1,3681% 1% 7% 21% 70% 4.61 .02 1,3610% 1% 5% 23% 70% 4.63 .01 5,8670% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.60 .00 23,4670% 1% 7% 26% 65% 4.54 .00 29,4220% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.58 .00 45,4730% 0% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .02 685

4% 16% 29% 52% 4.29 .12 561% 1% 6% 18% 74% 4.64 .05 247

5% 21% 74% 4.70 .07 66 10% 27% 63% 4.53 .07 81

0% 1% 7% 24% 67% 4.58 .00 19,1440% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 .01 6,8750% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.60 .01 12,8790% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.59 .01 7,4640% 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.64 .01 2,3951% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.57 .01 7,227

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Freshness

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 57: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 5bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Freshness

4% 6% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .03 1,720

4% 10% 22% 34% 31% 3.79 .00 125,9564% 5% 15% 30% 46% 4.09 .03 1,4533% 7% 19% 34% 38% 3.96 .00 68,2515% 12% 30% 35% 18% 3.48 .07 2675% 12% 25% 34% 23% 3.59 .00 57,7054% 7% 18% 32% 39% 3.94 .03 1,454

40% 60% 4.60 .16 104% 4% 12% 21% 58% 4.26 .07 250

17% 17% 17% 50% 3.83 .65 64% 10% 23% 34% 29% 3.73 .00 109,5883% 6% 14% 34% 44% 4.10 .02 3,7272% 4% 13% 32% 49% 4.21 .01 11,6413% 2% 13% 26% 56% 4.28 .04 7734% 7% 21% 31% 37% 3.88 .06 4014% 5% 22% 32% 38% 3.94 .08 1654% 5% 18% 33% 40% 3.99 .05 4423% 9% 17% 31% 40% 3.97 .06 3799% 9% 9% 35% 39% 3.87 .19 465% 10% 57% 29% 4.05 .20 214% 11% 24% 34% 27% 3.70 .01 45,9115% 11% 24% 33% 27% 3.66 .01 22,9014% 10% 22% 35% 29% 3.75 .01 17,6583% 9% 22% 34% 31% 3.80 .01 15,5883% 7% 18% 38% 34% 3.94 .01 6,6066% 8% 19% 36% 32% 3.81 .04 7734% 6% 15% 31% 44% 4.05 .03 1,0094% 6% 21% 30% 39% 3.93 .04 695

20% 20% 60% 4.40 .40 518% 18% 18% 27% 18% 3.09 .44 11

4% 10% 22% 33% 31% 3.77 .00 75,3923% 9% 22% 35% 31% 3.82 .00 48,4375% 14% 22% 28% 30% 3.65 .06 4366% 12% 21% 32% 30% 3.67 .04 9665% 10% 24% 33% 28% 3.69 .05 4604% 5% 15% 30% 47% 4.10 .03 1,2604% 12% 24% 34% 26% 3.65 .00 77,1043% 6% 17% 34% 40% 4.01 .00 47,2454% 6% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7202% 9% 22% 36% 31% 3.84 .01 16,8335% 12% 23% 32% 28% 3.66 .01 11,4784% 10% 21% 34% 31% 3.80 .01 36,7694% 10% 22% 33% 30% 3.74 .01 21,6664% 9% 23% 35% 30% 3.78 .01 19,9774% 8% 19% 33% 36% 3.88 .01 19,2334% 6% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7204% 9% 22% 34% 31% 3.80 .00 94,3133% 10% 22% 34% 30% 3.77 .01 31,6434% 6% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7204% 7% 16% 31% 42% 3.99 .03 1,2564% 10% 22% 34% 31% 3.79 .00 124,7004% 6% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7203% 9% 22% 34% 31% 3.81 .00 97,7445% 10% 22% 32% 30% 3.73 .01 26,6253% 11% 20% 35% 30% 3.76 .03 1,5874% 6% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7203% 10% 22% 33% 31% 3.79 .01 6,8284% 10% 22% 32% 31% 3.76 .01 28,6363% 9% 22% 34% 31% 3.80 .01 35,6614% 9% 21% 34% 31% 3.80 .00 54,8314% 6% 15% 30% 45% 4.06 .04 8796% 6% 22% 33% 33% 3.83 .14 693% 3% 13% 27% 55% 4.29 .05 3151% 1% 14% 26% 58% 4.37 .10 788% 7% 21% 31% 32% 3.72 .12 1123% 8% 21% 34% 34% 3.87 .01 23,2653% 7% 20% 35% 35% 3.91 .01 8,2223% 6% 17% 33% 42% 4.04 .01 15,7202% 6% 16% 33% 43% 4.09 .01 9,2352% 6% 14% 31% 47% 4.14 .02 2,9873% 8% 21% 34% 34% 3.88 .01 8,823

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Freshness

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 58: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 6aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Nutritional content

2% 5% 13% 27% 54% 4.26 .03 1,359

1% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.35 .00 103,9142% 5% 13% 27% 53% 4.26 .03 1,1291% 3% 12% 29% 55% 4.33 .00 55,7802% 3% 14% 27% 54% 4.28 .06 2301% 3% 11% 28% 57% 4.38 .00 48,1342% 5% 13% 27% 53% 4.26 .03 1,181

33% 67% 4.00 1.00 33% 5% 11% 27% 54% 4.26 .08 171

25% 75% 4.75 .25 41% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.35 .00 91,0231% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.43 .02 2,9151% 3% 11% 31% 54% 4.35 .01 9,2293% 3% 10% 27% 58% 4.35 .04 5861% 6% 14% 26% 53% 4.24 .05 3211% 7% 17% 26% 49% 4.15 .09 1362% 4% 14% 25% 55% 4.28 .05 3602% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.28 .05 3073% 10% 26% 62% 4.44 .14 39

44% 56% 4.56 .12 181% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.35 .00 38,4981% 3% 11% 28% 56% 4.35 .01 18,8911% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.34 .01 14,6351% 3% 12% 29% 56% 4.35 .01 12,9371% 3% 11% 30% 56% 4.37 .01 5,3281% 3% 12% 28% 55% 4.32 .04 6261% 4% 11% 24% 60% 4.39 .03 7573% 6% 15% 31% 46% 4.11 .04 588

20% 40% 20% 20% 3.40 .51 5 22% 33% 44% 4.22 .28 9

1% 2% 9% 27% 61% 4.46 .00 61,6612% 4% 15% 32% 48% 4.20 .00 40,5703% 6% 18% 27% 46% 4.06 .06 3543% 4% 14% 27% 52% 4.20 .04 7781% 5% 15% 28% 51% 4.24 .05 3802% 5% 12% 27% 55% 4.27 .03 9791% 3% 11% 28% 56% 4.36 .00 64,2551% 3% 12% 29% 55% 4.34 .00 38,3612% 5% 13% 27% 54% 4.26 .03 1,3591% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.32 .01 14,4821% 3% 10% 28% 58% 4.39 .01 9,8991% 3% 11% 30% 54% 4.33 .01 30,2621% 2% 11% 27% 59% 4.40 .01 17,8341% 3% 12% 29% 55% 4.33 .01 15,8891% 3% 11% 27% 57% 4.36 .01 15,5482% 5% 13% 27% 54% 4.26 .03 1,3591% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.35 .00 77,5731% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.37 .01 26,3412% 5% 13% 27% 54% 4.26 .03 1,3591% 5% 11% 25% 58% 4.33 .03 9601% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.35 .00 102,9542% 5% 13% 27% 54% 4.26 .03 1,3591% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.36 .00 81,4551% 3% 12% 28% 55% 4.33 .01 21,0961% 3% 11% 30% 55% 4.36 .02 1,3632% 5% 13% 27% 54% 4.26 .03 1,3591% 2% 9% 27% 61% 4.44 .01 5,8301% 3% 11% 28% 57% 4.37 .01 23,3811% 3% 12% 29% 54% 4.33 .01 29,3211% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.35 .00 45,3821% 5% 14% 28% 52% 4.23 .04 6812% 7% 13% 29% 49% 4.16 .14 553% 2% 10% 24% 61% 4.38 .06 2464% 9% 15% 25% 46% 4.00 .14 67

4% 13% 29% 55% 4.35 .09 801% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.34 .01 19,1031% 3% 11% 30% 56% 4.37 .01 6,8431% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 .01 12,8341% 4% 12% 28% 55% 4.31 .01 7,4181% 4% 12% 29% 54% 4.31 .02 2,3811% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.35 .01 7,202

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Nutritional content

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 59: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 6bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Nutritional content

5% 9% 25% 30% 31% 3.73 .03 1,697

5% 11% 26% 32% 25% 3.60 .00 124,7404% 9% 24% 28% 34% 3.78 .03 1,4305% 10% 25% 32% 28% 3.68 .00 67,5777% 10% 28% 37% 17% 3.46 .07 2676% 13% 26% 33% 21% 3.51 .00 57,1635% 10% 25% 29% 30% 3.69 .03 1,441

30% 30% 40% 4.10 .28 104% 5% 21% 32% 39% 3.98 .07 240

33% 33% 33% 4.00 .37 66% 12% 27% 32% 23% 3.55 .00 108,6554% 7% 20% 34% 34% 3.86 .02 3,6773% 6% 20% 34% 37% 3.98 .01 11,4102% 5% 17% 30% 45% 4.11 .04 7626% 9% 28% 31% 27% 3.65 .06 3983% 17% 27% 25% 28% 3.57 .09 1676% 7% 25% 29% 33% 3.76 .05 4395% 12% 22% 30% 31% 3.71 .06 3725% 11% 25% 32% 27% 3.66 .17 44

5% 33% 38% 24% 3.81 .19 216% 12% 27% 32% 23% 3.54 .01 45,4886% 13% 27% 32% 22% 3.51 .01 22,7086% 12% 26% 32% 24% 3.57 .01 17,5045% 12% 26% 32% 24% 3.59 .01 15,4705% 10% 23% 35% 27% 3.70 .01 6,5608% 13% 26% 29% 25% 3.51 .04 7685% 8% 25% 29% 33% 3.75 .04 9994% 11% 25% 31% 30% 3.73 .04 682

20% 40% 40% 4.00 .55 536% 9% 27% 27% 2.45 .39 11

6% 12% 26% 32% 24% 3.56 .00 74,7324% 10% 26% 34% 26% 3.68 .01 47,8757% 11% 29% 30% 22% 3.50 .06 4368% 12% 24% 29% 26% 3.53 .04 9648% 11% 30% 29% 22% 3.46 .05 4614% 9% 23% 30% 35% 3.83 .03 1,2366% 13% 27% 32% 21% 3.50 .00 76,4264% 9% 23% 33% 31% 3.78 .01 46,7165% 9% 25% 30% 31% 3.73 .03 1,6974% 10% 27% 35% 24% 3.65 .01 16,6558% 14% 27% 31% 21% 3.44 .01 11,4095% 12% 25% 33% 25% 3.61 .01 36,3956% 12% 25% 32% 25% 3.59 .01 21,4715% 11% 27% 33% 24% 3.59 .01 19,7935% 10% 25% 31% 29% 3.69 .01 19,0175% 9% 25% 30% 31% 3.73 .03 1,6975% 11% 26% 33% 25% 3.61 .00 93,3365% 12% 26% 32% 24% 3.59 .01 31,4045% 9% 25% 30% 31% 3.73 .03 1,6978% 9% 22% 31% 31% 3.69 .03 1,2195% 11% 26% 33% 25% 3.60 .00 123,5215% 9% 25% 30% 31% 3.73 .03 1,6975% 11% 26% 33% 25% 3.62 .00 96,8657% 12% 26% 32% 24% 3.54 .01 26,3036% 13% 27% 31% 23% 3.53 .03 1,5725% 9% 25% 30% 31% 3.73 .03 1,6976% 12% 26% 32% 25% 3.58 .01 6,7556% 12% 26% 32% 25% 3.59 .01 28,3694% 10% 26% 34% 26% 3.66 .01 35,3016% 12% 26% 32% 24% 3.58 .00 54,3154% 9% 25% 28% 34% 3.78 .04 866

10% 16% 32% 20% 22% 3.28 .15 693% 7% 20% 32% 38% 3.94 .06 3091% 7% 28% 27% 36% 3.91 .12 747% 11% 26% 27% 29% 3.61 .12 1125% 11% 27% 31% 25% 3.58 .01 23,0585% 11% 24% 34% 26% 3.65 .01 8,1354% 9% 24% 32% 31% 3.78 .01 15,5463% 10% 24% 32% 31% 3.78 .01 9,1003% 7% 22% 32% 35% 3.88 .02 2,9565% 12% 25% 30% 27% 3.62 .01 8,783

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Nutritional content

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 60: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 7aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Value

1% 1% 8% 21% 70% 4.58 .02 1,361

1% 2% 12% 29% 56% 4.38 .00 102,7281% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.64 .02 1,1330% 1% 9% 27% 62% 4.49 .00 55,6951% 2% 17% 30% 50% 4.26 .06 2281% 3% 15% 32% 49% 4.24 .00 47,0331% 1% 8% 22% 68% 4.55 .02 1,182

100% 5.00 .00 3 1% 2% 15% 83% 4.79 .04 172 100% 5.00 .00 4

1% 2% 13% 30% 55% 4.35 .00 89,8430% 1% 6% 32% 61% 4.51 .01 2,8970% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .01 9,2322% 3% 8% 22% 65% 4.45 .04 5870% 1% 14% 24% 60% 4.43 .04 3201% 1% 10% 29% 59% 4.46 .07 1332% 1% 6% 20% 71% 4.57 .04 3621% 1% 5% 17% 76% 4.67 .04 310

10% 21% 69% 4.59 .11 39 6% 44% 50% 4.44 .15 18

1% 3% 15% 31% 50% 4.27 .00 37,8551% 2% 13% 30% 55% 4.35 .01 18,5991% 2% 11% 29% 58% 4.41 .01 14,5050% 2% 10% 28% 61% 4.46 .01 12,8291% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .01 5,3191% 2% 15% 25% 58% 4.37 .03 6161% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.63 .03 7591% 2% 9% 22% 67% 4.52 .03 589

60% 40% 4.40 .24 5 25% 38% 38% 4.13 .30 8

1% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.42 .00 60,8561% 3% 13% 30% 53% 4.31 .00 40,1962% 5% 17% 26% 50% 4.15 .06 3482% 5% 15% 28% 50% 4.19 .04 7611% 1% 15% 28% 56% 4.35 .04 3781% 1% 5% 18% 75% 4.67 .02 9831% 3% 14% 31% 51% 4.29 .00 63,1740% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .00 38,2611% 1% 8% 21% 70% 4.58 .02 1,3611% 2% 12% 32% 54% 4.35 .01 14,3211% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.34 .01 9,7171% 3% 13% 31% 53% 4.32 .00 29,9291% 2% 12% 28% 58% 4.41 .01 17,6031% 2% 12% 28% 57% 4.38 .01 15,6991% 1% 9% 26% 63% 4.49 .01 15,4591% 1% 8% 21% 70% 4.58 .02 1,3611% 2% 12% 29% 57% 4.39 .00 76,7761% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.35 .01 25,9521% 1% 8% 21% 70% 4.58 .02 1,3611% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .02 9611% 2% 12% 29% 56% 4.38 .00 101,7671% 1% 8% 21% 70% 4.58 .02 1,3611% 2% 12% 29% 56% 4.37 .00 80,4871% 2% 11% 28% 57% 4.39 .01 20,8870% 1% 9% 29% 60% 4.47 .02 1,3541% 1% 8% 21% 70% 4.58 .02 1,3611% 2% 11% 29% 57% 4.39 .01 5,7431% 2% 12% 28% 57% 4.38 .01 23,1111% 2% 13% 31% 53% 4.32 .01 28,9801% 2% 11% 29% 58% 4.41 .00 44,8940% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.63 .03 681

9% 16% 75% 4.67 .08 572% 5% 13% 80% 4.69 .05 245

4% 19% 76% 4.72 .07 67 10% 27% 64% 4.54 .07 83

0% 1% 9% 25% 64% 4.52 .01 19,0340% 1% 9% 28% 61% 4.48 .01 6,8480% 1% 9% 27% 62% 4.49 .01 12,8041% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .01 7,4290% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.53 .01 2,3741% 2% 10% 29% 59% 4.43 .01 7,207

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Value

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 61: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 7bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Value

7% 13% 24% 25% 30% 3.58 .03 1,707

7% 12% 25% 31% 25% 3.55 .00 123,6238% 13% 23% 23% 32% 3.58 .03 1,4447% 13% 24% 29% 27% 3.55 .00 67,7636% 11% 27% 35% 21% 3.54 .07 2636% 11% 27% 32% 23% 3.54 .00 55,8607% 13% 25% 26% 29% 3.55 .03 1,444

10% 10% 10% 70% 4.30 .42 108% 12% 18% 24% 38% 3.71 .08 247

17% 50% 33% 3.50 .50 67% 13% 26% 31% 24% 3.52 .00 107,4758% 10% 19% 30% 33% 3.70 .02 3,6816% 11% 21% 28% 34% 3.72 .01 11,4875% 6% 16% 24% 49% 4.07 .04 7604% 11% 24% 29% 32% 3.73 .06 3959% 13% 26% 25% 27% 3.49 .10 1639% 13% 25% 24% 29% 3.52 .06 4419% 16% 26% 23% 26% 3.41 .07 3777% 13% 28% 30% 22% 3.48 .17 465% 14% 14% 32% 36% 3.82 .26 225% 11% 27% 32% 25% 3.60 .01 44,7738% 13% 27% 30% 22% 3.45 .01 22,4418% 14% 26% 29% 23% 3.47 .01 17,4138% 14% 26% 30% 23% 3.47 .01 15,4067% 14% 24% 31% 24% 3.49 .01 6,543

10% 13% 24% 29% 24% 3.45 .05 7527% 14% 23% 27% 30% 3.60 .04 1,0019% 12% 25% 23% 31% 3.55 .05 692

50% 50% 4.50 .29 410% 20% 60% 10% 2.70 .26 10

7% 13% 26% 31% 24% 3.54 .00 73,9237% 12% 25% 31% 26% 3.57 .01 47,6208% 14% 26% 27% 25% 3.46 .06 430

10% 14% 26% 25% 25% 3.41 .04 9489% 12% 27% 27% 26% 3.49 .06 4577% 14% 23% 25% 32% 3.61 .04 1,2507% 12% 27% 31% 23% 3.51 .00 75,2467% 12% 23% 29% 29% 3.60 .01 46,8007% 13% 24% 25% 30% 3.58 .03 1,7074% 11% 26% 34% 25% 3.65 .01 16,5258% 13% 26% 30% 23% 3.48 .01 11,2156% 12% 25% 31% 25% 3.58 .01 36,0258% 13% 26% 29% 25% 3.51 .01 21,2727% 14% 27% 29% 23% 3.46 .01 19,6447% 13% 24% 29% 28% 3.57 .01 18,9427% 13% 24% 25% 30% 3.58 .03 1,7077% 12% 25% 31% 25% 3.56 .00 92,6317% 13% 26% 30% 24% 3.51 .01 30,9927% 13% 24% 25% 30% 3.58 .03 1,707

13% 14% 22% 25% 26% 3.38 .04 1,2517% 12% 25% 31% 25% 3.55 .00 122,3727% 13% 24% 25% 30% 3.58 .03 1,7076% 12% 25% 31% 25% 3.58 .00 95,9319% 14% 25% 29% 23% 3.44 .01 26,1268% 14% 25% 30% 23% 3.46 .03 1,5667% 13% 24% 25% 30% 3.58 .03 1,7077% 13% 27% 29% 25% 3.51 .01 6,6527% 12% 25% 30% 25% 3.55 .01 28,1376% 11% 26% 32% 25% 3.58 .01 34,9607% 13% 25% 30% 25% 3.53 .01 53,8748% 14% 24% 22% 32% 3.57 .04 876

13% 17% 27% 14% 30% 3.31 .16 715% 11% 22% 28% 35% 3.76 .07 3096% 12% 18% 26% 38% 3.77 .14 77

15% 14% 24% 23% 23% 3.24 .13 1118% 14% 26% 28% 24% 3.46 .01 23,0869% 16% 26% 27% 22% 3.39 .01 8,1346% 11% 22% 31% 30% 3.68 .01 15,5986% 12% 24% 29% 29% 3.65 .01 9,2186% 11% 21% 30% 31% 3.70 .02 2,9567% 13% 24% 29% 27% 3.57 .01 8,772

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Value

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 62: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 8aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Availability of posted menu items

1% 3% 9% 27% 61% 4.44 .02 1,346

1% 4% 12% 36% 48% 4.25 .00 101,8671% 2% 8% 25% 65% 4.52 .02 1,1191% 2% 11% 35% 51% 4.33 .00 54,7121% 8% 17% 34% 40% 4.05 .07 2271% 5% 14% 37% 43% 4.16 .00 47,1551% 3% 10% 27% 59% 4.41 .02 1,170

33% 67% 4.67 .33 31% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.67 .05 169

25% 75% 4.75 .25 41% 4% 13% 36% 47% 4.24 .00 89,3431% 3% 11% 40% 45% 4.25 .02 2,8011% 2% 8% 37% 52% 4.39 .01 9,0011% 2% 9% 32% 56% 4.40 .03 5621% 6% 11% 32% 51% 4.27 .05 316

2% 12% 37% 48% 4.31 .07 1371% 2% 11% 23% 62% 4.44 .04 3620% 2% 8% 25% 65% 4.51 .04 304

3% 3% 15% 79% 4.71 .12 34 6% 24% 71% 4.65 .15 17

1% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.20 .00 37,7371% 4% 12% 35% 48% 4.25 .01 18,5721% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.27 .01 14,4421% 3% 12% 35% 50% 4.31 .01 12,7161% 3% 12% 38% 45% 4.22 .01 5,1571% 5% 14% 37% 43% 4.16 .04 6160% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .03 7551% 4% 11% 28% 56% 4.35 .04 578

50% 50% 4.50 .29 4 22% 33% 44% 4.22 .28 9

1% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.30 .00 60,3831% 4% 14% 37% 44% 4.17 .00 39,8131% 4% 11% 37% 46% 4.23 .05 3492% 5% 15% 38% 40% 4.09 .03 7631% 6% 13% 33% 47% 4.21 .05 3681% 2% 8% 24% 66% 4.53 .02 9781% 4% 13% 36% 46% 4.22 .00 63,0681% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.31 .00 37,5161% 3% 9% 27% 61% 4.44 .02 1,3461% 4% 13% 39% 43% 4.19 .01 14,1931% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.24 .01 9,7041% 4% 12% 37% 47% 4.24 .01 29,6161% 3% 12% 34% 49% 4.27 .01 17,5681% 3% 13% 35% 47% 4.24 .01 15,5321% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.32 .01 15,2541% 3% 9% 27% 61% 4.44 .02 1,3461% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.27 .00 76,2031% 4% 13% 38% 44% 4.19 .01 25,6641% 3% 9% 27% 61% 4.44 .02 1,3461% 2% 9% 37% 52% 4.38 .03 9301% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.25 .00 100,9371% 3% 9% 27% 61% 4.44 .02 1,3461% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.25 .00 79,8381% 4% 12% 35% 48% 4.25 .01 20,6761% 4% 12% 37% 47% 4.26 .02 1,3531% 3% 9% 27% 61% 4.44 .02 1,3461% 4% 11% 37% 47% 4.24 .01 5,7611% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.30 .01 23,0171% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.20 .01 28,7231% 4% 12% 36% 48% 4.26 .00 44,3660% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .03 674

5% 40% 54% 4.49 .08 571% 2% 6% 19% 72% 4.59 .05 2511% 4% 22% 72% 4.63 .09 67

4% 14% 29% 53% 4.30 .10 701% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.31 .01 18,7351% 3% 11% 38% 48% 4.29 .01 6,6951% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.36 .01 12,6381% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.38 .01 7,4001% 2% 8% 34% 55% 4.40 .02 2,3441% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.30 .01 6,901

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Availability of posted menu items

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 63: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 8bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Availability of posted menu items

3% 6% 13% 31% 47% 4.13 .03 1,714

3% 7% 16% 33% 40% 4.00 .00 123,7533% 5% 10% 30% 51% 4.22 .03 1,4463% 6% 14% 33% 46% 4.13 .00 67,1993% 13% 26% 34% 25% 3.65 .07 2684% 9% 19% 34% 34% 3.85 .00 56,5543% 7% 14% 30% 45% 4.08 .03 1,451

10% 10% 10% 70% 4.40 .34 103% 2% 5% 33% 57% 4.38 .06 247

17% 83% 4.83 .17 63% 8% 17% 34% 38% 3.96 .00 107,9063% 5% 11% 32% 49% 4.20 .02 3,5722% 4% 10% 31% 53% 4.27 .01 11,3043% 3% 11% 27% 57% 4.32 .03 7504% 10% 18% 30% 39% 3.91 .06 3992% 9% 17% 25% 47% 4.07 .08 1663% 5% 13% 30% 48% 4.15 .05 4472% 6% 11% 33% 48% 4.19 .05 3762% 7% 10% 40% 40% 4.10 .16 42

19% 33% 48% 4.10 .25 213% 8% 18% 33% 37% 3.92 .01 45,1714% 8% 17% 34% 38% 3.93 .01 22,5613% 7% 16% 34% 39% 3.99 .01 17,4483% 6% 15% 35% 42% 4.06 .01 15,3893% 6% 14% 36% 42% 4.09 .01 6,4243% 7% 16% 38% 35% 3.95 .04 7673% 6% 13% 30% 48% 4.15 .03 1,0042% 7% 14% 31% 46% 4.11 .04 694

20% 80% 4.80 .20 59% 9% 9% 55% 18% 3.64 .36 113% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.01 .00 74,0423% 7% 17% 34% 40% 4.00 .00 47,6256% 10% 19% 32% 32% 3.73 .06 4345% 7% 18% 36% 35% 3.88 .04 9413% 10% 22% 31% 34% 3.83 .05 4523% 5% 10% 31% 52% 4.24 .03 1,2624% 9% 18% 34% 36% 3.90 .00 75,8973% 5% 13% 32% 47% 4.17 .00 46,2863% 6% 13% 31% 47% 4.13 .03 1,7142% 6% 15% 35% 42% 4.09 .01 16,5764% 9% 17% 33% 37% 3.88 .01 11,2443% 7% 15% 34% 41% 4.02 .01 36,0473% 7% 16% 33% 40% 3.98 .01 21,3753% 9% 18% 34% 36% 3.90 .01 19,6053% 6% 14% 32% 45% 4.09 .01 18,9063% 6% 13% 31% 47% 4.13 .03 1,7143% 7% 16% 33% 40% 4.00 .00 92,7993% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.00 .01 30,9543% 6% 13% 31% 47% 4.13 .03 1,7143% 5% 13% 32% 46% 4.13 .03 1,2373% 7% 16% 33% 40% 4.00 .00 122,5163% 6% 13% 31% 47% 4.13 .03 1,7143% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.02 .00 96,0594% 8% 16% 33% 39% 3.93 .01 26,1162% 7% 12% 36% 43% 4.12 .02 1,5783% 6% 13% 31% 47% 4.13 .03 1,7143% 7% 15% 33% 42% 4.03 .01 6,7083% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.02 .01 28,2613% 7% 17% 34% 39% 3.99 .01 34,9363% 8% 16% 33% 40% 4.00 .00 53,8483% 5% 9% 31% 52% 4.23 .03 8836% 6% 25% 18% 46% 3.93 .14 722% 4% 8% 31% 55% 4.34 .05 3221% 4% 8% 34% 53% 4.34 .10 773% 12% 22% 27% 36% 3.80 .12 923% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.09 .01 23,0183% 6% 14% 34% 44% 4.12 .01 8,0662% 5% 13% 30% 50% 4.20 .01 15,4943% 6% 13% 34% 45% 4.13 .01 9,2762% 5% 10% 32% 52% 4.26 .02 2,9322% 6% 15% 33% 43% 4.08 .01 8,414

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Availability of posted menu items

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 64: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 9aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of menu choices

0% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .02 1,349

0% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.40 .00 102,5250% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.45 .02 1,1221% 2% 10% 35% 53% 4.38 .00 55,0020% 2% 12% 33% 52% 4.34 .05 2270% 1% 9% 34% 56% 4.43 .00 47,5231% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.41 .02 1,171

33% 67% 4.33 .67 3 1% 4% 31% 64% 4.59 .05 170 20% 20% 60% 4.20 .58 5

1% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.40 .00 89,8810% 1% 8% 38% 52% 4.41 .01 2,8410% 1% 6% 37% 55% 4.46 .01 9,0811% 2% 9% 30% 57% 4.41 .03 5640% 1% 13% 28% 58% 4.42 .04 319

1% 13% 35% 50% 4.34 .07 1351% 3% 10% 28% 58% 4.38 .05 360

3% 8% 33% 56% 4.42 .04 305 9% 23% 69% 4.60 .11 35 6% 29% 65% 4.59 .15 17

1% 1% 9% 33% 56% 4.42 .00 37,9681% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.40 .01 18,6750% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .01 14,5230% 2% 10% 35% 53% 4.39 .01 12,7801% 3% 11% 39% 47% 4.27 .01 5,2080% 1% 13% 35% 50% 4.32 .03 6260% 1% 9% 26% 64% 4.52 .03 7561% 4% 11% 34% 51% 4.31 .04 579

60% 40% 4.40 .24 5 22% 44% 33% 4.11 .26 9

0% 1% 8% 33% 58% 4.47 .00 60,8261% 2% 12% 36% 49% 4.30 .00 40,0212% 2% 10% 39% 47% 4.26 .05 3512% 2% 15% 37% 44% 4.19 .03 768

2% 13% 33% 52% 4.35 .04 3711% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.46 .03 9780% 1% 9% 33% 56% 4.42 .00 63,4910% 2% 10% 36% 52% 4.38 .00 37,7460% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .02 1,3490% 2% 10% 37% 50% 4.35 .01 14,2860% 2% 9% 33% 56% 4.42 .01 9,7470% 2% 9% 35% 54% 4.40 .00 29,8160% 1% 9% 32% 58% 4.45 .01 17,6861% 2% 11% 35% 52% 4.36 .01 15,6651% 2% 9% 33% 56% 4.42 .01 15,3250% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .02 1,3490% 2% 9% 34% 55% 4.41 .00 76,5890% 2% 10% 36% 52% 4.38 .00 25,9360% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .02 1,3491% 1% 7% 38% 54% 4.43 .02 9370% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.40 .00 101,5880% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .02 1,3490% 1% 9% 34% 55% 4.41 .00 80,3521% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .01 20,8190% 1% 9% 37% 53% 4.41 .02 1,3540% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .02 1,3490% 1% 8% 35% 55% 4.44 .01 5,7890% 1% 9% 33% 56% 4.42 .00 23,1461% 2% 10% 35% 53% 4.38 .00 28,9950% 2% 9% 35% 54% 4.41 .00 44,5950% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .03 673

4% 7% 38% 52% 4.38 .10 561% 3% 7% 25% 64% 4.48 .05 251

6% 30% 64% 4.58 .07 67 1% 13% 31% 55% 4.39 .09 75

0% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .01 18,8320% 1% 9% 36% 53% 4.40 .01 6,7211% 2% 11% 35% 52% 4.35 .01 12,6951% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.36 .01 7,4151% 1% 8% 34% 56% 4.44 .02 2,3591% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .01 6,981

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 65: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 9bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of menu choices

4% 8% 13% 33% 42% 3.99 .03 1,714

6% 12% 20% 32% 30% 3.68 .00 125,0763% 7% 12% 33% 45% 4.10 .03 1,4454% 10% 18% 33% 35% 3.85 .00 67,713

10% 16% 18% 34% 22% 3.42 .08 2697% 15% 23% 31% 24% 3.48 .01 57,3635% 9% 13% 34% 40% 3.95 .03 1,454

10% 90% 4.80 .20 102% 5% 12% 30% 51% 4.23 .06 245

20% 80% 4.40 .60 56% 13% 21% 32% 28% 3.65 .00 108,8746% 10% 16% 33% 35% 3.81 .02 3,6794% 9% 15% 32% 41% 3.96 .01 11,5523% 5% 14% 26% 52% 4.20 .04 7488% 13% 15% 29% 35% 3.69 .06 4022% 9% 14% 33% 41% 4.02 .08 1674% 7% 14% 33% 42% 4.02 .05 4444% 6% 11% 39% 40% 4.07 .05 3762% 9% 16% 34% 39% 3.98 .16 44

10% 38% 52% 4.43 .15 216% 14% 22% 31% 27% 3.61 .01 45,6117% 14% 21% 32% 27% 3.58 .01 22,7826% 11% 20% 33% 30% 3.69 .01 17,5655% 10% 19% 34% 32% 3.77 .01 15,4775% 11% 19% 35% 30% 3.72 .01 6,5076% 11% 21% 33% 29% 3.68 .04 7784% 8% 13% 32% 43% 4.00 .04 1,0004% 8% 13% 34% 40% 3.98 .04 698

20% 20% 60% 4.40 .40 5 9% 55% 36% 4.27 .19 11

6% 13% 20% 31% 30% 3.66 .00 74,9235% 11% 20% 34% 30% 3.72 .01 48,033

10% 15% 21% 31% 23% 3.43 .06 4367% 16% 21% 30% 26% 3.52 .04 9718% 15% 15% 31% 30% 3.60 .06 4553% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.14 .03 1,2597% 14% 22% 31% 26% 3.55 .00 76,6444% 9% 17% 33% 37% 3.90 .01 46,8614% 8% 13% 33% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7144% 11% 20% 35% 31% 3.79 .01 16,7088% 15% 20% 29% 26% 3.50 .01 11,3886% 12% 20% 33% 30% 3.69 .01 36,4686% 13% 21% 32% 29% 3.63 .01 21,5915% 13% 22% 33% 27% 3.64 .01 19,8366% 11% 17% 31% 35% 3.79 .01 19,0854% 8% 13% 33% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7146% 12% 20% 32% 30% 3.69 .00 93,6496% 13% 20% 32% 29% 3.66 .01 31,4274% 8% 13% 33% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7145% 11% 18% 29% 37% 3.84 .03 1,2446% 12% 20% 32% 30% 3.68 .00 123,8324% 8% 13% 33% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7145% 12% 20% 32% 30% 3.70 .00 97,0557% 13% 19% 31% 29% 3.62 .01 26,4285% 11% 17% 32% 34% 3.79 .03 1,5934% 8% 13% 33% 42% 3.99 .03 1,7147% 13% 20% 32% 29% 3.62 .01 6,7866% 12% 20% 32% 31% 3.70 .01 28,5275% 12% 21% 33% 29% 3.67 .01 35,4186% 12% 19% 32% 31% 3.69 .01 54,3453% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.12 .04 8786% 21% 21% 24% 28% 3.48 .15 713% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.25 .05 3231% 7% 12% 33% 47% 4.18 .11 765% 9% 18% 33% 35% 3.84 .12 975% 10% 19% 33% 33% 3.79 .01 23,1595% 12% 18% 33% 31% 3.74 .01 8,1214% 9% 16% 33% 38% 3.94 .01 15,5943% 8% 16% 33% 40% 3.99 .01 9,3193% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.00 .02 2,9585% 10% 19% 33% 33% 3.79 .01 8,563

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 66: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 10aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of healthy menu choices

4% 5% 13% 26% 51% 4.16 .03 1,331

2% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 .00 101,6704% 6% 14% 25% 51% 4.15 .03 1,1072% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.27 .00 54,4463% 3% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .07 2241% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.32 .00 47,2244% 5% 14% 26% 51% 4.16 .03 1,152

100% 5.00 .00 24% 5% 12% 31% 49% 4.14 .08 173

25% 75% 4.50 .50 42% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.28 .00 89,1301% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.41 .02 2,8231% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.34 .01 9,0152% 2% 12% 28% 56% 4.32 .04 5524% 4% 13% 26% 53% 4.22 .06 3091% 6% 22% 17% 53% 4.15 .09 1355% 5% 12% 26% 52% 4.13 .06 3564% 6% 13% 30% 47% 4.10 .06 3003% 14% 17% 66% 4.43 .16 35

6% 6% 35% 53% 4.35 .21 172% 3% 12% 29% 53% 4.29 .00 37,6832% 3% 12% 30% 52% 4.28 .01 18,5362% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.27 .01 14,3802% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 .01 12,6502% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.28 .01 5,1662% 4% 13% 29% 52% 4.25 .04 6171% 3% 11% 24% 60% 4.38 .03 7467% 7% 16% 30% 40% 3.89 .05 570

20% 20% 20% 40% 3.40 .81 5 30% 30% 40% 4.10 .28 10

1% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.44 .00 60,4273% 5% 16% 33% 43% 4.08 .01 39,5944% 5% 12% 36% 42% 4.07 .06 3493% 4% 15% 30% 48% 4.14 .04 7552% 5% 15% 27% 50% 4.19 .05 3645% 5% 13% 26% 52% 4.15 .04 9672% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.30 .00 63,0032% 4% 12% 31% 53% 4.29 .00 37,4154% 5% 13% 26% 51% 4.16 .03 1,3312% 3% 13% 32% 51% 4.26 .01 14,1332% 3% 11% 29% 55% 4.32 .01 9,6922% 3% 12% 31% 52% 4.29 .01 29,6031% 3% 12% 29% 55% 4.33 .01 17,5492% 4% 13% 30% 51% 4.26 .01 15,5012% 4% 11% 29% 55% 4.31 .01 15,1924% 5% 13% 26% 51% 4.16 .03 1,3312% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 .00 75,9532% 4% 12% 31% 53% 4.29 .01 25,7174% 5% 13% 26% 51% 4.16 .03 1,3312% 3% 11% 27% 57% 4.33 .03 9232% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 .00 100,7474% 5% 13% 26% 51% 4.16 .03 1,3312% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.30 .00 79,7432% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.26 .01 20,5772% 4% 11% 31% 52% 4.27 .03 1,3504% 5% 13% 26% 51% 4.16 .03 1,3311% 2% 10% 29% 57% 4.40 .01 5,7392% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.30 .01 22,9532% 3% 13% 31% 51% 4.27 .01 28,7532% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 .00 44,2254% 6% 15% 25% 51% 4.12 .04 6672% 7% 22% 27% 42% 4.00 .14 554% 4% 11% 25% 56% 4.25 .07 2476% 6% 15% 28% 45% 3.98 .15 653% 5% 11% 25% 56% 4.26 .12 732% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.28 .01 18,6461% 3% 12% 31% 53% 4.31 .01 6,6902% 4% 13% 31% 50% 4.22 .01 12,5462% 4% 13% 31% 51% 4.25 .01 7,2942% 4% 11% 31% 51% 4.25 .02 2,3312% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.30 .01 6,940

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of healthy menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 67: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 10bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of healthy menu choices

5% 11% 21% 29% 33% 3.75 .03 1,673

7% 13% 23% 31% 26% 3.56 .00 123,5184% 11% 20% 29% 36% 3.82 .03 1,4066% 12% 22% 30% 29% 3.65 .00 66,7618% 15% 26% 33% 18% 3.38 .07 2678% 14% 24% 32% 22% 3.45 .01 56,7575% 12% 22% 29% 32% 3.70 .03 1,418

13% 13% 13% 63% 4.25 .41 84% 6% 17% 32% 42% 4.03 .07 241

33% 17% 50% 4.17 .40 67% 14% 24% 31% 24% 3.51 .00 107,5387% 9% 19% 33% 33% 3.75 .02 3,6424% 8% 18% 32% 38% 3.91 .01 11,3733% 5% 17% 28% 46% 4.10 .04 7457% 13% 26% 27% 26% 3.52 .06 3946% 16% 20% 24% 34% 3.65 .10 1624% 10% 19% 31% 35% 3.82 .06 4344% 11% 20% 32% 33% 3.80 .06 365

10% 12% 19% 29% 31% 3.60 .20 425% 19% 29% 19% 29% 3.48 .27 217% 14% 24% 31% 24% 3.49 .01 45,1008% 14% 24% 30% 23% 3.45 .01 22,4727% 13% 24% 31% 25% 3.54 .01 17,3457% 12% 23% 31% 26% 3.57 .01 15,2606% 12% 23% 33% 26% 3.61 .01 6,4479% 13% 24% 30% 23% 3.46 .04 7686% 11% 20% 29% 34% 3.74 .04 9843% 12% 22% 30% 33% 3.77 .04 672

20% 20% 60% 4.00 .63 517% 33% 42% 8% 3.25 .35 12

8% 14% 23% 30% 25% 3.50 .00 74,1756% 11% 24% 33% 27% 3.65 .01 47,2759% 13% 26% 29% 24% 3.44 .06 431

10% 14% 24% 27% 25% 3.41 .04 9408% 17% 26% 26% 24% 3.40 .06 4474% 9% 19% 31% 37% 3.88 .03 1,2268% 15% 25% 30% 22% 3.44 .00 75,7335% 10% 21% 32% 32% 3.75 .01 46,2335% 11% 21% 29% 33% 3.75 .03 1,6735% 12% 24% 34% 26% 3.63 .01 16,518

10% 16% 24% 29% 22% 3.37 .01 11,2667% 13% 23% 31% 26% 3.56 .01 35,9717% 13% 23% 30% 26% 3.55 .01 21,3696% 13% 25% 32% 24% 3.54 .01 19,5847% 12% 22% 29% 30% 3.63 .01 18,8105% 11% 21% 29% 33% 3.75 .03 1,6737% 13% 23% 31% 26% 3.56 .00 92,4617% 13% 24% 31% 25% 3.54 .01 31,0575% 11% 21% 29% 33% 3.75 .03 1,6738% 13% 19% 27% 32% 3.63 .04 1,2087% 13% 23% 31% 26% 3.56 .00 122,3105% 11% 21% 29% 33% 3.75 .03 1,6737% 13% 23% 31% 26% 3.57 .00 95,9459% 13% 23% 30% 25% 3.50 .01 26,0127% 14% 23% 31% 25% 3.54 .03 1,5615% 11% 21% 29% 33% 3.75 .03 1,6738% 14% 23% 30% 25% 3.48 .02 6,7097% 13% 23% 30% 26% 3.55 .01 28,1526% 12% 24% 32% 26% 3.62 .01 35,0178% 13% 23% 31% 25% 3.53 .01 53,6404% 10% 20% 29% 36% 3.83 .04 8589% 31% 22% 18% 21% 3.10 .16 684% 9% 17% 28% 43% 3.98 .06 3131% 7% 24% 29% 39% 3.97 .12 727% 8% 27% 31% 26% 3.60 .12 957% 13% 23% 30% 26% 3.55 .01 22,8327% 13% 22% 31% 27% 3.58 .01 8,0395% 10% 21% 30% 33% 3.75 .01 15,3874% 10% 22% 31% 32% 3.77 .01 9,0974% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.86 .02 2,9057% 13% 22% 30% 27% 3.56 .01 8,502

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of healthy menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 68: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 11aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of vegetarian menu choices

19% 10% 15% 19% 37% 3.44 .04 1,174

18% 12% 15% 21% 34% 3.43 .01 86,99119% 9% 15% 19% 38% 3.48 .05 98617% 11% 15% 21% 35% 3.46 .01 46,65421% 14% 15% 18% 31% 3.25 .11 18818% 12% 16% 21% 33% 3.38 .01 40,33719% 10% 15% 19% 37% 3.44 .05 1,011

100% 5.00 .00 220% 8% 16% 18% 37% 3.43 .12 15833% 67% 3.67 1.33 318% 12% 15% 21% 34% 3.43 .01 76,17616% 11% 14% 23% 37% 3.54 .03 2,49720% 12% 14% 23% 32% 3.35 .02 7,66512% 9% 15% 19% 44% 3.74 .06 51520% 14% 13% 17% 36% 3.36 .10 26616% 8% 24% 17% 36% 3.49 .14 11419% 9% 15% 20% 37% 3.45 .08 32321% 8% 12% 22% 37% 3.47 .10 25819% 13% 6% 13% 50% 3.63 .29 3222% 6% 11% 28% 33% 3.44 .37 1819% 12% 15% 20% 33% 3.37 .01 31,99117% 12% 15% 22% 34% 3.44 .01 15,82917% 11% 15% 22% 35% 3.46 .01 12,34016% 11% 15% 22% 36% 3.50 .01 10,79015% 11% 15% 24% 36% 3.55 .02 4,59518% 11% 14% 23% 35% 3.46 .06 53715% 8% 13% 21% 44% 3.70 .06 66426% 12% 18% 16% 29% 3.09 .07 49720% 20% 40% 20% 3.20 .73 5

13% 13% 25% 50% 4.13 .40 814% 11% 14% 22% 39% 3.62 .01 51,70324% 13% 16% 20% 27% 3.13 .01 33,81515% 9% 12% 26% 37% 3.60 .08 32213% 9% 16% 19% 43% 3.71 .05 67522% 12% 16% 17% 32% 3.24 .09 30718% 9% 14% 19% 39% 3.52 .05 86718% 12% 15% 21% 34% 3.41 .01 53,42718% 11% 14% 22% 35% 3.45 .01 32,44919% 10% 15% 19% 37% 3.44 .04 1,17422% 13% 16% 21% 28% 3.20 .01 11,43320% 12% 15% 19% 34% 3.36 .02 8,16518% 12% 15% 22% 33% 3.39 .01 25,24615% 10% 15% 22% 38% 3.58 .01 15,25815% 11% 16% 22% 36% 3.53 .01 13,49318% 11% 14% 20% 36% 3.46 .01 13,39619% 10% 15% 19% 37% 3.44 .04 1,17418% 11% 15% 21% 35% 3.45 .01 65,26618% 13% 15% 22% 32% 3.36 .01 21,72519% 10% 15% 19% 37% 3.44 .04 1,17418% 10% 13% 23% 37% 3.52 .05 79118% 12% 15% 21% 34% 3.43 .01 86,20019% 10% 15% 19% 37% 3.44 .04 1,17418% 12% 15% 22% 34% 3.42 .01 68,04517% 12% 15% 21% 35% 3.44 .01 17,80516% 13% 15% 24% 32% 3.42 .04 1,14119% 10% 15% 19% 37% 3.44 .04 1,17416% 11% 14% 23% 36% 3.52 .02 4,78915% 11% 15% 21% 37% 3.54 .01 19,58917% 11% 15% 22% 34% 3.43 .01 24,63819% 12% 15% 21% 33% 3.35 .01 37,97521% 8% 15% 18% 38% 3.42 .06 59722% 14% 16% 24% 22% 3.10 .21 4913% 9% 16% 20% 42% 3.67 .10 21223% 6% 10% 18% 44% 3.53 .21 6214% 12% 14% 21% 39% 3.61 .18 6618% 11% 15% 21% 35% 3.44 .01 15,77618% 12% 15% 22% 33% 3.41 .02 5,60018% 11% 14% 21% 35% 3.45 .01 10,91114% 11% 14% 23% 38% 3.59 .02 6,27817% 11% 12% 22% 37% 3.50 .03 2,06917% 11% 15% 21% 36% 3.47 .02 6,020

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 69: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 11bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of vegetarian menu choices

7% 10% 26% 22% 36% 3.70 .03 1,334

7% 11% 25% 28% 29% 3.61 .00 95,8466% 9% 25% 22% 38% 3.78 .04 1,1346% 10% 25% 27% 32% 3.68 .01 52,074

12% 14% 30% 25% 20% 3.27 .09 2008% 11% 26% 29% 26% 3.53 .01 43,7727% 11% 26% 21% 35% 3.65 .04 1,126

22% 22% 56% 4.33 .29 95% 5% 23% 26% 41% 3.94 .08 195

50% 25% 25% 3.75 .48 48% 11% 26% 27% 28% 3.57 .00 84,1878% 9% 20% 29% 34% 3.73 .02 2,8035% 7% 20% 28% 40% 3.92 .01 8,0143% 6% 20% 25% 47% 4.07 .04 6458% 13% 30% 19% 31% 3.52 .07 308

11% 12% 22% 22% 33% 3.55 .12 1306% 9% 26% 21% 38% 3.76 .06 3656% 9% 25% 25% 36% 3.75 .07 2728% 11% 28% 19% 33% 3.58 .22 36

20% 20% 13% 20% 27% 3.13 .40 157% 11% 27% 28% 28% 3.58 .01 34,9328% 12% 26% 27% 27% 3.52 .01 17,5227% 11% 26% 27% 28% 3.58 .01 13,7267% 11% 26% 27% 29% 3.61 .01 11,9568% 11% 23% 29% 28% 3.60 .02 5,314

10% 11% 25% 28% 26% 3.49 .05 6068% 10% 25% 23% 34% 3.66 .04 8025% 10% 27% 20% 38% 3.76 .05 520

33% 33% 33% 3.67 .88 311% 22% 22% 22% 22% 3.22 .46 9

8% 12% 24% 27% 28% 3.54 .01 57,4055% 8% 27% 28% 31% 3.72 .01 36,659

12% 15% 25% 23% 25% 3.33 .07 36914% 15% 22% 21% 29% 3.37 .05 80010% 13% 30% 19% 28% 3.42 .07 334

6% 9% 24% 23% 38% 3.80 .04 1,0008% 11% 27% 28% 26% 3.53 .01 58,5736% 9% 23% 27% 34% 3.74 .01 35,9027% 10% 26% 22% 36% 3.70 .03 1,3345% 10% 28% 28% 29% 3.66 .01 12,108

10% 12% 27% 26% 25% 3.45 .01 8,4057% 11% 25% 28% 29% 3.61 .01 27,5607% 11% 25% 28% 30% 3.62 .01 17,0247% 11% 26% 28% 28% 3.60 .01 15,9198% 10% 24% 26% 32% 3.64 .01 14,8307% 10% 26% 22% 36% 3.70 .03 1,3347% 10% 25% 28% 29% 3.61 .00 71,8687% 11% 26% 28% 29% 3.61 .01 23,9787% 10% 26% 22% 36% 3.70 .03 1,3348% 13% 23% 24% 32% 3.59 .04 8917% 11% 25% 28% 29% 3.61 .00 94,9557% 10% 26% 22% 36% 3.70 .03 1,3347% 10% 26% 28% 30% 3.64 .00 74,2209% 12% 25% 26% 28% 3.51 .01 20,4416% 12% 24% 31% 28% 3.63 .03 1,1857% 10% 26% 22% 36% 3.70 .03 1,3348% 12% 25% 27% 28% 3.53 .02 4,9737% 11% 25% 27% 29% 3.60 .01 22,0766% 9% 26% 29% 30% 3.68 .01 27,6368% 11% 25% 27% 29% 3.57 .01 41,1616% 9% 25% 23% 37% 3.75 .05 697

10% 21% 35% 15% 19% 3.13 .17 524% 8% 23% 18% 47% 3.97 .08 2442% 6% 19% 25% 48% 4.11 .13 639% 8% 29% 23% 31% 3.59 .14 787% 11% 26% 26% 30% 3.60 .01 17,5927% 11% 26% 27% 30% 3.63 .02 5,9856% 10% 23% 26% 35% 3.75 .01 12,2445% 9% 23% 27% 36% 3.80 .01 7,2065% 8% 23% 28% 36% 3.80 .02 2,3257% 10% 26% 27% 30% 3.62 .01 6,722

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 70: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 12aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Overall

0% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .02 1,358

0% 1% 8% 32% 58% 4.46 .00 102,8950% 1% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .02 1,1350% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.52 .00 55,4570% 3% 11% 33% 53% 4.35 .06 2230% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.40 .00 47,4380% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .02 1,180

33% 67% 4.33 .67 3 1% 14% 85% 4.83 .04 170

20% 80% 4.20 .80 50% 1% 9% 32% 57% 4.44 .00 90,1210% 1% 5% 32% 62% 4.55 .01 2,8840% 0% 3% 27% 69% 4.64 .01 9,1531% 0% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .03 5790% 2% 10% 25% 63% 4.48 .04 315

1% 7% 30% 61% 4.53 .06 1351% 1% 9% 23% 67% 4.55 .04 365

1% 6% 22% 70% 4.62 .04 312 19% 81% 4.81 .07 36 6% 12% 82% 4.76 .14 17

0% 1% 9% 32% 57% 4.44 .00 38,0980% 1% 9% 33% 56% 4.43 .01 18,6650% 1% 9% 31% 58% 4.45 .01 14,5620% 1% 8% 31% 60% 4.48 .01 12,8410% 1% 8% 37% 54% 4.42 .01 5,2330% 2% 10% 28% 61% 4.47 .03 6210% 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.67 .02 7601% 2% 10% 25% 64% 4.49 .03 584

20% 80% 4.80 .20 5 11% 11% 56% 22% 3.89 .31 9

0% 1% 7% 30% 61% 4.52 .00 61,0481% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 40,1710% 2% 14% 34% 49% 4.30 .04 3552% 3% 15% 34% 46% 4.20 .03 767

2% 10% 28% 59% 4.44 .04 3730% 1% 6% 21% 73% 4.64 .02 9850% 1% 9% 33% 56% 4.43 .00 63,5990% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.53 .00 38,0300% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .02 1,3580% 1% 8% 34% 56% 4.44 .01 14,3210% 1% 8% 32% 59% 4.48 .01 9,7720% 1% 8% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 29,9170% 1% 8% 30% 61% 4.49 .01 17,7371% 1% 10% 32% 56% 4.42 .01 15,7250% 1% 7% 28% 63% 4.54 .01 15,4230% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .02 1,3580% 1% 8% 31% 59% 4.47 .00 76,9090% 1% 8% 33% 58% 4.46 .00 25,9860% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .02 1,3580% 1% 5% 24% 70% 4.64 .02 9580% 1% 8% 32% 58% 4.46 .00 101,9370% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .02 1,3580% 1% 8% 32% 58% 4.46 .00 80,6060% 1% 8% 32% 59% 4.47 .01 20,933

1% 8% 32% 60% 4.50 .02 1,3560% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .02 1,3580% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.52 .01 5,8190% 1% 8% 30% 61% 4.49 .00 23,3081% 1% 9% 32% 57% 4.43 .00 29,0020% 1% 8% 32% 58% 4.46 .00 44,7660% 1% 6% 21% 71% 4.62 .03 677

10% 21% 69% 4.59 .09 580% 0% 6% 18% 76% 4.69 .04 251

3% 18% 79% 4.76 .06 66 2% 6% 29% 63% 4.52 .08 83

0% 1% 8% 31% 60% 4.49 .01 18,8640% 1% 7% 32% 60% 4.50 .01 6,7840% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.54 .01 12,7610% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.57 .01 7,4880% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.58 .01 2,3690% 1% 7% 30% 61% 4.49 .01 7,192

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Service: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 71: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 12bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Overall

2% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .02 1,730

2% 3% 12% 34% 49% 4.24 .00 125,6482% 4% 11% 32% 52% 4.28 .02 1,4622% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .00 68,3861% 3% 18% 40% 39% 4.12 .05 2682% 3% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .00 57,2622% 4% 13% 34% 49% 4.24 .02 1,464

20% 80% 4.80 .13 102% 5% 9% 30% 54% 4.30 .06 250

17% 33% 50% 4.33 .33 62% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .00 109,2823% 3% 9% 27% 57% 4.33 .02 3,7222% 3% 9% 27% 58% 4.37 .01 11,6442% 2% 8% 24% 64% 4.46 .03 7772% 4% 13% 31% 50% 4.25 .05 3982% 2% 17% 37% 41% 4.12 .07 1672% 3% 13% 33% 49% 4.24 .04 4470% 5% 11% 34% 50% 4.28 .04 3832% 4% 6% 40% 48% 4.27 .13 485% 5% 48% 43% 4.24 .21 212% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.25 .00 45,7172% 4% 13% 35% 46% 4.20 .01 22,7892% 4% 12% 35% 46% 4.19 .01 17,6622% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.21 .01 15,6002% 4% 11% 36% 46% 4.21 .01 6,6013% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.25 .03 7692% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .03 1,0131% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .03 700

40% 60% 4.60 .24 58% 8% 50% 33% 3.92 .36 122% 3% 12% 33% 50% 4.26 .00 75,3052% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .00 48,2133% 5% 16% 30% 46% 4.11 .05 4384% 3% 14% 31% 48% 4.17 .03 9682% 4% 15% 36% 43% 4.14 .04 4601% 4% 11% 32% 52% 4.29 .03 1,2702% 4% 13% 35% 46% 4.21 .00 76,7962% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.29 .00 47,2712% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .02 1,7301% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.37 .01 16,8123% 5% 13% 35% 44% 4.13 .01 11,4332% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.24 .00 36,6232% 4% 13% 34% 48% 4.22 .01 21,6622% 3% 13% 35% 46% 4.19 .01 19,9482% 4% 12% 31% 51% 4.25 .01 19,1702% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .02 1,7302% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.22 .00 94,0872% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.29 .01 31,5612% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .02 1,7302% 5% 10% 29% 55% 4.29 .03 1,2802% 3% 12% 34% 49% 4.24 .00 124,3682% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .02 1,7302% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.27 .00 97,5263% 5% 14% 33% 45% 4.12 .01 26,5301% 3% 10% 35% 50% 4.30 .02 1,5922% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .02 1,7302% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.31 .01 6,8352% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.22 .01 28,6662% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.28 .00 35,5432% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.21 .00 54,6042% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.29 .03 8751% 13% 14% 35% 38% 3.94 .13 722% 5% 12% 30% 51% 4.25 .05 3291% 8% 29% 62% 4.50 .09 781% 5% 7% 38% 49% 4.30 .08 1082% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.22 .01 23,2192% 4% 12% 34% 47% 4.21 .01 8,1972% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.27 .01 15,6992% 4% 11% 30% 53% 4.28 .01 9,4353% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.24 .02 2,9942% 3% 10% 33% 53% 4.32 .01 8,843

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Service: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 72: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 13aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Speed of service

0% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .02 1,351

0% 2% 8% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 103,0180% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.65 .02 1,1300% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.52 .00 55,5790% 3% 11% 30% 55% 4.37 .06 2210% 2% 10% 36% 51% 4.35 .00 47,4390% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.58 .02 1,173

100% 5.00 .00 3 1% 1% 17% 81% 4.78 .04 170

20% 20% 60% 4.00 .77 50% 2% 9% 33% 56% 4.42 .00 90,2320% 1% 5% 33% 61% 4.54 .01 2,8740% 1% 4% 30% 66% 4.60 .01 9,1791% 1% 6% 29% 63% 4.53 .03 571

3% 9% 23% 65% 4.50 .04 3111% 1% 7% 29% 61% 4.49 .07 1341% 1% 7% 22% 70% 4.59 .04 364

1% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .04 310 3% 19% 78% 4.76 .08 37 18% 82% 4.82 .10 17

0% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 38,1200% 2% 10% 33% 55% 4.41 .01 18,7030% 2% 8% 32% 58% 4.45 .01 14,5760% 2% 8% 31% 59% 4.47 .01 12,8490% 1% 8% 33% 57% 4.45 .01 5,2520% 2% 8% 30% 60% 4.46 .03 6260% 1% 4% 21% 73% 4.66 .02 7581% 1% 9% 23% 66% 4.53 .03 580

20% 80% 4.80 .20 5 13% 13% 38% 38% 4.00 .38 8

0% 1% 7% 31% 60% 4.49 .00 61,1531% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .00 40,1760% 3% 13% 37% 46% 4.26 .04 3572% 3% 15% 36% 44% 4.18 .03 7740% 2% 8% 26% 62% 4.48 .04 3700% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.65 .02 9810% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 63,6480% 1% 6% 30% 62% 4.52 .00 38,0940% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .02 1,3510% 2% 9% 35% 54% 4.41 .01 14,3930% 2% 7% 31% 59% 4.48 .01 9,7930% 2% 9% 35% 54% 4.41 .00 29,9600% 2% 9% 31% 58% 4.45 .01 17,7191% 2% 9% 32% 56% 4.42 .01 15,7120% 1% 7% 29% 62% 4.52 .01 15,4410% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .02 1,3510% 2% 8% 32% 57% 4.45 .00 76,9790% 2% 9% 34% 55% 4.42 .00 26,0390% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .02 1,3510% 1% 5% 28% 66% 4.60 .02 9660% 2% 8% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 102,0520% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .02 1,3510% 2% 9% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 80,6870% 2% 8% 32% 58% 4.46 .01 20,9680% 2% 7% 35% 56% 4.44 .02 1,3630% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .02 1,3510% 1% 8% 33% 57% 4.46 .01 5,8180% 2% 8% 31% 58% 4.46 .00 23,2810% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 29,0540% 1% 8% 32% 58% 4.46 .00 44,8650% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.64 .03 6752% 5% 22% 71% 4.60 .10 581% 4% 18% 78% 4.71 .04 249

3% 27% 70% 4.67 .07 66 2% 6% 26% 66% 4.55 .08 82

0% 1% 7% 30% 61% 4.50 .01 18,9090% 1% 7% 31% 61% 4.52 .01 6,8120% 1% 6% 29% 63% 4.54 .01 12,7970% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.57 .01 7,5050% 1% 6% 29% 64% 4.56 .01 2,3711% 1% 8% 31% 59% 4.47 .01 7,186

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Speed of service

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 73: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 13bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Speed of service

3% 5% 14% 30% 48% 4.13 .03 1,726

3% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.08 .00 125,5394% 5% 14% 29% 49% 4.13 .03 1,4614% 7% 15% 31% 43% 4.03 .00 68,3912% 5% 14% 36% 44% 4.15 .06 2652% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.13 .00 57,1483% 5% 14% 30% 47% 4.13 .03 1,459

10% 10% 10% 70% 4.40 .34 104% 8% 12% 27% 50% 4.12 .07 252

60% 40% 4.40 .24 53% 6% 15% 33% 42% 4.06 .00 109,1514% 5% 11% 29% 50% 4.15 .02 3,7253% 6% 11% 28% 52% 4.20 .01 11,6623% 3% 11% 24% 60% 4.37 .03 7753% 4% 12% 32% 49% 4.21 .05 3964% 6% 17% 34% 39% 3.98 .08 1664% 5% 14% 28% 48% 4.12 .05 4462% 5% 15% 30% 48% 4.17 .05 3828% 4% 10% 31% 46% 4.02 .18 485% 19% 14% 19% 43% 3.76 .29 213% 6% 15% 34% 43% 4.09 .00 45,6453% 7% 15% 34% 41% 4.03 .01 22,7863% 7% 15% 33% 42% 4.03 .01 17,6364% 7% 15% 33% 42% 4.03 .01 15,5663% 6% 13% 34% 43% 4.07 .01 6,6034% 6% 13% 32% 46% 4.11 .04 7694% 5% 14% 30% 46% 4.11 .03 1,0113% 5% 13% 29% 50% 4.16 .04 698

20% 80% 4.80 .20 5 8% 42% 50% 4.42 .19 12

3% 6% 14% 32% 44% 4.08 .00 75,2573% 6% 15% 33% 43% 4.07 .00 48,1515% 6% 15% 31% 43% 4.01 .05 4414% 6% 14% 33% 43% 4.05 .04 9685% 5% 13% 34% 43% 4.05 .05 4563% 5% 14% 28% 50% 4.16 .03 1,2703% 6% 15% 34% 42% 4.05 .00 76,7113% 6% 13% 31% 47% 4.11 .00 47,2433% 5% 14% 30% 48% 4.13 .03 1,7262% 5% 12% 34% 47% 4.20 .01 16,8166% 9% 16% 31% 39% 3.89 .01 11,4293% 6% 13% 34% 45% 4.12 .01 36,6323% 7% 16% 32% 42% 4.03 .01 21,6123% 6% 16% 33% 41% 4.01 .01 19,8913% 6% 13% 31% 46% 4.11 .01 19,1593% 5% 14% 30% 48% 4.13 .03 1,7263% 6% 14% 33% 43% 4.08 .00 93,9883% 6% 14% 32% 44% 4.08 .01 31,5513% 5% 14% 30% 48% 4.13 .03 1,7265% 6% 13% 28% 47% 4.07 .03 1,2793% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.08 .00 124,2603% 5% 14% 30% 48% 4.13 .03 1,7263% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.11 .00 97,3875% 8% 15% 32% 41% 3.96 .01 26,5602% 6% 13% 35% 44% 4.12 .02 1,5923% 5% 14% 30% 48% 4.13 .03 1,7264% 6% 13% 31% 46% 4.09 .01 6,8274% 7% 16% 31% 42% 4.02 .01 28,6492% 5% 13% 33% 46% 4.16 .01 35,4833% 6% 14% 33% 42% 4.05 .00 54,5803% 4% 12% 29% 52% 4.22 .03 876

11% 11% 18% 32% 27% 3.52 .16 714% 7% 20% 26% 43% 3.98 .06 3293% 5% 10% 26% 56% 4.28 .12 784% 4% 12% 35% 46% 4.15 .10 1073% 7% 16% 33% 41% 4.02 .01 23,2396% 9% 17% 31% 37% 3.85 .01 8,2084% 7% 14% 29% 45% 4.04 .01 15,6974% 8% 14% 30% 44% 4.01 .01 9,4315% 9% 15% 28% 43% 3.95 .02 2,9912% 4% 12% 31% 50% 4.22 .01 8,826

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Speed of service

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 74: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 14aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Hours of operation

1% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.48 .02 1,347

1% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 102,8151% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.49 .02 1,1241% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 55,2980% 2% 10% 28% 59% 4.43 .05 2230% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.43 .00 47,5171% 2% 9% 25% 63% 4.46 .02 1,171

33% 67% 4.00 1.00 32% 1% 5% 24% 69% 4.57 .06 169

100% 5.00 .00 41% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .00 90,1441% 3% 8% 37% 51% 4.35 .02 2,8521% 2% 8% 35% 54% 4.40 .01 9,1062% 3% 10% 30% 56% 4.34 .04 560

3% 8% 25% 63% 4.49 .04 312 2% 15% 29% 54% 4.35 .07 129

2% 2% 10% 25% 60% 4.38 .05 3651% 2% 7% 22% 67% 4.54 .04 310

24% 76% 4.76 .07 38 35% 65% 4.65 .12 17

1% 2% 9% 30% 59% 4.45 .00 38,1370% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.42 .01 18,6921% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.42 .01 14,5300% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.41 .01 12,8181% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.38 .01 5,2331% 3% 11% 31% 54% 4.34 .03 6300% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .03 7552% 3% 12% 25% 58% 4.35 .04 579

20% 80% 4.80 .20 5 13% 13% 38% 38% 4.00 .38 8

0% 2% 8% 30% 60% 4.48 .00 61,0421% 3% 11% 32% 53% 4.35 .00 40,1041% 4% 13% 30% 53% 4.29 .05 3572% 4% 13% 28% 52% 4.25 .03 772

2% 9% 24% 64% 4.50 .04 3711% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.47 .03 9760% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.44 .00 63,7201% 2% 9% 32% 55% 4.39 .00 37,8351% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.48 .02 1,3471% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .01 14,3100% 2% 9% 31% 58% 4.43 .01 9,7991% 2% 9% 32% 56% 4.41 .00 29,9420% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.47 .01 17,7241% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 15,6431% 2% 8% 29% 61% 4.47 .01 15,3971% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.48 .02 1,3471% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .00 76,8331% 2% 9% 32% 56% 4.40 .00 25,9821% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.48 .02 1,3471% 2% 8% 32% 57% 4.43 .03 9531% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 101,8621% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.48 .02 1,3471% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 80,5471% 2% 9% 30% 57% 4.42 .01 20,9100% 2% 8% 29% 62% 4.50 .02 1,3581% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.48 .02 1,3470% 2% 8% 31% 58% 4.44 .01 5,8120% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.47 .01 23,2701% 2% 10% 32% 56% 4.40 .00 28,9911% 2% 9% 32% 56% 4.41 .00 44,7421% 3% 10% 24% 63% 4.44 .03 671

11% 23% 66% 4.55 .09 561% 1% 5% 23% 70% 4.60 .05 2492% 2% 6% 27% 64% 4.50 .10 662% 1% 6% 24% 66% 4.50 .10 821% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 18,7971% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.38 .01 6,7531% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .01 12,7490% 2% 8% 29% 61% 4.48 .01 7,4751% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.40 .02 2,3481% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.46 .01 7,177

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Hours of operation

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 75: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 14bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Hours of operation

4% 8% 15% 29% 44% 4.00 .03 1,710

5% 10% 15% 29% 40% 3.88 .00 125,1514% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.08 .03 1,4424% 9% 15% 29% 43% 3.99 .00 67,9528% 14% 19% 28% 30% 3.58 .08 2687% 12% 16% 30% 35% 3.75 .01 57,1995% 8% 16% 29% 42% 3.95 .03 1,444

10% 90% 4.80 .20 103% 5% 8% 31% 53% 4.26 .06 250

17% 17% 67% 4.50 .34 66% 11% 16% 30% 38% 3.83 .00 109,0364% 6% 11% 29% 50% 4.15 .02 3,6692% 5% 10% 27% 56% 4.30 .01 11,4753% 4% 10% 26% 58% 4.32 .04 7586% 12% 16% 26% 39% 3.82 .06 3965% 9% 23% 29% 34% 3.79 .09 1614% 5% 16% 31% 44% 4.06 .05 4433% 9% 15% 30% 44% 4.03 .06 377

11% 9% 11% 23% 47% 3.87 .20 4710% 5% 5% 30% 50% 4.05 .29 20

7% 12% 17% 29% 35% 3.74 .01 45,6596% 10% 16% 30% 38% 3.86 .01 22,7686% 9% 16% 30% 39% 3.88 .01 17,5885% 9% 15% 31% 40% 3.93 .01 15,5265% 9% 16% 32% 39% 3.92 .01 6,5756% 8% 16% 30% 40% 3.91 .04 7665% 8% 13% 28% 46% 4.02 .04 1,0014% 7% 18% 31% 41% 3.97 .04 693

20% 20% 60% 4.40 .40 5 18% 18% 27% 36% 3.82 .35 11

5% 10% 15% 29% 40% 3.89 .00 74,9816% 10% 16% 30% 39% 3.87 .01 48,0537% 11% 17% 27% 38% 3.77 .06 4418% 9% 17% 27% 38% 3.78 .04 9657% 12% 19% 27% 34% 3.69 .06 4583% 6% 13% 30% 47% 4.11 .03 1,2526% 12% 17% 29% 36% 3.77 .00 76,7504% 7% 14% 30% 46% 4.07 .01 46,8354% 8% 15% 29% 44% 4.00 .03 1,7104% 11% 16% 30% 38% 3.87 .01 16,7376% 11% 15% 31% 38% 3.84 .01 11,4095% 10% 14% 30% 41% 3.92 .01 36,5376% 10% 16% 30% 39% 3.85 .01 21,5616% 10% 16% 29% 38% 3.84 .01 19,8345% 9% 15% 28% 42% 3.93 .01 19,0734% 8% 15% 29% 44% 4.00 .03 1,7105% 10% 15% 30% 40% 3.88 .00 93,6945% 10% 15% 29% 40% 3.89 .01 31,4574% 8% 15% 29% 44% 4.00 .03 1,7103% 7% 13% 29% 48% 4.13 .03 1,2585% 10% 15% 29% 40% 3.88 .00 123,8934% 8% 15% 29% 44% 4.00 .03 1,7105% 10% 15% 29% 40% 3.90 .00 97,1286% 10% 16% 30% 39% 3.85 .01 26,442

11% 15% 16% 25% 33% 3.54 .03 1,5814% 8% 15% 29% 44% 4.00 .03 1,7105% 9% 14% 28% 44% 3.95 .01 6,7936% 11% 16% 29% 39% 3.84 .01 28,5855% 9% 15% 30% 41% 3.93 .01 35,3995% 10% 16% 30% 39% 3.86 .01 54,3744% 7% 16% 30% 43% 4.01 .04 8643% 6% 14% 27% 51% 4.17 .13 713% 7% 13% 29% 47% 4.10 .06 3211% 6% 3% 25% 65% 4.45 .11 773% 5% 10% 31% 51% 4.24 .10 1095% 10% 16% 30% 39% 3.88 .01 23,0494% 9% 14% 31% 43% 4.00 .01 8,1424% 8% 15% 28% 45% 4.03 .01 15,6164% 8% 14% 29% 45% 4.03 .01 9,3555% 8% 15% 30% 43% 3.98 .02 2,9603% 6% 12% 28% 51% 4.17 .01 8,831

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Hours of operation

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 76: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 15aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Helpfulness of staff

1% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.50 .02 1,338

1% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 102,4321% 2% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .02 1,1200% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 55,2361% 5% 15% 31% 49% 4.21 .06 2181% 3% 12% 34% 50% 4.29 .00 47,1961% 3% 9% 25% 62% 4.46 .02 1,162

33% 67% 4.00 1.00 31% 1% 2% 18% 79% 4.72 .05 169

100% 5.00 .00 41% 3% 12% 33% 52% 4.33 .00 89,6820% 1% 6% 32% 61% 4.51 .01 2,8880% 1% 4% 28% 67% 4.60 .01 9,1321% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.54 .03 5740% 3% 12% 25% 60% 4.41 .05 3111% 1% 14% 32% 53% 4.36 .07 1321% 3% 8% 26% 63% 4.48 .04 3540% 3% 9% 22% 65% 4.50 .05 310

3% 21% 76% 4.71 .10 38 18% 82% 4.82 .10 17

1% 3% 12% 33% 52% 4.32 .00 37,9121% 3% 12% 33% 52% 4.32 .01 18,5431% 3% 11% 32% 53% 4.35 .01 14,4781% 2% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .01 12,7901% 3% 11% 36% 50% 4.32 .01 5,2430% 3% 9% 29% 59% 4.45 .03 6220% 2% 6% 22% 70% 4.61 .03 7501% 3% 12% 26% 58% 4.36 .04 574

20% 20% 60% 4.00 .77 5 11% 22% 22% 44% 4.00 .37 9

0% 2% 9% 31% 58% 4.44 .00 60,8221% 3% 14% 33% 48% 4.25 .00 39,9543% 4% 16% 36% 42% 4.11 .05 3522% 4% 16% 32% 46% 4.15 .04 7610% 4% 13% 29% 54% 4.33 .04 3681% 2% 7% 22% 68% 4.56 .02 9701% 3% 12% 33% 51% 4.31 .00 63,2911% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .00 37,8931% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.50 .02 1,3381% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.32 .01 14,2621% 3% 11% 34% 52% 4.33 .01 9,7151% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.33 .00 29,8411% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.40 .01 17,6431% 3% 12% 32% 53% 4.33 .01 15,6131% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.45 .01 15,3581% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.50 .02 1,3381% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 76,5631% 2% 11% 33% 53% 4.36 .01 25,8691% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.50 .02 1,3380% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.63 .02 9571% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 101,4751% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.50 .02 1,3381% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 80,1961% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.37 .01 20,8780% 2% 11% 36% 51% 4.35 .02 1,3581% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.50 .02 1,3380% 2% 8% 30% 60% 4.47 .01 5,7971% 2% 10% 30% 56% 4.40 .01 23,1921% 3% 11% 33% 53% 4.34 .00 28,8711% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.34 .00 44,5720% 2% 8% 23% 66% 4.52 .03 6722% 2% 13% 32% 52% 4.30 .12 561% 1% 4% 18% 76% 4.67 .04 246

3% 25% 72% 4.69 .07 65 2% 9% 27% 62% 4.48 .08 81

1% 2% 11% 31% 55% 4.38 .01 18,7460% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.38 .01 6,7560% 2% 9% 30% 59% 4.46 .01 12,7520% 1% 8% 29% 61% 4.49 .01 7,4510% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.53 .01 2,3521% 3% 10% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 7,180

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Helpfulness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 77: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 15bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Helpfulness of staff

2% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.29 .02 1,705

2% 4% 12% 29% 53% 4.28 .00 124,7752% 4% 12% 25% 57% 4.32 .02 1,4482% 3% 11% 29% 55% 4.30 .00 68,0002% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.12 .06 2572% 4% 13% 30% 51% 4.25 .00 56,7752% 4% 13% 29% 53% 4.26 .03 1,441

100% 5.00 .00 92% 3% 10% 19% 65% 4.42 .06 249

33% 67% 4.67 .21 62% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.25 .00 108,4923% 2% 7% 23% 65% 4.45 .02 3,7142% 3% 8% 23% 65% 4.46 .01 11,5782% 1% 10% 20% 67% 4.48 .03 7652% 4% 13% 26% 54% 4.28 .05 3893% 3% 17% 32% 45% 4.12 .08 1642% 5% 10% 32% 51% 4.25 .05 4391% 3% 13% 28% 55% 4.33 .05 3814% 6% 10% 15% 65% 4.29 .17 485% 15% 25% 55% 4.25 .24 202% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.26 .00 45,3962% 4% 13% 31% 50% 4.24 .01 22,6292% 4% 12% 31% 51% 4.24 .01 17,4932% 4% 12% 31% 51% 4.25 .01 15,5012% 4% 11% 32% 51% 4.27 .01 6,5603% 3% 9% 27% 58% 4.34 .04 7642% 4% 13% 26% 56% 4.28 .03 9982% 3% 12% 29% 54% 4.31 .04 690

20% 80% 4.80 .20 5 8% 8% 50% 33% 4.08 .26 12

2% 4% 11% 29% 54% 4.29 .00 74,7572% 4% 12% 31% 51% 4.26 .00 47,8924% 5% 13% 30% 47% 4.11 .05 4353% 3% 13% 28% 54% 4.26 .03 9672% 6% 14% 33% 45% 4.12 .05 4512% 3% 11% 25% 58% 4.35 .03 1,2542% 4% 13% 31% 51% 4.25 .00 76,2292% 3% 10% 27% 57% 4.33 .00 46,9602% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.29 .02 1,7051% 3% 10% 29% 57% 4.38 .01 16,7073% 5% 13% 29% 50% 4.20 .01 11,3462% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.28 .00 36,3832% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.28 .01 21,5152% 4% 13% 30% 51% 4.24 .01 19,7603% 4% 11% 28% 55% 4.28 .01 19,0642% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.29 .02 1,7052% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.25 .00 93,3592% 3% 10% 28% 58% 4.37 .01 31,4162% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.29 .02 1,7053% 3% 10% 23% 61% 4.36 .03 1,2752% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.28 .00 123,5002% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.29 .02 1,7052% 3% 12% 29% 54% 4.31 .00 96,7443% 5% 12% 30% 50% 4.18 .01 26,4431% 4% 12% 30% 54% 4.30 .02 1,5882% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.29 .02 1,7052% 3% 9% 25% 62% 4.42 .01 6,8042% 4% 12% 29% 53% 4.27 .01 28,4742% 3% 11% 30% 54% 4.31 .00 35,3032% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.25 .00 54,1942% 4% 12% 26% 56% 4.30 .03 8691% 6% 20% 33% 40% 4.04 .12 702% 3% 11% 23% 61% 4.37 .05 3241% 3% 4% 23% 69% 4.56 .09 771% 3% 13% 28% 56% 4.34 .08 1082% 4% 12% 31% 51% 4.26 .01 23,0662% 4% 10% 30% 54% 4.31 .01 8,1562% 4% 10% 27% 56% 4.32 .01 15,6242% 4% 10% 27% 58% 4.35 .01 9,3923% 3% 10% 28% 56% 4.31 .02 2,9792% 3% 11% 28% 56% 4.34 .01 8,784

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Helpfulness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 78: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 16aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Friendliness of staff

1% 2% 8% 22% 68% 4.53 .02 1,339

1% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .00 102,5721% 2% 7% 20% 71% 4.59 .02 1,1210% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .00 55,2781% 5% 14% 29% 52% 4.26 .06 2181% 3% 11% 32% 53% 4.33 .00 47,2941% 2% 9% 22% 66% 4.50 .02 1,163

33% 67% 4.00 1.00 31% 1% 2% 17% 79% 4.73 .05 169

100% 5.00 .00 41% 3% 11% 31% 55% 4.37 .00 89,8860% 1% 6% 31% 62% 4.52 .01 2,8720% 1% 4% 26% 69% 4.63 .01 9,1041% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.57 .03 5661% 4% 10% 20% 65% 4.46 .05 310

1% 14% 27% 58% 4.43 .07 1311% 2% 8% 25% 65% 4.49 .04 3550% 2% 8% 20% 69% 4.55 .04 312

3% 24% 74% 4.71 .08 38 24% 76% 4.76 .11 17

1% 3% 11% 31% 55% 4.37 .00 38,0161% 3% 11% 31% 55% 4.37 .01 18,6061% 3% 10% 30% 56% 4.39 .01 14,5131% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .01 12,8041% 3% 10% 35% 52% 4.33 .01 5,2280% 4% 9% 26% 61% 4.44 .03 627

1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .02 7511% 3% 11% 23% 62% 4.41 .04 574

20% 20% 60% 4.00 .77 5 11% 22% 11% 56% 4.11 .39 9

0% 2% 8% 30% 60% 4.48 .00 60,8991% 3% 13% 32% 51% 4.29 .00 40,0252% 6% 12% 34% 46% 4.17 .05 3532% 5% 17% 30% 47% 4.14 .04 7620% 4% 13% 25% 57% 4.36 .05 3661% 2% 6% 20% 71% 4.60 .02 9731% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 63,4471% 2% 8% 29% 61% 4.47 .00 37,8851% 2% 8% 22% 68% 4.53 .02 1,3391% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.37 .01 14,2991% 3% 10% 32% 55% 4.38 .01 9,7691% 3% 10% 32% 55% 4.38 .00 29,8371% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.44 .01 17,6671% 3% 11% 31% 55% 4.37 .01 15,6351% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.49 .01 15,3651% 2% 8% 22% 68% 4.53 .02 1,3391% 3% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .00 76,7181% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.39 .00 25,8541% 2% 8% 22% 68% 4.53 .02 1,3390% 2% 5% 22% 72% 4.63 .02 9561% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.40 .00 101,6161% 2% 8% 22% 68% 4.53 .02 1,3391% 3% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .00 80,3381% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.42 .01 20,8831% 1% 9% 34% 55% 4.41 .02 1,3511% 2% 8% 22% 68% 4.53 .02 1,3390% 2% 7% 28% 62% 4.50 .01 5,7881% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.45 .01 23,2011% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.38 .00 28,9291% 3% 10% 31% 55% 4.38 .00 44,6540% 3% 8% 20% 70% 4.56 .03 6702% 11% 29% 59% 4.43 .11 562% 4% 18% 76% 4.67 .04 249

5% 21% 74% 4.70 .07 66 4% 8% 23% 66% 4.51 .09 80

1% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.42 .01 18,7890% 2% 9% 32% 57% 4.43 .01 6,7780% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .01 12,7350% 1% 7% 27% 65% 4.54 .01 7,4540% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .01 2,3591% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.43 .01 7,164

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Friendliness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 79: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 16bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Friendliness of staff

2% 4% 12% 25% 58% 4.32 .02 1,708

2% 4% 11% 27% 56% 4.31 .00 125,0872% 3% 12% 23% 60% 4.36 .03 1,4472% 3% 10% 26% 58% 4.34 .00 68,0642% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .06 2612% 4% 12% 27% 54% 4.27 .00 57,0232% 4% 12% 26% 55% 4.28 .03 1,443

10% 90% 4.90 .10 103% 1% 10% 17% 69% 4.47 .06 249

17% 83% 4.83 .17 62% 4% 12% 28% 55% 4.29 .00 108,8092% 2% 6% 21% 68% 4.50 .01 3,7132% 2% 8% 21% 67% 4.49 .01 11,5812% 1% 9% 19% 69% 4.52 .03 7692% 4% 14% 25% 55% 4.28 .05 3924% 2% 17% 27% 51% 4.18 .08 1623% 4% 12% 28% 54% 4.27 .05 4411% 5% 11% 24% 59% 4.35 .05 3814% 4% 6% 23% 62% 4.34 .16 475% 5% 10% 25% 55% 4.20 .26 202% 4% 12% 27% 56% 4.30 .00 45,5462% 4% 12% 29% 53% 4.27 .01 22,7022% 4% 12% 28% 54% 4.27 .01 17,5552% 4% 12% 28% 54% 4.28 .01 15,5242% 4% 10% 30% 54% 4.31 .01 6,5703% 3% 11% 24% 59% 4.32 .04 7673% 4% 13% 25% 57% 4.30 .03 9992% 4% 11% 24% 59% 4.35 .04 692

100% 5.00 .00 5 17% 8% 33% 42% 4.00 .33 12

2% 4% 11% 26% 57% 4.31 .00 74,9872% 3% 11% 28% 56% 4.31 .00 47,9793% 6% 12% 28% 51% 4.16 .05 4393% 4% 12% 25% 57% 4.28 .03 9693% 5% 15% 31% 47% 4.15 .05 4532% 3% 11% 22% 61% 4.38 .03 1,2552% 4% 12% 28% 54% 4.28 .00 76,4942% 3% 10% 25% 60% 4.37 .00 47,0232% 4% 12% 25% 58% 4.32 .02 1,7081% 3% 9% 26% 61% 4.43 .01 16,7483% 4% 12% 27% 54% 4.24 .01 11,4002% 4% 11% 27% 55% 4.29 .01 36,4682% 4% 11% 27% 56% 4.31 .01 21,5652% 3% 12% 28% 55% 4.30 .01 19,8153% 4% 10% 25% 58% 4.31 .01 19,0912% 4% 12% 25% 58% 4.32 .02 1,7082% 4% 12% 27% 54% 4.28 .00 93,6592% 3% 9% 25% 62% 4.42 .01 31,4282% 4% 12% 25% 58% 4.32 .02 1,7083% 3% 8% 21% 65% 4.43 .03 1,2802% 4% 11% 27% 56% 4.31 .00 123,8072% 4% 12% 25% 58% 4.32 .02 1,7082% 3% 11% 27% 57% 4.34 .00 97,0193% 5% 12% 27% 53% 4.22 .01 26,4872% 4% 10% 27% 57% 4.32 .02 1,5812% 4% 12% 25% 58% 4.32 .02 1,7082% 3% 8% 22% 65% 4.46 .01 6,8082% 4% 12% 26% 56% 4.29 .01 28,5302% 3% 11% 27% 58% 4.36 .00 35,3813% 4% 12% 28% 54% 4.27 .00 54,3683% 3% 13% 23% 59% 4.32 .03 871

9% 14% 29% 49% 4.17 .12 702% 2% 11% 20% 65% 4.42 .05 3211% 1% 5% 23% 69% 4.57 .09 771% 4% 9% 25% 61% 4.42 .08 1082% 3% 11% 28% 55% 4.30 .01 23,0862% 3% 10% 27% 59% 4.37 .01 8,1712% 3% 10% 25% 59% 4.36 .01 15,6332% 3% 9% 24% 61% 4.39 .01 9,3873% 2% 9% 25% 60% 4.38 .02 2,9772% 3% 10% 26% 58% 4.35 .01 8,811

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Friendliness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 80: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 17aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Overall

1% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.65 .02 1,345

0% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .00 102,6351% 1% 5% 18% 76% 4.67 .02 1,1190% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.59 .00 55,1540% 9% 23% 68% 4.58 .05 2260% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.57 .00 47,4811% 1% 7% 20% 73% 4.63 .02 1,168

33% 67% 4.33 .67 3 1% 13% 86% 4.86 .03 169

20% 80% 4.20 .80 50% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.56 .00 89,9000% 1% 3% 19% 77% 4.71 .01 2,8720% 0% 2% 17% 80% 4.77 .01 9,1391% 0% 4% 16% 78% 4.70 .03 5751% 8% 21% 71% 4.62 .04 315

3% 9% 24% 64% 4.48 .07 1291% 1% 7% 19% 73% 4.63 .04 3601% 1% 4% 18% 76% 4.68 .04 311

8% 14% 78% 4.70 .10 37 13% 88% 4.88 .09 16

0% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.56 .00 38,0230% 1% 7% 26% 65% 4.55 .01 18,5960% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.55 .01 14,4930% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.58 .01 12,8280% 1% 5% 26% 67% 4.58 .01 5,2400% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.60 .03 6210% 0% 4% 17% 78% 4.73 .02 7501% 1% 8% 20% 69% 4.56 .03 581

20% 20% 60% 4.40 .40 5 33% 67% 4.67 .17 9

0% 1% 5% 22% 73% 4.66 .00 60,8641% 2% 9% 28% 61% 4.48 .00 40,1351% 3% 10% 29% 57% 4.39 .05 3561% 2% 11% 29% 57% 4.39 .03 755

1% 9% 23% 68% 4.57 .04 3681% 1% 5% 17% 77% 4.68 .02 9770% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.55 .00 63,4690% 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.64 .00 37,9151% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.65 .02 1,3450% 1% 7% 27% 66% 4.56 .01 14,3040% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.58 .01 9,7860% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .00 29,8730% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .01 17,6791% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .01 15,6180% 1% 6% 21% 72% 4.63 .01 15,3751% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.65 .02 1,3450% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.59 .00 76,7340% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .00 25,9011% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.65 .02 1,3450% 1% 3% 15% 80% 4.75 .02 9420% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .00 101,6931% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.65 .02 1,3450% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 80,4360% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.56 .00 20,8490% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57 .02 1,3501% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.65 .02 1,3450% 1% 5% 24% 70% 4.63 .01 5,7810% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.58 .00 23,2280% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.56 .00 28,9270% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .00 44,6991% 1% 6% 18% 74% 4.64 .03 667

10% 19% 71% 4.60 .09 580% 1% 4% 16% 80% 4.73 .04 251

16% 84% 4.84 .04 68 1% 9% 20% 69% 4.57 .08 75

0% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .01 18,8340% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .01 6,7460% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .01 12,6680% 1% 5% 23% 70% 4.62 .01 7,4460% 1% 4% 19% 75% 4.68 .01 2,3561% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.58 .01 7,105

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Cleanliness: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 81: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 17bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Overall

2% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.34 .02 1,718

2% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.25 .00 125,5272% 2% 9% 31% 56% 4.37 .02 1,4501% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.36 .00 68,1221% 6% 13% 37% 43% 4.15 .06 2682% 5% 13% 38% 42% 4.13 .00 57,4052% 3% 10% 32% 52% 4.31 .02 1,457

100% 5.00 .00 102% 0% 7% 28% 63% 4.50 .05 246

20% 80% 4.80 .20 52% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.22 .00 109,2001% 2% 7% 28% 61% 4.45 .01 3,7342% 2% 6% 30% 61% 4.47 .01 11,6062% 1% 8% 25% 63% 4.47 .03 7691% 3% 10% 33% 53% 4.32 .04 3981% 4% 13% 34% 49% 4.25 .07 1673% 3% 9% 35% 50% 4.27 .04 4441% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.35 .05 3806% 6% 31% 56% 4.31 .15 48

5% 15% 30% 50% 4.25 .20 202% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.21 .00 45,6952% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.17 .01 22,8072% 3% 11% 36% 47% 4.23 .01 17,6182% 3% 11% 35% 49% 4.27 .01 15,5692% 3% 9% 35% 52% 4.32 .01 6,6003% 4% 10% 33% 49% 4.22 .04 7672% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.36 .03 1,0002% 3% 10% 31% 54% 4.31 .03 701

100% 5.00 .00 58% 33% 17% 42% 3.83 .37 122% 4% 11% 34% 49% 4.26 .00 75,1972% 3% 11% 36% 48% 4.25 .00 48,2234% 5% 17% 32% 43% 4.05 .05 4392% 5% 13% 35% 45% 4.15 .03 9641% 3% 12% 36% 47% 4.25 .04 4602% 2% 9% 30% 57% 4.37 .02 1,2582% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.18 .00 76,7682% 3% 9% 32% 55% 4.37 .00 47,1852% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.34 .02 1,7181% 3% 10% 35% 52% 4.33 .01 16,8362% 5% 12% 35% 45% 4.16 .01 11,4402% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.26 .00 36,6212% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .01 21,6102% 3% 12% 36% 47% 4.22 .01 19,8852% 3% 10% 33% 52% 4.30 .01 19,1352% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.34 .02 1,7182% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.24 .00 93,9732% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .01 31,5542% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.34 .02 1,7182% 2% 8% 28% 60% 4.41 .02 1,2682% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.25 .00 124,2592% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.34 .02 1,7182% 3% 11% 35% 49% 4.27 .00 97,4433% 5% 12% 35% 46% 4.17 .01 26,4991% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.38 .02 1,5852% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.34 .02 1,7181% 3% 9% 32% 54% 4.34 .01 6,8152% 4% 11% 34% 49% 4.25 .01 28,6512% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.26 .00 35,5072% 4% 11% 36% 48% 4.24 .00 54,5542% 2% 9% 30% 57% 4.38 .03 8743% 3% 18% 42% 34% 4.01 .11 711% 2% 9% 32% 56% 4.38 .05 3233% 1% 5% 23% 68% 4.52 .10 772% 2% 7% 30% 60% 4.44 .08 1052% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.28 .01 23,1601% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.37 .01 8,1871% 2% 9% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 15,6071% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.45 .01 9,3852% 2% 7% 27% 62% 4.47 .02 2,9882% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.37 .01 8,796

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Cleanliness: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 82: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 18aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Serving areas

1% 2% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .02 1,322

0% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.53 .00 101,8401% 2% 7% 22% 69% 4.56 .02 1,0971% 2% 8% 26% 65% 4.52 .00 54,4320% 9% 28% 63% 4.52 .05 2250% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 47,4081% 2% 8% 23% 66% 4.53 .02 1,147

33% 67% 4.33 .67 31% 1% 2% 18% 78% 4.73 .05 168

100% 5.00 .00 40% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 89,2911% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.65 .01 2,8370% 1% 3% 19% 77% 4.71 .01 8,9981% 1% 4% 20% 74% 4.64 .03 5570% 1% 8% 26% 63% 4.51 .04 306

3% 13% 28% 56% 4.36 .07 1271% 1% 7% 24% 66% 4.54 .04 3531% 2% 6% 19% 71% 4.58 .04 308

14% 19% 68% 4.54 .12 37 6% 6% 88% 4.75 .19 16

0% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.50 .00 37,7660% 2% 9% 28% 62% 4.49 .01 18,4960% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.50 .01 14,3920% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.53 .01 12,7251% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.51 .01 5,1990% 2% 8% 24% 66% 4.53 .03 6190% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.66 .02 7371% 2% 10% 26% 60% 4.42 .04 572

25% 75% 4.75 .25 4 22% 11% 22% 44% 3.89 .42 9

0% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.61 .00 60,3531% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.40 .00 39,8521% 1% 12% 29% 56% 4.37 .05 3531% 3% 11% 30% 55% 4.34 .03 749

1% 10% 26% 63% 4.50 .04 3581% 2% 7% 22% 69% 4.57 .02 9640% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.50 .00 63,0940% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.57 .00 37,5021% 2% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .02 1,3220% 1% 8% 29% 61% 4.49 .01 14,1800% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .01 9,7330% 1% 7% 27% 65% 4.53 .00 29,6570% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.54 .01 17,5731% 2% 9% 28% 61% 4.47 .01 15,4401% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.58 .01 15,2571% 2% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .02 1,3220% 1% 7% 26% 65% 4.54 .00 76,1730% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .00 25,6671% 2% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .02 1,3221% 1% 4% 19% 75% 4.67 .02 9370% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .00 100,9031% 2% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .02 1,3220% 1% 7% 26% 65% 4.53 .00 79,8290% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.51 .01 20,6661% 1% 8% 29% 62% 4.49 .02 1,3451% 2% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .02 1,3220% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.58 .01 5,7460% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .00 23,0210% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .00 28,7270% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 44,3460% 2% 7% 22% 68% 4.56 .03 661

2% 11% 20% 68% 4.54 .10 561% 2% 4% 21% 71% 4.60 .05 245

4% 18% 78% 4.74 .06 68 6% 15% 25% 54% 4.27 .11 67

0% 2% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .01 18,6880% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.52 .01 6,6831% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.50 .01 12,5471% 2% 7% 26% 65% 4.53 .01 7,3880% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.63 .01 2,3271% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.50 .01 6,800

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Serving areas

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 83: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 18bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Serving areas

1% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.28 .02 1,675

2% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .00 124,4391% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.29 .02 1,4071% 3% 10% 33% 54% 4.35 .00 67,1211% 3% 12% 36% 48% 4.26 .05 2682% 4% 11% 36% 47% 4.24 .00 57,3181% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.26 .02 1,420

10% 90% 4.90 .10 101% 2% 10% 31% 55% 4.38 .05 240

20% 80% 4.80 .20 52% 3% 11% 35% 49% 4.27 .00 108,3882% 2% 7% 28% 61% 4.45 .01 3,6812% 2% 6% 29% 61% 4.46 .01 11,4021% 2% 10% 23% 64% 4.47 .03 7481% 5% 9% 33% 52% 4.32 .04 3871% 4% 19% 31% 45% 4.14 .07 1622% 3% 12% 36% 47% 4.24 .04 4361% 5% 11% 33% 51% 4.29 .05 3704% 4% 11% 33% 48% 4.15 .16 46

5% 11% 42% 42% 4.21 .20 191% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.29 .00 45,3852% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.23 .01 22,6552% 3% 11% 36% 48% 4.25 .01 17,4652% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.28 .01 15,4472% 3% 9% 35% 52% 4.32 .01 6,5303% 4% 11% 33% 49% 4.23 .04 7602% 4% 11% 34% 50% 4.28 .03 9741% 4% 12% 33% 51% 4.29 .03 685

100% 5.00 .00 4 25% 33% 42% 4.17 .24 12

2% 3% 10% 34% 52% 4.30 .00 74,4412% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.29 .00 47,8923% 4% 15% 31% 47% 4.17 .05 4382% 4% 12% 33% 48% 4.21 .03 9621% 4% 11% 36% 48% 4.26 .04 4471% 3% 12% 33% 51% 4.29 .03 1,2282% 3% 11% 36% 48% 4.25 .00 76,2512% 3% 9% 32% 55% 4.36 .00 46,6191% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.28 .02 1,6751% 2% 9% 34% 53% 4.37 .01 16,6692% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.22 .01 11,3801% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.31 .00 36,2872% 3% 11% 35% 49% 4.26 .01 21,4662% 3% 12% 36% 48% 4.25 .01 19,6332% 3% 10% 31% 54% 4.33 .01 19,0041% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.28 .02 1,6752% 3% 10% 34% 50% 4.28 .00 93,1591% 3% 10% 33% 53% 4.33 .00 31,2801% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.28 .02 1,6752% 3% 9% 28% 58% 4.38 .03 1,2542% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.29 .00 123,1851% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.28 .02 1,6751% 3% 10% 34% 52% 4.32 .00 96,5752% 4% 12% 35% 48% 4.22 .01 26,2881% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.39 .02 1,5761% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.28 .02 1,6751% 2% 8% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 6,7702% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.28 .01 28,3691% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.30 .00 35,2432% 3% 10% 35% 50% 4.29 .00 54,0571% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.27 .03 8643% 4% 10% 39% 44% 4.17 .12 701% 4% 13% 32% 50% 4.28 .05 3083% 5% 27% 65% 4.52 .09 77

3% 9% 38% 50% 4.34 .08 882% 3% 10% 35% 50% 4.29 .01 23,0191% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.36 .01 8,1131% 3% 9% 31% 55% 4.36 .01 15,4111% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.41 .01 9,2722% 2% 7% 28% 62% 4.47 .02 2,9532% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.35 .01 8,354

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Serving areas

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 84: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 19aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

1% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.53 .02 1,282

1% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 100,3461% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.52 .02 1,0581% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.47 .00 53,1620% 8% 26% 65% 4.55 .05 2240% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.53 .00 47,1841% 2% 8% 24% 66% 4.52 .02 1,118

33% 67% 4.33 .67 32% 3% 3% 22% 71% 4.58 .07 157

100% 5.00 .00 41% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .00 88,2651% 1% 5% 26% 66% 4.54 .01 2,7371% 1% 4% 23% 71% 4.60 .01 8,6401% 2% 5% 20% 72% 4.59 .03 5471% 1% 7% 26% 64% 4.50 .05 3041% 3% 12% 26% 58% 4.37 .08 1191% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.53 .04 3431% 2% 6% 24% 68% 4.56 .04 303

18% 15% 68% 4.50 .14 34 100% 5.00 .00 15

1% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .00 37,4201% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .01 18,2781% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.49 .01 14,2351% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .01 12,5201% 2% 7% 28% 61% 4.47 .01 5,106

2% 9% 23% 66% 4.52 .03 6191% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.61 .03 7061% 2% 10% 26% 61% 4.44 .04 563

25% 25% 50% 4.00 .71 411% 22% 22% 44% 3.89 .45 9

1% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.57 .00 59,3991% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.41 .00 39,3492% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.29 .05 3472% 3% 13% 30% 52% 4.27 .03 7331% 1% 10% 25% 64% 4.50 .04 3451% 2% 6% 23% 68% 4.54 .03 9371% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .00 62,4561% 2% 7% 25% 65% 4.52 .00 36,6711% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.53 .02 1,2821% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.48 .01 13,9760% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.50 .01 9,6501% 2% 7% 27% 64% 4.52 .00 29,2341% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .01 17,3401% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.45 .01 15,1981% 2% 7% 24% 67% 4.54 .01 14,9481% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.53 .02 1,2821% 2% 7% 26% 64% 4.51 .00 75,0171% 2% 8% 30% 60% 4.46 .00 25,3291% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.53 .02 1,2821% 2% 6% 21% 70% 4.57 .03 8971% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 99,4491% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.53 .02 1,2821% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.51 .00 78,6711% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.47 .01 20,3491% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.44 .02 1,3261% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.53 .02 1,2821% 1% 6% 28% 65% 4.55 .01 5,6741% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .01 22,6661% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.49 .00 28,3251% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 43,6811% 3% 7% 24% 65% 4.51 .03 639

5% 24% 71% 4.65 .08 553% 2% 5% 19% 71% 4.54 .06 237

6% 22% 72% 4.66 .07 652% 3% 16% 19% 60% 4.32 .12 621% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.49 .01 18,4051% 2% 7% 29% 61% 4.47 .01 6,5841% 3% 8% 27% 61% 4.43 .01 12,1671% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.49 .01 7,1830% 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.63 .01 2,3302% 2% 8% 26% 62% 4.43 .01 6,494

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 85: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 19bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

3% 8% 17% 33% 39% 3.98 .03 1,624

3% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.02 .00 122,5643% 8% 18% 32% 39% 3.96 .03 1,3582% 6% 15% 32% 45% 4.11 .00 65,3851% 8% 14% 38% 39% 4.06 .06 2663% 8% 18% 35% 36% 3.92 .00 57,1793% 8% 18% 33% 38% 3.94 .03 1,384

10% 90% 4.90 .10 102% 7% 13% 31% 47% 4.14 .07 224

50% 50% 4.50 .22 63% 7% 17% 34% 39% 3.99 .00 107,2482% 4% 12% 31% 50% 4.22 .02 3,5532% 5% 12% 31% 51% 4.23 .01 10,8102% 2% 12% 26% 57% 4.33 .03 7391% 8% 14% 36% 41% 4.06 .05 3864% 9% 24% 32% 31% 3.77 .09 1514% 8% 18% 34% 37% 3.92 .05 4202% 9% 21% 30% 38% 3.91 .06 3665% 2% 16% 37% 40% 4.05 .16 43

6% 33% 28% 33% 3.89 .23 183% 8% 17% 34% 38% 3.98 .00 45,0373% 8% 17% 34% 37% 3.95 .01 22,4203% 7% 17% 35% 39% 3.99 .01 17,2543% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.04 .01 15,2203% 5% 14% 34% 44% 4.11 .01 6,4184% 8% 15% 33% 40% 3.96 .04 7543% 8% 18% 32% 39% 3.97 .03 9392% 8% 17% 33% 39% 4.00 .04 670

25% 25% 50% 4.00 .71 49% 9% 27% 27% 27% 3.55 .39 113% 8% 16% 33% 40% 4.00 .00 73,1412% 6% 16% 34% 41% 4.06 .00 47,3444% 8% 21% 29% 38% 3.88 .05 4314% 9% 18% 30% 38% 3.90 .04 9482% 9% 16% 37% 37% 3.99 .05 4343% 8% 18% 31% 40% 3.98 .03 1,1903% 8% 17% 35% 37% 3.96 .00 75,5942% 6% 14% 32% 46% 4.13 .00 45,4173% 8% 17% 33% 39% 3.98 .03 1,6242% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.06 .01 16,4393% 8% 17% 35% 37% 3.96 .01 11,2623% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.04 .01 35,7233% 7% 17% 34% 39% 4.00 .01 21,2393% 8% 17% 34% 38% 3.98 .01 19,3393% 7% 15% 32% 44% 4.07 .01 18,5623% 8% 17% 33% 39% 3.98 .03 1,6243% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.00 .00 91,6702% 6% 15% 34% 42% 4.08 .01 30,8943% 8% 17% 33% 39% 3.98 .03 1,6244% 7% 13% 28% 48% 4.10 .03 1,1963% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.02 .00 121,3683% 8% 17% 33% 39% 3.98 .03 1,6243% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.03 .00 95,1743% 8% 16% 34% 39% 3.98 .01 25,8421% 4% 13% 34% 48% 4.24 .02 1,5483% 8% 17% 33% 39% 3.98 .03 1,6242% 5% 13% 34% 45% 4.16 .01 6,6913% 7% 16% 33% 42% 4.06 .01 27,9472% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.05 .01 34,8163% 8% 17% 34% 38% 3.97 .00 53,1103% 8% 20% 34% 35% 3.89 .04 8313% 17% 13% 30% 37% 3.81 .14 702% 7% 18% 26% 47% 4.09 .06 2984% 3% 9% 27% 57% 4.31 .12 751% 6% 15% 42% 36% 4.05 .10 843% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.02 .01 22,6472% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.11 .01 7,9652% 6% 14% 31% 47% 4.13 .01 14,8952% 5% 13% 30% 51% 4.23 .01 9,0052% 3% 9% 29% 57% 4.36 .02 2,9573% 6% 15% 33% 44% 4.09 .01 7,917

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 86: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 20aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Location

1% 4% 10% 30% 55% 4.32 .02 1,346

1% 4% 12% 34% 50% 4.27 .00 102,3481% 3% 9% 29% 57% 4.37 .03 1,1191% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .00 54,8152% 7% 14% 34% 42% 4.08 .07 2271% 4% 13% 34% 48% 4.23 .00 47,5332% 4% 11% 31% 52% 4.28 .03 1,173

33% 67% 4.67 .33 3 2% 5% 25% 69% 4.60 .05 166 100% 5.00 .00 4

1% 4% 12% 33% 49% 4.26 .00 89,7781% 3% 8% 34% 54% 4.38 .02 2,8361% 2% 8% 35% 54% 4.40 .01 9,0272% 3% 11% 31% 54% 4.33 .04 5591% 7% 13% 31% 48% 4.17 .06 3172% 5% 12% 34% 48% 4.23 .08 1302% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.29 .05 3632% 3% 9% 30% 57% 4.38 .05 312

3% 17% 20% 60% 4.37 .15 35 6% 31% 63% 4.56 .16 16

1% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .00 38,0701% 5% 13% 33% 48% 4.23 .01 18,5881% 4% 13% 34% 48% 4.24 .01 14,4641% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.25 .01 12,7251% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.31 .01 5,2311% 3% 14% 31% 51% 4.28 .04 6141% 3% 8% 30% 59% 4.43 .03 7482% 5% 13% 30% 50% 4.20 .04 585

20% 40% 40% 4.00 .55 5 13% 38% 50% 4.38 .26 8

1% 3% 10% 33% 53% 4.35 .00 60,7691% 5% 14% 35% 45% 4.16 .00 39,9361% 4% 15% 34% 46% 4.19 .05 3534% 6% 16% 31% 43% 4.03 .04 7591% 5% 15% 32% 46% 4.15 .05 3691% 3% 8% 29% 58% 4.39 .03 9771% 4% 12% 33% 49% 4.25 .00 63,5071% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.31 .00 37,6191% 4% 10% 30% 55% 4.32 .02 1,3461% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.18 .01 14,1691% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.26 .01 9,7881% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.31 .00 29,8491% 4% 12% 32% 51% 4.27 .01 17,6391% 4% 14% 34% 47% 4.21 .01 15,5391% 3% 10% 30% 55% 4.35 .01 15,3641% 4% 10% 30% 55% 4.32 .02 1,3461% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.29 .00 76,6611% 5% 13% 36% 46% 4.20 .01 25,6871% 4% 10% 30% 55% 4.32 .02 1,3461% 5% 11% 37% 46% 4.22 .03 9251% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .00 101,4231% 4% 10% 30% 55% 4.32 .02 1,3461% 4% 12% 34% 50% 4.27 .00 80,1891% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.26 .01 20,8111% 4% 10% 36% 51% 4.32 .02 1,3481% 4% 10% 30% 55% 4.32 .02 1,3461% 6% 12% 38% 43% 4.15 .01 5,7611% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .01 23,1481% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .01 28,8391% 4% 11% 34% 51% 4.29 .00 44,6001% 4% 10% 31% 53% 4.31 .03 6712% 2% 12% 32% 53% 4.32 .12 572% 1% 7% 23% 67% 4.52 .05 2501% 1% 3% 28% 66% 4.55 .09 671% 1% 14% 28% 55% 4.35 .10 741% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.26 .01 18,7101% 4% 11% 36% 48% 4.25 .01 6,7071% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .01 12,6321% 3% 9% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 7,4291% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.39 .02 2,3391% 3% 10% 30% 55% 4.35 .01 6,999

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Location

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 87: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 20bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Location

2% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .02 1,721

1% 2% 8% 28% 60% 4.44 .00 125,3062% 3% 13% 32% 51% 4.27 .02 1,4511% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.44 .00 67,9132% 9% 12% 32% 45% 4.08 .06 2701% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.43 .00 57,3932% 4% 14% 33% 47% 4.20 .02 1,462

10% 10% 80% 4.70 .21 102% 2% 6% 29% 62% 4.47 .05 243

17% 83% 4.83 .17 61% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.42 .00 109,1581% 2% 6% 25% 66% 4.53 .01 3,6991% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.57 .01 11,4762% 2% 6% 25% 65% 4.50 .03 7571% 4% 13% 32% 50% 4.26 .04 4021% 5% 20% 32% 41% 4.07 .07 1682% 4% 15% 33% 46% 4.17 .05 4473% 4% 10% 34% 49% 4.24 .05 3782% 4% 15% 32% 47% 4.17 .14 475% 5% 10% 35% 45% 4.10 .25 201% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.46 .00 45,7751% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.41 .01 22,7661% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.38 .01 17,5991% 2% 9% 30% 57% 4.40 .01 15,5162% 2% 9% 31% 56% 4.38 .01 6,5963% 3% 9% 26% 59% 4.36 .04 7612% 4% 12% 32% 51% 4.26 .03 1,0072% 5% 14% 31% 49% 4.21 .04 698

40% 60% 4.60 .24 59% 9% 45% 36% 4.00 .36 111% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.47 .00 75,1331% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.39 .00 48,0693% 3% 12% 26% 56% 4.28 .05 4412% 3% 12% 28% 55% 4.31 .03 9511% 5% 12% 34% 48% 4.22 .04 4602% 4% 13% 31% 50% 4.25 .03 1,2611% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.44 .00 76,8121% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.44 .00 46,9382% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .02 1,7211% 2% 7% 28% 62% 4.49 .01 16,7391% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.41 .01 11,4301% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.47 .00 36,5451% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.41 .01 21,6271% 2% 10% 30% 56% 4.36 .01 19,8171% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.47 .01 19,1482% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .02 1,7211% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.43 .00 93,8971% 2% 8% 28% 61% 4.46 .00 31,4092% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .02 1,7211% 2% 8% 28% 60% 4.44 .02 1,2491% 2% 8% 28% 60% 4.44 .00 124,0572% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .02 1,7211% 2% 8% 28% 61% 4.45 .00 97,2502% 2% 9% 30% 57% 4.39 .01 26,4751% 2% 6% 26% 65% 4.52 .02 1,5812% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .02 1,7211% 2% 6% 27% 64% 4.52 .01 6,8011% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.41 .00 28,5941% 2% 8% 27% 61% 4.45 .00 35,4281% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.43 .00 54,4831% 3% 12% 36% 48% 4.26 .03 8771% 10% 18% 28% 42% 4.00 .13 712% 2% 12% 25% 59% 4.37 .05 3233% 4% 9% 26% 58% 4.33 .11 763% 1% 20% 26% 50% 4.19 .10 1041% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.41 .01 23,1451% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.45 .01 8,1591% 2% 8% 27% 61% 4.45 .01 15,5821% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.47 .01 9,3821% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.48 .01 2,9801% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.48 .01 8,666

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Location

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 88: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 21aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Layout of facility

2% 7% 15% 34% 42% 4.08 .03 1,336

2% 8% 17% 38% 35% 3.97 .00 101,8702% 6% 14% 32% 45% 4.13 .03 1,1122% 7% 17% 37% 37% 4.01 .00 54,5191% 9% 21% 42% 27% 3.84 .07 2242% 8% 18% 38% 34% 3.93 .00 47,3512% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.05 .03 1,163

33% 67% 4.00 1.00 31% 4% 8% 38% 48% 4.29 .07 165

20% 20% 60% 4.00 .63 52% 8% 18% 37% 35% 3.96 .00 89,3452% 6% 14% 43% 36% 4.05 .02 2,8261% 5% 13% 43% 38% 4.10 .01 8,9922% 3% 15% 35% 44% 4.15 .04 5502% 9% 19% 33% 38% 3.98 .06 3122% 9% 17% 36% 36% 3.95 .09 1333% 7% 15% 33% 42% 4.05 .06 3612% 6% 14% 34% 44% 4.13 .06 306

6% 19% 31% 44% 4.14 .16 36 7% 33% 60% 4.53 .17 15

2% 8% 18% 37% 35% 3.94 .01 37,8872% 8% 18% 37% 35% 3.94 .01 18,5002% 7% 17% 37% 37% 3.99 .01 14,3912% 7% 17% 37% 37% 3.99 .01 12,6652% 8% 18% 39% 33% 3.93 .01 5,2101% 7% 18% 36% 38% 4.02 .04 6071% 7% 11% 34% 47% 4.19 .04 7473% 7% 20% 33% 37% 3.93 .04 577

75% 25% 4.25 .25 4 63% 38% 4.38 .18 8

1% 7% 15% 38% 38% 4.04 .00 60,4662% 8% 20% 37% 32% 3.88 .01 39,7653% 10% 18% 38% 31% 3.82 .06 3536% 11% 23% 32% 28% 3.66 .04 7591% 9% 20% 35% 35% 3.92 .05 3672% 6% 13% 34% 45% 4.14 .03 9692% 8% 18% 37% 34% 3.94 .00 63,1802% 7% 16% 38% 37% 4.02 .01 37,4662% 7% 15% 34% 42% 4.08 .03 1,3362% 8% 19% 40% 31% 3.90 .01 14,0942% 8% 17% 39% 35% 3.97 .01 9,7622% 8% 17% 39% 34% 3.96 .01 29,7142% 7% 16% 37% 39% 4.05 .01 17,5322% 8% 19% 36% 34% 3.92 .01 15,4442% 7% 16% 35% 39% 4.02 .01 15,3242% 7% 15% 34% 42% 4.08 .03 1,3362% 7% 17% 37% 37% 3.99 .00 76,3062% 8% 18% 40% 32% 3.93 .01 25,5642% 7% 15% 34% 42% 4.08 .03 1,3362% 5% 15% 38% 40% 4.08 .03 9252% 8% 17% 38% 35% 3.97 .00 100,9452% 7% 15% 34% 42% 4.08 .03 1,3362% 7% 17% 38% 36% 3.98 .00 79,8162% 9% 18% 37% 34% 3.93 .01 20,7141% 7% 16% 40% 36% 4.03 .03 1,3402% 7% 15% 34% 42% 4.08 .03 1,3362% 6% 15% 42% 36% 4.03 .01 5,7342% 7% 17% 36% 38% 4.01 .01 23,0162% 7% 18% 37% 36% 3.98 .01 28,6632% 8% 18% 38% 34% 3.94 .00 44,4572% 7% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .04 6685% 14% 23% 28% 30% 3.63 .16 573% 4% 11% 30% 52% 4.24 .06 2431% 1% 6% 36% 55% 4.42 .10 671% 5% 18% 32% 43% 4.10 .11 772% 8% 17% 37% 36% 3.97 .01 18,6302% 7% 17% 40% 34% 3.97 .01 6,6852% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.00 .01 12,4812% 6% 15% 37% 40% 4.08 .01 7,3792% 6% 13% 38% 41% 4.12 .02 2,3332% 7% 17% 36% 38% 4.02 .01 7,012

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Layout of facility

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 89: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 21bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Layout of facility

2% 3% 15% 35% 45% 4.18 .02 1,697

2% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.29 .00 124,7982% 3% 15% 34% 45% 4.18 .02 1,4312% 3% 11% 33% 50% 4.28 .00 67,4981% 3% 15% 37% 44% 4.21 .05 2662% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.30 .00 57,3002% 3% 16% 35% 44% 4.17 .02 1,446

10% 20% 70% 4.60 .22 103% 4% 11% 34% 49% 4.23 .06 236

20% 80% 4.80 .20 52% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.29 .00 108,7183% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.23 .02 3,6982% 4% 10% 31% 53% 4.30 .01 11,4212% 2% 9% 27% 59% 4.40 .03 7481% 2% 15% 35% 48% 4.28 .04 3972% 3% 19% 35% 41% 4.09 .07 1673% 2% 19% 36% 41% 4.09 .05 4421% 6% 12% 35% 46% 4.19 .05 3754% 2% 13% 36% 45% 4.15 .15 476% 22% 6% 39% 28% 3.61 .30 181% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.36 .00 45,5822% 3% 11% 35% 49% 4.26 .01 22,6972% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .01 17,5182% 4% 12% 35% 48% 4.22 .01 15,4462% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.20 .01 6,5843% 4% 12% 32% 49% 4.19 .04 7552% 3% 14% 36% 45% 4.19 .03 9931% 3% 17% 33% 45% 4.17 .04 689

25% 75% 4.75 .25 4 9% 73% 18% 4.09 .16 11

2% 3% 10% 33% 53% 4.32 .00 74,7942% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.24 .00 47,9123% 6% 14% 30% 47% 4.12 .05 4383% 4% 14% 34% 45% 4.14 .03 9521% 3% 15% 37% 45% 4.22 .04 4552% 4% 15% 34% 45% 4.17 .03 1,2421% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.31 .00 76,5312% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.25 .00 46,7202% 3% 15% 35% 45% 4.18 .02 1,6971% 2% 9% 33% 55% 4.38 .01 16,6783% 5% 13% 35% 45% 4.13 .01 11,4011% 3% 10% 33% 52% 4.31 .00 36,4642% 3% 12% 34% 50% 4.26 .01 21,5021% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.25 .01 19,6722% 3% 10% 32% 53% 4.32 .01 19,0812% 3% 15% 35% 45% 4.18 .02 1,6972% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.28 .00 93,4862% 3% 10% 33% 51% 4.30 .01 31,3122% 3% 15% 35% 45% 4.18 .02 1,6971% 3% 11% 32% 53% 4.33 .02 1,2482% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.29 .00 123,5502% 3% 15% 35% 45% 4.18 .02 1,6971% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.30 .00 96,8482% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.21 .01 26,3841% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.44 .02 1,5662% 3% 15% 35% 45% 4.18 .02 1,6972% 3% 10% 31% 54% 4.32 .01 6,7862% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.30 .01 28,4711% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.30 .00 35,2872% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.27 .00 54,2542% 3% 14% 37% 44% 4.18 .03 8641% 4% 16% 31% 47% 4.19 .11 703% 4% 16% 31% 46% 4.13 .06 3171% 3% 7% 29% 61% 4.45 .10 762% 3% 22% 32% 41% 4.08 .09 1042% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.26 .01 23,0042% 4% 11% 33% 49% 4.23 .01 8,1502% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.26 .01 15,3831% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.33 .01 9,3251% 2% 10% 30% 56% 4.38 .02 2,9642% 3% 10% 33% 52% 4.31 .01 8,673

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Layout of facility

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 90: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 22aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Appearance

2% 7% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .03 1,341

2% 7% 18% 37% 36% 3.97 .00 101,6222% 6% 13% 32% 47% 4.15 .03 1,1172% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.02 .00 54,3842% 10% 20% 37% 31% 3.84 .07 2242% 8% 19% 38% 33% 3.92 .00 47,2382% 7% 15% 33% 43% 4.06 .03 1,169

33% 67% 4.00 1.00 31% 4% 7% 33% 55% 4.37 .07 164

20% 80% 4.20 .80 52% 8% 18% 37% 35% 3.95 .00 89,1701% 5% 14% 42% 38% 4.11 .02 2,8051% 3% 13% 42% 42% 4.20 .01 8,9602% 4% 14% 33% 47% 4.21 .04 5362% 9% 16% 32% 40% 3.98 .06 3162% 10% 18% 31% 39% 3.95 .09 1332% 6% 14% 35% 42% 4.09 .05 3622% 7% 12% 32% 46% 4.13 .06 3063% 3% 25% 28% 42% 4.03 .17 36

6% 44% 50% 4.44 .16 162% 8% 19% 37% 35% 3.94 .01 37,8122% 9% 19% 36% 34% 3.92 .01 18,4362% 8% 18% 36% 36% 3.97 .01 14,3592% 8% 18% 36% 36% 3.96 .01 12,6722% 8% 18% 41% 31% 3.92 .01 5,1881% 8% 18% 37% 37% 4.00 .04 6102% 5% 11% 33% 50% 4.24 .03 7473% 9% 18% 32% 37% 3.92 .04 581

20% 20% 20% 40% 3.40 .81 5 13% 13% 25% 50% 4.13 .40 8

1% 7% 16% 38% 38% 4.05 .00 60,3443% 9% 21% 36% 32% 3.86 .01 39,6613% 14% 20% 37% 27% 3.71 .06 3506% 13% 25% 29% 27% 3.58 .04 7454% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.88 .06 3692% 6% 12% 33% 47% 4.18 .03 9722% 8% 19% 37% 34% 3.93 .00 63,0232% 6% 16% 37% 38% 4.05 .01 37,3952% 7% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .03 1,3412% 8% 19% 39% 31% 3.90 .01 14,0312% 9% 19% 37% 33% 3.90 .01 9,7452% 8% 17% 38% 35% 3.97 .01 29,6112% 6% 17% 36% 39% 4.05 .01 17,5222% 8% 19% 36% 35% 3.93 .01 15,4392% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.06 .01 15,2742% 7% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .03 1,3412% 7% 18% 36% 37% 3.99 .00 76,1752% 8% 18% 39% 33% 3.93 .01 25,4472% 7% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .03 1,3412% 4% 12% 38% 44% 4.17 .03 9252% 8% 18% 37% 36% 3.97 .00 100,6972% 7% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .03 1,3412% 7% 18% 37% 36% 3.98 .00 79,6092% 8% 18% 36% 35% 3.94 .01 20,6702% 7% 16% 40% 35% 4.00 .03 1,3432% 7% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .03 1,3412% 6% 15% 40% 36% 4.04 .01 5,7052% 7% 17% 36% 39% 4.03 .01 23,0022% 7% 18% 37% 36% 3.97 .01 28,5652% 8% 18% 38% 34% 3.94 .00 44,3501% 8% 14% 33% 44% 4.11 .04 669

12% 4% 18% 26% 40% 3.79 .18 573% 4% 9% 30% 54% 4.27 .06 2492% 2% 9% 26% 62% 4.45 .10 663% 5% 12% 39% 41% 4.11 .11 762% 7% 18% 37% 37% 3.99 .01 18,5302% 8% 18% 39% 33% 3.94 .01 6,6652% 7% 17% 36% 39% 4.02 .01 12,5322% 5% 15% 37% 41% 4.11 .01 7,3591% 4% 12% 37% 46% 4.23 .02 2,3272% 7% 18% 36% 38% 4.01 .01 6,972

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Appearance

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 91: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 22bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Appearance

2% 3% 14% 36% 45% 4.20 .02 1,702

1% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.33 .00 124,6542% 2% 13% 35% 48% 4.23 .02 1,4341% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.34 .00 67,4731% 5% 18% 44% 32% 4.01 .05 2681% 3% 10% 34% 52% 4.32 .00 57,1812% 3% 15% 36% 44% 4.16 .02 1,450

10% 20% 70% 4.60 .22 103% 1% 6% 36% 54% 4.38 .06 237

40% 60% 4.60 .24 51% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.32 .00 108,6102% 3% 10% 32% 53% 4.32 .01 3,6801% 2% 8% 32% 56% 4.40 .01 11,4052% 2% 8% 28% 60% 4.44 .03 7500% 5% 15% 37% 43% 4.16 .04 3974% 3% 16% 35% 42% 4.10 .08 1653% 1% 17% 38% 42% 4.13 .05 4421% 3% 13% 35% 47% 4.25 .05 3784% 17% 33% 46% 4.17 .14 485% 5% 5% 50% 35% 4.05 .23 201% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.37 .00 45,4901% 3% 11% 35% 51% 4.31 .01 22,6712% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.28 .01 17,5351% 2% 11% 35% 50% 4.29 .01 15,4552% 3% 11% 36% 48% 4.27 .01 6,5663% 3% 10% 35% 50% 4.26 .03 7542% 3% 13% 35% 48% 4.23 .03 9892% 2% 16% 38% 42% 4.16 .03 697

40% 60% 4.60 .24 5 9% 82% 9% 4.00 .13 11

1% 2% 9% 32% 55% 4.37 .00 74,7121% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.28 .00 47,8613% 3% 14% 33% 47% 4.18 .05 4383% 4% 16% 31% 46% 4.14 .03 9421% 4% 15% 40% 40% 4.13 .04 4542% 2% 13% 35% 47% 4.22 .03 1,2481% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.33 .00 76,4081% 2% 10% 33% 52% 4.33 .00 46,6932% 3% 14% 36% 45% 4.20 .02 1,7021% 2% 8% 33% 57% 4.43 .01 16,6192% 3% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .01 11,3901% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.36 .00 36,4161% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.29 .01 21,5232% 3% 12% 36% 48% 4.26 .01 19,6641% 2% 10% 33% 55% 4.37 .01 19,0422% 3% 14% 36% 45% 4.20 .02 1,7021% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.33 .00 93,4131% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.34 .00 31,2412% 3% 14% 36% 45% 4.20 .02 1,7021% 4% 11% 32% 52% 4.30 .03 1,2541% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.33 .00 123,4002% 3% 14% 36% 45% 4.20 .02 1,7021% 2% 10% 33% 53% 4.35 .00 96,7082% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.25 .01 26,3651% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.51 .02 1,5812% 3% 14% 36% 45% 4.20 .02 1,7021% 3% 9% 32% 55% 4.37 .01 6,7701% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.33 .01 28,4891% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.35 .00 35,2152% 3% 10% 34% 52% 4.32 .00 54,1803% 2% 13% 37% 45% 4.19 .03 8671% 3% 19% 26% 51% 4.22 .11 692% 2% 11% 31% 54% 4.34 .05 3201% 1% 3% 34% 61% 4.51 .09 743% 1% 23% 34% 39% 4.06 .09 1041% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.28 .01 22,9491% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.35 .01 8,1251% 2% 10% 33% 53% 4.34 .01 15,4601% 2% 8% 31% 58% 4.42 .01 9,3221% 1% 7% 30% 60% 4.45 .01 2,9711% 2% 11% 33% 53% 4.34 .01 8,647

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Appearance

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 92: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 23aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Availability of seating

1% 3% 10% 27% 58% 4.38 .02 1,308

1% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.30 .00 100,0451% 4% 10% 25% 60% 4.39 .03 1,0812% 4% 11% 32% 50% 4.26 .00 52,8270% 1% 12% 37% 49% 4.33 .05 2271% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.36 .00 47,2181% 3% 10% 27% 59% 4.39 .03 1,144

33% 67% 4.33 .67 33% 6% 8% 29% 55% 4.29 .08 157

100% 5.00 .00 41% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .00 88,0562% 4% 10% 33% 51% 4.26 .02 2,7332% 4% 9% 34% 52% 4.29 .01 8,6082% 3% 9% 32% 55% 4.35 .04 5181% 2% 11% 30% 56% 4.38 .05 311

7% 11% 28% 54% 4.29 .08 1271% 3% 11% 24% 61% 4.42 .05 3531% 4% 10% 26% 60% 4.40 .05 3033% 3% 9% 34% 51% 4.29 .16 35

7% 20% 73% 4.67 .16 151% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.30 .00 37,4251% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .01 18,2091% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.33 .01 14,1911% 3% 10% 32% 53% 4.32 .01 12,4162% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.23 .01 5,1251% 2% 13% 32% 52% 4.32 .03 5981% 2% 8% 27% 60% 4.43 .03 7291% 4% 12% 26% 56% 4.32 .04 568

25% 25% 50% 4.00 .71 4 43% 57% 4.14 .40 7

1% 3% 9% 32% 55% 4.36 .00 59,2001% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.22 .00 39,2752% 4% 10% 37% 46% 4.21 .05 3404% 4% 19% 28% 45% 4.07 .04 7351% 2% 15% 32% 51% 4.30 .04 3581% 4% 8% 25% 61% 4.41 .03 9501% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.30 .00 62,3101% 4% 10% 32% 53% 4.32 .00 36,5631% 3% 10% 27% 58% 4.38 .02 1,3081% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.27 .01 13,8001% 4% 10% 33% 53% 4.33 .01 9,6661% 3% 10% 34% 52% 4.32 .01 29,1411% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .01 17,3081% 4% 13% 33% 49% 4.25 .01 15,1132% 3% 10% 29% 55% 4.33 .01 15,0171% 3% 10% 27% 58% 4.38 .02 1,3081% 3% 11% 32% 53% 4.32 .00 75,0521% 4% 11% 36% 48% 4.25 .01 24,9931% 3% 10% 27% 58% 4.38 .02 1,3082% 5% 8% 34% 51% 4.29 .03 8881% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.30 .00 99,1571% 3% 10% 27% 58% 4.38 .02 1,3081% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.32 .00 78,4041% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .01 20,3161% 5% 10% 37% 48% 4.25 .02 1,3251% 3% 10% 27% 58% 4.38 .02 1,3081% 3% 9% 35% 52% 4.33 .01 5,6091% 4% 11% 34% 51% 4.29 .01 22,5341% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.29 .01 28,1401% 3% 11% 32% 53% 4.32 .00 43,7621% 4% 10% 25% 60% 4.39 .03 656

4% 14% 25% 57% 4.36 .12 563% 4% 8% 23% 62% 4.38 .06 2391% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .09 672% 3% 19% 25% 51% 4.21 .12 631% 4% 11% 32% 52% 4.30 .01 18,3011% 4% 11% 35% 50% 4.27 .01 6,5462% 5% 13% 33% 48% 4.19 .01 12,1332% 4% 11% 31% 51% 4.26 .01 7,1591% 2% 8% 32% 57% 4.43 .02 2,3153% 5% 12% 31% 49% 4.19 .01 6,374

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Availability of seating

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 93: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 23bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Availability of seating

7% 13% 21% 28% 32% 3.64 .03 1,629

3% 7% 16% 31% 43% 4.02 .00 122,4458% 14% 22% 26% 30% 3.56 .03 1,3574% 8% 16% 30% 43% 4.00 .00 65,2031% 6% 17% 37% 38% 4.05 .06 2723% 7% 16% 32% 43% 4.05 .00 57,2427% 14% 21% 27% 30% 3.59 .03 1,394

10% 20% 70% 4.60 .22 105% 7% 19% 32% 38% 3.91 .08 219

17% 33% 50% 4.00 .63 63% 8% 16% 31% 42% 4.00 .00 107,1603% 6% 13% 29% 49% 4.15 .02 3,5683% 5% 13% 29% 50% 4.18 .01 10,7743% 4% 9% 27% 58% 4.32 .04 7394% 10% 22% 29% 35% 3.82 .06 386

15% 12% 24% 24% 25% 3.33 .11 1578% 14% 19% 30% 29% 3.58 .06 4258% 18% 22% 23% 29% 3.47 .07 3635% 14% 27% 27% 27% 3.59 .18 445% 11% 21% 37% 26% 3.68 .27 192% 6% 15% 31% 46% 4.11 .00 45,0784% 9% 17% 31% 40% 3.94 .01 22,3844% 9% 17% 31% 38% 3.90 .01 17,2294% 9% 17% 30% 39% 3.89 .01 15,1414% 8% 16% 32% 40% 3.97 .01 6,4446% 6% 15% 31% 42% 3.98 .04 7458% 13% 21% 26% 31% 3.59 .04 9415% 13% 20% 30% 33% 3.73 .05 673

25% 25% 50% 3.50 .96 418% 18% 27% 27% 9% 2.91 .39 11

3% 8% 16% 30% 43% 4.02 .00 73,0563% 7% 16% 31% 43% 4.04 .00 47,3276% 10% 15% 29% 41% 3.88 .06 4316% 7% 20% 26% 42% 3.89 .04 9373% 9% 20% 32% 35% 3.87 .05 4318% 14% 21% 26% 30% 3.56 .04 1,1983% 7% 16% 31% 43% 4.05 .00 75,5114% 8% 16% 29% 42% 3.98 .01 45,4007% 13% 21% 28% 32% 3.64 .03 1,6293% 8% 16% 31% 42% 4.02 .01 16,3754% 9% 17% 32% 38% 3.91 .01 11,2733% 7% 15% 31% 45% 4.08 .01 35,7743% 6% 15% 31% 46% 4.11 .01 21,1884% 8% 18% 31% 39% 3.94 .01 19,2844% 8% 17% 28% 43% 3.98 .01 18,5517% 13% 21% 28% 32% 3.64 .03 1,6294% 7% 16% 31% 42% 4.01 .00 91,6643% 7% 15% 31% 45% 4.07 .01 30,7817% 13% 21% 28% 32% 3.64 .03 1,6294% 8% 14% 29% 46% 4.06 .03 1,2003% 7% 16% 31% 43% 4.02 .00 121,2457% 13% 21% 28% 32% 3.64 .03 1,6293% 7% 16% 31% 44% 4.04 .00 94,9974% 8% 17% 31% 40% 3.95 .01 25,8902% 5% 14% 34% 46% 4.18 .02 1,5587% 13% 21% 28% 32% 3.64 .03 1,6293% 7% 14% 30% 47% 4.11 .01 6,6673% 6% 15% 32% 45% 4.10 .01 27,8773% 6% 15% 31% 45% 4.09 .01 34,7054% 9% 17% 30% 40% 3.93 .00 53,1968% 15% 23% 26% 28% 3.51 .04 8396% 4% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .14 69

12% 15% 22% 24% 28% 3.42 .08 2931% 5% 16% 18% 60% 4.30 .11 778% 15% 20% 29% 28% 3.54 .14 794% 8% 17% 31% 41% 3.98 .01 22,6684% 9% 16% 29% 41% 3.93 .01 7,9743% 7% 16% 29% 44% 4.04 .01 14,8523% 9% 17% 29% 42% 3.97 .01 9,0092% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.23 .02 2,9563% 8% 17% 30% 43% 4.01 .01 7,745

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Availability of seating

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 94: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 24aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

2% 5% 11% 31% 51% 4.26 .03 1,307

1% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.19 .00 99,6602% 5% 11% 30% 53% 4.28 .03 1,0832% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.19 .00 52,7691% 4% 15% 36% 44% 4.18 .06 2241% 4% 14% 39% 43% 4.20 .00 46,8911% 5% 12% 30% 52% 4.26 .03 1,143

33% 67% 4.00 1.00 33% 3% 8% 36% 50% 4.27 .08 157

25% 75% 4.75 .25 41% 4% 14% 37% 44% 4.19 .00 87,6842% 4% 12% 39% 44% 4.19 .02 2,7242% 3% 10% 40% 45% 4.23 .01 8,6002% 2% 10% 31% 55% 4.36 .04 5141% 4% 14% 29% 52% 4.26 .05 3122% 7% 12% 38% 42% 4.11 .09 1272% 4% 12% 29% 52% 4.26 .05 3531% 5% 11% 30% 53% 4.29 .05 303

3% 15% 24% 58% 4.36 .15 33 7% 27% 67% 4.60 .16 15

1% 4% 14% 37% 44% 4.19 .00 37,2621% 4% 14% 38% 43% 4.17 .01 18,1261% 4% 14% 36% 46% 4.21 .01 14,1141% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.20 .01 12,3852% 5% 13% 39% 42% 4.14 .01 5,1131% 3% 15% 36% 46% 4.23 .03 5992% 4% 9% 30% 55% 4.33 .03 7282% 5% 14% 32% 47% 4.17 .04 568

25% 25% 50% 4.00 .71 4 14% 43% 43% 4.29 .29 7

1% 4% 12% 37% 47% 4.24 .00 59,0862% 4% 16% 38% 40% 4.11 .00 39,0153% 3% 18% 36% 41% 4.10 .05 3404% 4% 18% 33% 40% 4.02 .04 7371% 6% 16% 33% 44% 4.15 .05 3592% 4% 10% 30% 54% 4.30 .03 9481% 4% 14% 38% 43% 4.18 .00 62,0722% 4% 12% 37% 46% 4.21 .00 36,4732% 5% 11% 31% 51% 4.26 .03 1,3071% 4% 14% 40% 40% 4.15 .01 13,7321% 4% 13% 38% 43% 4.19 .01 9,6531% 4% 13% 38% 44% 4.19 .01 29,0241% 4% 13% 36% 47% 4.24 .01 17,2272% 4% 15% 36% 43% 4.15 .01 15,0462% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .01 14,9782% 5% 11% 31% 51% 4.26 .03 1,3071% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.20 .00 74,8901% 4% 14% 40% 41% 4.15 .01 24,7702% 5% 11% 31% 51% 4.26 .03 1,3072% 4% 10% 35% 49% 4.25 .03 8861% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.19 .00 98,7742% 5% 11% 31% 51% 4.26 .03 1,3071% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.20 .00 78,1591% 4% 14% 37% 43% 4.16 .01 20,1821% 5% 12% 39% 43% 4.17 .03 1,3192% 5% 11% 31% 51% 4.26 .03 1,3071% 3% 11% 40% 45% 4.23 .01 5,5521% 4% 13% 36% 46% 4.22 .01 22,4891% 4% 14% 37% 44% 4.19 .01 27,9561% 4% 13% 38% 43% 4.17 .00 43,6632% 5% 12% 30% 51% 4.24 .04 653

5% 16% 36% 43% 4.17 .12 582% 3% 6% 30% 58% 4.38 .06 2351% 3% 30% 66% 4.58 .09 674% 6% 19% 24% 47% 4.04 .14 701% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.19 .01 18,1631% 4% 14% 39% 41% 4.15 .01 6,5392% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.15 .01 12,1211% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.25 .01 7,1431% 2% 8% 35% 54% 4.38 .02 2,3003% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.12 .01 6,504

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 95: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 24bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

4% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.85 .03 1,634

2% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.16 .00 122,5675% 9% 21% 29% 36% 3.82 .03 1,3652% 5% 14% 33% 45% 4.14 .00 65,3843% 6% 18% 38% 35% 3.98 .06 2692% 4% 13% 35% 46% 4.19 .00 57,1834% 9% 21% 31% 35% 3.83 .03 1,398

10% 20% 70% 4.60 .22 105% 6% 19% 32% 38% 3.90 .08 220

17% 17% 33% 33% 3.67 .61 62% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.16 .00 107,2822% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.14 .02 3,5612% 5% 13% 33% 47% 4.17 .01 10,7873% 3% 10% 28% 56% 4.33 .03 7333% 6% 21% 33% 38% 3.96 .05 3936% 8% 27% 29% 30% 3.68 .09 1554% 11% 19% 30% 36% 3.83 .06 4245% 11% 20% 30% 34% 3.76 .06 3645% 12% 16% 37% 30% 3.77 .18 43

11% 32% 21% 37% 3.84 .24 191% 4% 13% 34% 49% 4.25 .00 45,1452% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.14 .01 22,3492% 6% 15% 35% 42% 4.08 .01 17,2933% 6% 15% 34% 42% 4.07 .01 15,1852% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.07 .01 6,4364% 5% 15% 33% 43% 4.05 .04 7405% 8% 22% 31% 34% 3.81 .04 9483% 9% 18% 31% 38% 3.90 .04 671

25% 25% 50% 3.50 .96 49% 18% 18% 36% 18% 3.36 .39 112% 5% 13% 33% 46% 4.17 .00 73,2322% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.15 .00 47,2944% 6% 18% 32% 40% 3.98 .05 4295% 8% 18% 29% 41% 3.94 .04 9413% 7% 20% 34% 36% 3.93 .05 4375% 9% 21% 30% 35% 3.82 .03 1,1972% 4% 13% 35% 46% 4.19 .00 75,6642% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .00 45,3804% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.85 .03 1,6341% 4% 12% 35% 48% 4.24 .01 16,4063% 5% 15% 36% 41% 4.09 .01 11,2472% 5% 13% 33% 48% 4.21 .01 35,7722% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.15 .01 21,2272% 6% 17% 34% 41% 4.06 .01 19,2702% 5% 14% 33% 46% 4.16 .01 18,6454% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.85 .03 1,6342% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.15 .00 91,8152% 5% 13% 34% 46% 4.18 .01 30,7524% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.85 .03 1,6344% 8% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .03 1,1942% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.16 .00 121,3734% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.85 .03 1,6342% 5% 14% 34% 46% 4.18 .00 95,1383% 6% 15% 35% 42% 4.07 .01 25,8831% 4% 10% 33% 52% 4.31 .02 1,5464% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.85 .03 1,6342% 5% 13% 34% 47% 4.18 .01 6,6782% 4% 13% 34% 46% 4.18 .01 27,9022% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.20 .01 34,7452% 5% 14% 34% 44% 4.12 .00 53,2424% 11% 22% 30% 32% 3.76 .04 8383% 7% 19% 23% 49% 4.07 .13 707% 6% 19% 28% 40% 3.89 .07 2931% 5% 16% 28% 50% 4.20 .11 767% 11% 22% 31% 30% 3.65 .13 882% 6% 15% 35% 42% 4.09 .01 22,5982% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.16 .01 7,9922% 6% 14% 32% 45% 4.13 .01 14,8672% 5% 14% 31% 48% 4.18 .01 9,0262% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.30 .02 2,9502% 5% 14% 33% 46% 4.15 .01 7,952

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 96: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 25aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Environmentally friendly practices related to food

6% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.07 .03 1,220

5% 6% 16% 28% 45% 4.04 .00 93,0366% 4% 16% 24% 51% 4.10 .04 1,0224% 5% 15% 28% 47% 4.08 .00 49,7086% 6% 21% 26% 41% 3.90 .08 1985% 6% 17% 29% 43% 3.99 .01 43,3286% 4% 17% 25% 48% 4.06 .04 1,055

100% 5.00 .00 26% 6% 16% 20% 52% 4.05 .10 159

100% 5.00 .00 45% 6% 17% 28% 45% 4.03 .00 81,5964% 5% 13% 29% 49% 4.13 .02 2,5735% 5% 13% 32% 45% 4.09 .01 8,2146% 3% 12% 26% 52% 4.15 .05 5125% 5% 18% 28% 43% 3.98 .07 2749% 4% 26% 23% 38% 3.77 .12 1156% 3% 16% 28% 47% 4.06 .06 3435% 4% 13% 19% 58% 4.21 .07 276

16% 22% 63% 4.47 .13 32 13% 33% 53% 4.40 .19 15

5% 6% 17% 29% 44% 4.00 .01 34,4585% 6% 17% 28% 44% 4.01 .01 16,8965% 6% 16% 28% 46% 4.05 .01 13,2264% 6% 15% 27% 48% 4.09 .01 11,6004% 5% 15% 30% 45% 4.09 .02 4,7715% 5% 15% 30% 46% 4.06 .05 5673% 4% 15% 23% 56% 4.26 .04 685

10% 5% 19% 26% 40% 3.83 .06 52620% 20% 60% 3.20 .58 5

50% 50% 4.50 .29 43% 4% 14% 29% 50% 4.18 .00 55,4167% 8% 19% 28% 38% 3.82 .01 36,1437% 3% 18% 29% 42% 3.95 .07 3226% 7% 16% 22% 49% 4.01 .05 6876% 5% 22% 26% 41% 3.91 .06 3266% 4% 15% 23% 52% 4.12 .04 8945% 6% 17% 28% 44% 4.01 .00 57,5105% 5% 14% 29% 47% 4.09 .01 34,4456% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.07 .03 1,2205% 7% 17% 29% 42% 3.95 .01 12,7105% 7% 16% 30% 42% 3.97 .01 8,7855% 6% 16% 29% 44% 4.02 .01 27,1044% 5% 16% 27% 47% 4.09 .01 16,0964% 5% 16% 28% 46% 4.07 .01 14,2264% 5% 15% 27% 48% 4.10 .01 14,1156% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.07 .03 1,2204% 5% 16% 29% 46% 4.06 .00 70,0326% 7% 16% 28% 43% 3.96 .01 23,0046% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.07 .03 1,2205% 3% 12% 28% 51% 4.17 .04 8635% 6% 16% 29% 45% 4.04 .00 92,1736% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.07 .03 1,2205% 6% 16% 29% 45% 4.05 .00 73,3745% 6% 17% 29% 44% 4.01 .01 18,4524% 7% 15% 27% 47% 4.05 .03 1,2106% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.07 .03 1,2204% 5% 14% 28% 50% 4.16 .01 5,2034% 6% 16% 28% 47% 4.08 .01 20,8965% 6% 17% 28% 44% 4.02 .01 26,2325% 6% 16% 29% 44% 4.02 .01 40,7055% 4% 18% 24% 49% 4.08 .05 620

17% 2% 19% 25% 38% 3.65 .21 485% 3% 9% 24% 59% 4.29 .07 2257% 5% 13% 20% 56% 4.13 .16 616% 6% 21% 26% 41% 3.91 .14 685% 6% 16% 28% 46% 4.05 .01 16,9765% 5% 15% 30% 45% 4.05 .01 6,0925% 5% 15% 27% 47% 4.06 .01 11,4463% 4% 13% 28% 51% 4.20 .01 6,6834% 5% 14% 29% 49% 4.14 .02 2,1044% 5% 15% 28% 47% 4.08 .01 6,408

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 97: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 25bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Environmentally friendly practices related to food

3% 4% 19% 33% 42% 4.07 .03 1,471

3% 4% 19% 34% 40% 4.06 .00 112,1713% 4% 18% 32% 44% 4.11 .03 1,2373% 4% 18% 33% 42% 4.09 .00 60,6493% 4% 27% 36% 29% 3.84 .07 2343% 4% 19% 36% 38% 4.02 .00 51,5223% 4% 20% 32% 41% 4.04 .03 1,251

13% 38% 50% 4.38 .26 82% 2% 14% 35% 46% 4.22 .06 207

20% 80% 4.80 .20 53% 4% 19% 35% 40% 4.04 .00 98,0714% 5% 17% 33% 41% 4.03 .02 3,2302% 3% 15% 32% 48% 4.21 .01 9,9803% 3% 12% 27% 55% 4.29 .04 6933% 3% 21% 34% 39% 4.04 .05 3492% 4% 20% 29% 44% 4.09 .09 1294% 3% 18% 31% 43% 4.06 .05 3932% 6% 20% 34% 39% 4.03 .05 3237% 10% 22% 22% 39% 3.76 .20 41

31% 31% 38% 4.06 .21 162% 3% 18% 34% 42% 4.11 .00 41,0463% 5% 20% 35% 37% 4.00 .01 20,4453% 5% 19% 34% 39% 4.00 .01 15,8953% 5% 20% 34% 38% 3.98 .01 13,9874% 5% 18% 37% 37% 3.98 .01 5,8895% 5% 18% 32% 40% 3.97 .04 6883% 4% 19% 31% 43% 4.05 .04 8632% 4% 19% 35% 41% 4.11 .04 598

50% 50% 4.50 .29 433% 17% 17% 17% 17% 2.67 .67 6

3% 4% 18% 34% 41% 4.06 .00 67,5842% 4% 19% 35% 40% 4.07 .00 42,7327% 8% 22% 28% 35% 3.75 .06 3917% 6% 22% 29% 36% 3.80 .04 8373% 5% 24% 37% 31% 3.88 .05 4023% 3% 17% 31% 46% 4.14 .03 1,0693% 4% 19% 35% 39% 4.04 .00 68,8403% 4% 17% 33% 43% 4.08 .00 41,9353% 4% 19% 33% 42% 4.07 .03 1,4712% 3% 17% 35% 43% 4.15 .01 15,0153% 5% 21% 35% 37% 3.97 .01 9,9563% 4% 18% 35% 40% 4.05 .01 32,4663% 5% 20% 34% 39% 4.01 .01 19,4782% 4% 18% 35% 41% 4.09 .01 17,9753% 4% 18% 32% 42% 4.07 .01 17,2813% 4% 19% 33% 42% 4.07 .03 1,4713% 4% 18% 34% 41% 4.07 .00 84,4543% 5% 19% 34% 40% 4.03 .01 27,7173% 4% 19% 33% 42% 4.07 .03 1,4713% 4% 15% 31% 46% 4.12 .03 1,1253% 4% 19% 34% 40% 4.06 .00 111,0463% 4% 19% 33% 42% 4.07 .03 1,4712% 4% 18% 34% 42% 4.09 .00 87,7704% 5% 22% 35% 35% 3.93 .01 23,0184% 7% 19% 33% 37% 3.94 .03 1,3833% 4% 19% 33% 42% 4.07 .03 1,4713% 5% 18% 32% 43% 4.08 .01 6,1763% 5% 20% 34% 39% 4.00 .01 25,4852% 4% 18% 34% 42% 4.10 .01 31,8973% 4% 18% 35% 40% 4.06 .00 48,6133% 4% 19% 31% 43% 4.09 .04 751

6% 25% 38% 32% 3.96 .12 533% 4% 15% 28% 51% 4.21 .06 2792% 2% 8% 34% 55% 4.39 .10 646% 3% 16% 43% 32% 3.93 .11 903% 4% 18% 34% 41% 4.06 .01 20,7103% 4% 18% 35% 40% 4.06 .01 7,2972% 4% 18% 32% 43% 4.10 .01 13,8372% 4% 17% 31% 45% 4.13 .01 8,3652% 3% 16% 32% 46% 4.17 .02 2,6053% 4% 18% 33% 43% 4.09 .01 7,836

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 98: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 26aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Social/ethical practices related to food

6% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.05 .03 1,198

5% 6% 17% 28% 43% 3.97 .00 90,8926% 3% 16% 24% 50% 4.09 .04 1,0055% 6% 16% 27% 45% 4.02 .01 48,5467% 6% 23% 23% 41% 3.87 .09 1935% 7% 18% 28% 41% 3.92 .01 42,3466% 4% 18% 24% 48% 4.05 .04 1,037

100% 5.00 .00 27% 4% 16% 22% 51% 4.06 .10 153

17% 17% 67% 3.83 .75 65% 6% 18% 28% 43% 3.97 .00 79,8726% 5% 15% 28% 46% 4.02 .02 2,4747% 5% 15% 31% 42% 3.97 .01 7,9127% 4% 13% 23% 53% 4.12 .05 4987% 4% 21% 26% 42% 3.90 .07 2677% 4% 27% 22% 40% 3.84 .12 1096% 3% 15% 30% 46% 4.06 .06 3435% 4% 14% 18% 59% 4.22 .07 273

20% 17% 63% 4.43 .15 30 20% 27% 53% 4.33 .21 15

5% 7% 18% 28% 42% 3.94 .01 33,7645% 7% 18% 27% 43% 3.95 .01 16,4905% 6% 17% 28% 45% 4.01 .01 12,9735% 6% 16% 27% 47% 4.04 .01 11,3665% 5% 17% 30% 44% 4.02 .02 4,6485% 5% 17% 27% 45% 4.03 .05 5544% 3% 15% 22% 55% 4.23 .04 674

10% 4% 20% 25% 41% 3.83 .06 51520% 20% 60% 3.20 .58 5

50% 50% 4.50 .29 43% 5% 15% 28% 48% 4.13 .00 54,0648% 8% 20% 27% 36% 3.74 .01 35,3759% 3% 18% 29% 41% 3.91 .07 3207% 6% 16% 22% 49% 4.00 .05 6647% 5% 23% 25% 41% 3.89 .07 3196% 3% 15% 23% 52% 4.11 .04 8795% 7% 18% 28% 42% 3.95 .00 56,3106% 6% 16% 28% 45% 4.02 .01 33,5356% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.05 .03 1,1986% 7% 19% 29% 39% 3.88 .01 12,4266% 8% 17% 29% 41% 3.91 .01 8,5866% 7% 17% 29% 42% 3.94 .01 26,4075% 6% 17% 27% 45% 4.02 .01 15,7285% 6% 17% 28% 44% 4.01 .01 13,9125% 6% 16% 26% 48% 4.07 .01 13,8336% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.05 .03 1,1985% 6% 17% 28% 44% 4.00 .00 68,4646% 7% 17% 28% 41% 3.90 .01 22,4286% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.05 .03 1,1986% 4% 13% 26% 50% 4.11 .04 8305% 6% 17% 28% 43% 3.97 .00 90,0626% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.05 .03 1,1985% 6% 17% 28% 43% 3.98 .00 71,6446% 6% 18% 28% 42% 3.95 .01 18,0775% 8% 15% 26% 45% 3.99 .03 1,1716% 4% 17% 24% 49% 4.05 .03 1,1984% 5% 15% 28% 48% 4.10 .02 5,0665% 6% 17% 27% 45% 4.02 .01 20,4646% 6% 18% 28% 42% 3.95 .01 25,5955% 7% 17% 28% 42% 3.95 .01 39,7675% 3% 18% 25% 49% 4.09 .05 606

15% 2% 15% 29% 40% 3.77 .20 485% 3% 10% 22% 59% 4.27 .07 2238% 5% 15% 20% 52% 4.03 .16 617% 4% 27% 24% 37% 3.79 .15 676% 6% 17% 28% 44% 3.99 .01 16,5556% 6% 17% 29% 42% 3.96 .02 5,9196% 6% 16% 26% 46% 4.01 .01 11,2104% 5% 14% 27% 50% 4.14 .01 6,5124% 5% 15% 28% 48% 4.09 .02 2,0625% 6% 17% 27% 45% 4.02 .01 6,288

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 99: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 26bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Social/ethical practices related to food

3% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.10 .03 1,449

2% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.08 .00 109,5913% 3% 18% 32% 45% 4.14 .03 1,2192% 3% 18% 32% 43% 4.11 .00 59,1393% 7% 23% 35% 32% 3.88 .07 2303% 4% 20% 35% 39% 4.04 .00 50,4523% 3% 20% 32% 42% 4.07 .03 1,237

13% 38% 50% 4.38 .26 83% 2% 15% 33% 48% 4.22 .07 200

50% 50% 4.50 .29 42% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.07 .00 96,1674% 5% 19% 31% 41% 4.01 .02 3,0672% 3% 16% 32% 48% 4.20 .01 9,4803% 2% 13% 27% 56% 4.31 .04 6782% 4% 20% 34% 40% 4.06 .05 3402% 2% 19% 29% 48% 4.19 .09 1244% 2% 20% 33% 42% 4.07 .05 3982% 5% 20% 31% 43% 4.08 .05 3208% 8% 23% 26% 36% 3.74 .20 39

31% 31% 38% 4.06 .21 162% 3% 18% 34% 43% 4.14 .00 40,2462% 4% 20% 34% 39% 4.03 .01 20,0633% 4% 20% 34% 40% 4.04 .01 15,5873% 4% 20% 34% 38% 4.00 .01 13,7463% 5% 18% 36% 38% 4.00 .01 5,7354% 4% 19% 32% 41% 4.01 .04 6663% 3% 20% 32% 42% 4.07 .03 8541% 4% 19% 32% 44% 4.14 .04 585

50% 50% 4.50 .29 417% 17% 50% 17% 3.33 .61 6

2% 4% 19% 34% 42% 4.08 .00 65,8522% 3% 19% 34% 41% 4.09 .00 41,8987% 6% 23% 29% 34% 3.75 .06 3937% 7% 20% 30% 36% 3.81 .04 8173% 4% 23% 36% 34% 3.94 .05 3943% 3% 18% 31% 46% 4.15 .03 1,0552% 4% 19% 35% 40% 4.07 .00 67,5103% 4% 18% 32% 44% 4.10 .00 40,6963% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.10 .03 1,4492% 2% 17% 34% 45% 4.18 .01 14,7253% 4% 21% 34% 38% 4.01 .01 9,6712% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.08 .01 31,6483% 4% 20% 33% 40% 4.04 .01 19,0242% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.07 .01 17,5883% 4% 18% 32% 44% 4.10 .01 16,9353% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.10 .03 1,4492% 3% 19% 34% 42% 4.09 .00 82,4912% 4% 19% 33% 41% 4.07 .01 27,1003% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.10 .03 1,4494% 4% 16% 29% 47% 4.12 .03 1,0782% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.08 .00 108,5133% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.10 .03 1,4492% 3% 18% 34% 43% 4.11 .00 85,6963% 4% 21% 34% 37% 3.97 .01 22,5493% 5% 21% 33% 38% 3.97 .03 1,3463% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.10 .03 1,4493% 4% 18% 32% 43% 4.09 .01 6,0123% 4% 20% 33% 40% 4.04 .01 24,9472% 3% 18% 34% 43% 4.12 .01 31,1762% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.08 .00 47,4562% 3% 19% 31% 44% 4.13 .04 7424% 2% 21% 42% 32% 3.96 .13 532% 3% 16% 28% 51% 4.23 .06 2732% 2% 11% 29% 57% 4.38 .11 635% 3% 20% 41% 31% 3.90 .11 883% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.07 .01 20,2492% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.09 .01 7,0672% 3% 19% 31% 45% 4.13 .01 13,5052% 3% 17% 31% 47% 4.17 .01 8,1352% 3% 16% 31% 48% 4.19 .02 2,5362% 3% 18% 32% 44% 4.13 .01 7,648

California Polytechnic University,Pomona

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

ENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PacificNACUFS Region - YOUR INSTITUTIONContinentalMid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly Self-operatedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 100: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 27BY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS***

4% 10% 23% 43% 20% 3.66 .07 2124% 8% 19% 42% 27% 3.82 .00 49,1434% 10% 23% 43% 20% 3.66 .07 212

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 4% 16% 41% 35% 3.99 .03 1,2213% 5% 16% 41% 35% 4.00 .00 59,7605% 5% 15% 41% 34% 3.95 .04 7236% 8% 21% 41% 24% 3.68 .14 632% 4% 14% 41% 39% 4.11 .06 2792% 15% 41% 42% 4.22 .11 591% 3% 23% 45% 28% 3.96 .09 973% 6% 17% 41% 33% 3.94 .01 20,2853% 6% 17% 41% 33% 3.94 .01 7,1233% 5% 14% 40% 38% 4.05 .01 13,7773% 5% 15% 41% 36% 4.04 .01 8,3403% 5% 14% 39% 40% 4.08 .02 2,5613% 5% 15% 41% 36% 4.04 .01 7,6758% 6% 16% 41% 29% 3.78 .11 117

10% 5% 15% 30% 40% 3.85 .29 203% 22% 31% 44% 4.13 .17 32

6% 13% 25% 56% 4.31 .24 166% 17% 33% 44% 4.11 .25 182% 15% 41% 42% 4.22 .11 594% 7% 22% 40% 26% 3.77 .09 1342% 5% 18% 40% 35% 4.01 .08 132

26% 53% 21% 3.95 .16 19 3% 16% 48% 32% 4.10 .14 31

2% 2% 12% 39% 44% 4.20 .10 84 13% 19% 31% 38% 3.94 .27 16

3% 18% 40% 40% 4.15 .14 402% 2% 11% 49% 36% 4.16 .08 1076% 5% 6% 42% 41% 4.06 .11 985% 12% 48% 34% 4.05 .12 736% 8% 21% 41% 24% 3.68 .14 633% 29% 45% 23% 3.84 .16 312% 6% 13% 43% 35% 4.03 .10 93

16% 21% 34% 29% 3.76 .17 38

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the diningservices provided by your college/university?

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.***Consult the beginning of this report, page iv, or your order form for the Dining Hall and Retail Unit names.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 101: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 28aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Overall

0% 3% 11% 27% 59% 4.41 .05 2280% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 48,4860% 3% 11% 27% 59% 4.41 .05 228

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.58 .02 1,1420% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 56,2590% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.58 .03 685

5% 26% 69% 4.64 .08 581% 1% 8% 19% 72% 4.59 .05 247

4% 18% 78% 4.74 .06 68 4% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .09 84

0% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .01 19,2340% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.54 .01 6,9000% 1% 7% 27% 65% 4.55 .01 12,9141% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.52 .01 7,5040% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.61 .01 2,4141% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.50 .01 7,294

1% 8% 35% 56% 4.46 .07 109 6% 6% 88% 4.82 .13 17 12% 19% 69% 4.58 .14 26

8% 8% 17% 67% 4.25 .39 12 14% 7% 79% 4.64 .20 14 4% 18% 78% 4.74 .06 68 2% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .06 123 2% 5% 21% 73% 4.65 .06 128 6% 19% 75% 4.69 .15 16 8% 8% 32% 52% 4.28 .19 25

1% 5% 25% 69% 4.60 .08 77 7% 36% 57% 4.43 .23 14 8% 18% 75% 4.68 .10 40

1% 3% 7% 17% 71% 4.54 .09 94 7% 22% 70% 4.63 .06 94 13% 28% 58% 4.45 .09 67 5% 26% 69% 4.64 .08 58 17% 31% 52% 4.34 .14 29 6% 19% 75% 4.68 .06 95 8% 14% 78% 4.69 .10 36

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Food: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 102: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 28bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Overall

2% 10% 26% 44% 18% 3.67 .06 2723% 8% 21% 44% 23% 3.76 .00 57,8962% 10% 26% 44% 18% 3.67 .06 272

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 4% 12% 35% 46% 4.19 .03 1,4622% 5% 14% 41% 38% 4.07 .00 68,6362% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.17 .03 8806% 6% 15% 38% 36% 3.93 .13 722% 2% 10% 30% 55% 4.34 .05 3203% 8% 33% 56% 4.41 .10 784% 10% 15% 37% 35% 3.89 .10 1123% 5% 16% 42% 34% 4.00 .01 23,3882% 5% 15% 42% 35% 4.04 .01 8,2652% 5% 13% 38% 42% 4.15 .01 15,7772% 4% 13% 39% 42% 4.16 .01 9,3002% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.17 .02 3,0242% 5% 15% 42% 36% 4.05 .01 8,8834% 5% 18% 44% 30% 3.91 .08 142

4% 22% 30% 43% 4.13 .19 233% 5% 26% 66% 4.53 .13 386% 6% 13% 38% 38% 3.94 .30 16

10% 15% 25% 50% 4.05 .29 203% 8% 33% 56% 4.41 .10 782% 4% 13% 33% 47% 4.20 .07 1653% 3% 9% 39% 46% 4.23 .07 1575% 9% 14% 27% 45% 4.00 .25 22

9% 15% 39% 36% 4.03 .17 331% 1% 10% 25% 63% 4.49 .08 103

11% 21% 32% 37% 3.84 .29 192% 6% 8% 25% 60% 4.35 .14 522% 3% 11% 38% 47% 4.26 .08 1123% 2% 5% 31% 60% 4.44 .08 1101% 5% 13% 41% 41% 4.15 .09 966% 6% 15% 38% 36% 3.93 .13 723% 16% 13% 42% 26% 3.74 .18 382% 6% 13% 37% 42% 4.12 .09 1192% 6% 13% 30% 49% 4.17 .15 47

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Food: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 103: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 29aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Taste

1% 0% 7% 23% 70% 4.60 .05 2300% 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.67 .00 48,5601% 0% 7% 23% 70% 4.60 .05 230

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 5% 17% 77% 4.69 .02 1,1370% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 56,2660% 0% 5% 18% 76% 4.69 .02 685

2% 5% 16% 77% 4.68 .09 571% 5% 13% 80% 4.71 .04 246

1% 15% 84% 4.82 .05 68 4% 9% 25% 63% 4.47 .09 81

0% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 19,2600% 1% 4% 20% 75% 4.69 .01 6,9010% 1% 5% 20% 75% 4.69 .01 12,9280% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.66 .01 7,5070% 1% 3% 15% 81% 4.76 .01 2,4031% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 7,268

7% 23% 69% 4.62 .06 108 6% 94% 4.88 .12 17 12% 23% 65% 4.54 .14 26

8% 8% 8% 75% 4.33 .40 12 8% 17% 75% 4.67 .19 12 1% 15% 84% 4.82 .05 68 3% 18% 79% 4.75 .05 122 1% 5% 14% 80% 4.74 .05 128 19% 81% 4.81 .10 16 8% 8% 20% 64% 4.40 .19 25

3% 13% 85% 4.77 .08 78 8% 23% 69% 4.54 .24 13 7% 7% 85% 4.78 .09 41

1% 6% 13% 80% 4.70 .07 941% 5% 19% 75% 4.66 .07 95

9% 28% 63% 4.54 .08 67 2% 5% 16% 77% 4.68 .09 57 19% 33% 48% 4.30 .15 27 4% 16% 80% 4.76 .05 95 8% 8% 83% 4.75 .10 36

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Taste

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 104: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 29bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Taste

4% 14% 32% 38% 13% 3.42 .06 2714% 10% 25% 40% 21% 3.65 .00 57,8734% 14% 32% 38% 13% 3.42 .06 271

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.22 .03 1,4542% 5% 15% 38% 40% 4.09 .00 68,5652% 5% 11% 35% 47% 4.22 .03 8796% 6% 17% 38% 34% 3.89 .13 712% 1% 12% 28% 57% 4.37 .05 3181% 1% 10% 28% 59% 4.42 .09 783% 8% 19% 36% 34% 3.91 .10 1082% 6% 16% 39% 36% 4.01 .01 23,3832% 5% 14% 40% 38% 4.06 .01 8,2392% 5% 12% 36% 45% 4.17 .01 15,7752% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.18 .01 9,3072% 4% 12% 34% 47% 4.19 .02 3,0102% 5% 17% 40% 37% 4.04 .01 8,8525% 5% 14% 42% 34% 3.94 .09 140

22% 30% 48% 4.26 .17 233% 5% 16% 76% 4.63 .13 38

19% 6% 31% 44% 4.00 .29 165% 5% 16% 37% 37% 3.95 .26 191% 1% 10% 28% 59% 4.42 .09 781% 5% 13% 31% 51% 4.27 .07 1651% 4% 9% 36% 49% 4.28 .07 156

5% 27% 32% 36% 4.00 .20 22 12% 15% 39% 33% 3.94 .17 33

1% 11% 30% 58% 4.45 .08 1016% 11% 17% 22% 44% 3.89 .30 182% 6% 10% 21% 62% 4.35 .14 522% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.34 .08 1133% 1% 6% 36% 54% 4.38 .08 1111% 5% 14% 35% 45% 4.18 .09 966% 6% 17% 38% 34% 3.89 .13 716% 6% 17% 43% 29% 3.83 .19 352% 6% 6% 41% 46% 4.23 .08 1204% 21% 17% 57% 4.23 .16 47

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Taste

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 105: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 30aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Eye appeal

5% 14% 22% 32% 28% 3.64 .08 2293% 13% 22% 34% 28% 3.72 .00 48,3625% 14% 22% 32% 28% 3.64 .08 229

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 7% 16% 30% 45% 4.09 .03 1,1282% 10% 18% 34% 35% 3.89 .00 55,9971% 7% 18% 29% 44% 4.08 .04 6795% 12% 23% 28% 32% 3.68 .16 571% 8% 11% 25% 54% 4.24 .07 2411% 6% 15% 28% 50% 4.19 .12 684% 7% 11% 45% 34% 3.98 .11 832% 11% 19% 33% 34% 3.86 .01 19,1333% 11% 21% 36% 30% 3.79 .01 6,8692% 10% 18% 34% 36% 3.91 .01 12,8742% 9% 16% 34% 39% 3.98 .01 7,5071% 7% 14% 36% 42% 4.10 .02 2,3902% 11% 18% 34% 34% 3.87 .01 7,225

11% 23% 28% 38% 3.93 .10 109 28% 72% 4.44 .22 18 12% 23% 15% 50% 4.04 .22 26

8% 8% 8% 42% 33% 3.83 .37 12 10% 10% 40% 40% 4.10 .31 10

1% 6% 15% 28% 50% 4.19 .12 683% 11% 12% 28% 46% 4.03 .10 1212% 9% 15% 28% 46% 4.06 .10 127

63% 38% 4.38 .13 168% 4% 16% 36% 36% 3.88 .24 251% 9% 8% 28% 54% 4.24 .12 78

7% 64% 29% 4.14 .21 143% 5% 10% 33% 49% 4.21 .16 392% 4% 10% 27% 57% 4.32 .10 92

1% 18% 32% 49% 4.29 .08 942% 3% 26% 35% 35% 3.98 .12 665% 12% 23% 28% 32% 3.68 .16 574% 14% 18% 32% 32% 3.75 .22 28

6% 18% 30% 45% 4.14 .10 93 11% 14% 17% 57% 4.20 .18 35

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Eye appeal

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 106: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 30bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Eye appeal

3% 12% 29% 39% 17% 3.56 .06 2713% 10% 26% 37% 24% 3.67 .00 57,6123% 12% 29% 39% 17% 3.56 .06 271

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 5% 16% 34% 43% 4.12 .03 1,4552% 5% 19% 36% 38% 4.02 .00 68,2502% 4% 18% 35% 41% 4.09 .03 8823% 9% 19% 33% 36% 3.91 .13 692% 4% 11% 29% 54% 4.28 .05 3171% 1% 9% 28% 60% 4.45 .09 78

10% 24% 43% 23% 3.79 .09 1092% 6% 21% 37% 33% 3.93 .01 23,2512% 6% 19% 38% 35% 3.97 .01 8,1902% 5% 17% 36% 40% 4.06 .01 15,7022% 4% 14% 34% 46% 4.18 .01 9,3002% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.21 .02 2,9942% 6% 21% 36% 35% 3.95 .01 8,8144% 8% 31% 36% 21% 3.63 .09 142

4% 22% 39% 35% 4.04 .18 233% 3% 8% 13% 74% 4.53 .15 386% 13% 50% 31% 3.88 .30 166% 6% 22% 44% 22% 3.72 .25 181% 1% 9% 28% 60% 4.45 .09 781% 5% 11% 32% 50% 4.26 .07 1671% 4% 17% 29% 50% 4.22 .08 157

9% 18% 55% 18% 3.82 .18 22 23% 16% 32% 29% 3.68 .20 31

1% 2% 13% 29% 55% 4.36 .09 101 5% 26% 42% 26% 3.89 .20 19

2% 15% 35% 48% 4.27 .12 523% 4% 8% 35% 50% 4.27 .09 1134% 1% 13% 33% 50% 4.24 .09 1111% 6% 23% 36% 33% 3.95 .10 963% 9% 19% 33% 36% 3.91 .13 69

3% 32% 46% 19% 3.81 .13 372% 2% 14% 44% 38% 4.15 .08 1182% 9% 15% 21% 53% 4.15 .16 47

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Eye appeal

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 107: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 31aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Freshness

1% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.54 .05 2260% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57 .00 48,2461% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.54 .05 226

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 7% 21% 71% 4.62 .02 1,1350% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 55,9830% 0% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .02 685

4% 16% 29% 52% 4.29 .12 561% 1% 6% 18% 74% 4.64 .05 247

5% 21% 74% 4.70 .07 66 10% 27% 63% 4.53 .07 81

0% 1% 7% 24% 67% 4.58 .00 19,1440% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 .01 6,8750% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.60 .01 12,8790% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.59 .01 7,4640% 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.64 .01 2,3951% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.57 .01 7,227

2% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .07 109 6% 94% 4.89 .11 18 12% 19% 69% 4.58 .14 26

8% 8% 25% 58% 4.25 .35 12 18% 9% 73% 4.55 .25 11 5% 21% 74% 4.70 .07 66 4% 20% 76% 4.72 .05 122 6% 21% 72% 4.66 .05 127 19% 81% 4.81 .10 16 13% 30% 57% 4.43 .15 23

3% 1% 1% 22% 73% 4.62 .09 79 29% 71% 4.71 .13 14 3% 8% 90% 4.88 .06 40

1% 4% 15% 80% 4.73 .07 95 3% 21% 76% 4.73 .05 95

1% 1% 12% 28% 57% 4.37 .11 67 4% 16% 29% 52% 4.29 .12 56 18% 29% 54% 4.36 .15 28 7% 20% 73% 4.65 .06 95 3% 11% 19% 67% 4.50 .14 36

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Freshness

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 108: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 31bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Freshness

5% 12% 30% 35% 18% 3.48 .07 2675% 12% 25% 34% 23% 3.59 .00 57,7055% 12% 30% 35% 18% 3.48 .07 267

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 5% 15% 30% 46% 4.09 .03 1,4533% 7% 19% 34% 38% 3.96 .00 68,2514% 6% 15% 30% 45% 4.06 .04 8796% 6% 22% 33% 33% 3.83 .14 693% 3% 13% 27% 55% 4.29 .05 3151% 1% 14% 26% 58% 4.37 .10 788% 7% 21% 31% 32% 3.72 .12 1123% 8% 21% 34% 34% 3.87 .01 23,2653% 7% 20% 35% 35% 3.91 .01 8,2223% 6% 17% 33% 42% 4.04 .01 15,7202% 6% 16% 33% 43% 4.09 .01 9,2352% 6% 14% 31% 47% 4.14 .02 2,9873% 8% 21% 34% 34% 3.88 .01 8,8237% 9% 23% 32% 29% 3.68 .10 140

9% 13% 30% 48% 4.17 .21 233% 5% 13% 79% 4.66 .13 38

13% 6% 6% 31% 44% 3.88 .35 1611% 22% 28% 39% 3.83 .31 181% 1% 14% 26% 58% 4.37 .10 784% 8% 14% 24% 51% 4.10 .09 1663% 9% 15% 29% 44% 4.01 .09 1569% 14% 32% 45% 4.05 .26 229% 9% 18% 42% 21% 3.58 .21 331% 4% 12% 23% 60% 4.36 .09 995% 11% 16% 21% 47% 3.95 .29 194% 2% 10% 31% 54% 4.29 .14 522% 2% 16% 30% 50% 4.26 .09 1133% 3% 11% 24% 60% 4.36 .09 1121% 8% 17% 42% 32% 3.96 .10 966% 6% 22% 33% 33% 3.83 .14 698% 8% 32% 26% 26% 3.55 .19 383% 3% 12% 35% 47% 4.20 .09 1184% 6% 9% 38% 43% 4.09 .16 47

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Freshness

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 109: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 32aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Nutritional content

2% 3% 14% 27% 54% 4.28 .06 2301% 3% 11% 28% 57% 4.38 .00 48,1342% 3% 14% 27% 54% 4.28 .06 230

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 5% 13% 27% 53% 4.26 .03 1,1291% 3% 12% 29% 55% 4.33 .00 55,7801% 5% 14% 28% 52% 4.23 .04 6812% 7% 13% 29% 49% 4.16 .14 553% 2% 10% 24% 61% 4.38 .06 2464% 9% 15% 25% 46% 4.00 .14 67

4% 13% 29% 55% 4.35 .09 801% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.34 .01 19,1031% 3% 11% 30% 56% 4.37 .01 6,8431% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 .01 12,8341% 4% 12% 28% 55% 4.31 .01 7,4181% 4% 12% 29% 54% 4.31 .02 2,3811% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.35 .01 7,2021% 11% 19% 26% 43% 3.98 .10 108

6% 6% 89% 4.72 .19 18 15% 15% 69% 4.54 .15 26

14% 21% 7% 21% 36% 3.43 .42 1423% 15% 15% 46% 3.62 .46 134% 9% 15% 25% 46% 4.00 .14 672% 1% 10% 33% 55% 4.38 .08 1201% 8% 9% 34% 48% 4.21 .08 128

6% 6% 25% 63% 4.44 .22 16 17% 21% 63% 4.46 .16 24

3% 3% 6% 29% 59% 4.40 .10 78 46% 54% 4.54 .14 13

3% 3% 15% 10% 70% 4.43 .16 402% 3% 11% 25% 59% 4.35 .10 93

11% 35% 54% 4.43 .07 932% 8% 30% 23% 38% 3.88 .13 662% 7% 13% 29% 49% 4.16 .14 55

7% 19% 30% 44% 4.11 .19 271% 3% 10% 30% 56% 4.37 .09 94

3% 8% 17% 72% 4.58 .13 36

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Nutritional content

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 110: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 32bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Nutritional content

7% 10% 28% 37% 17% 3.46 .07 2676% 13% 26% 33% 21% 3.51 .00 57,1637% 10% 28% 37% 17% 3.46 .07 267

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 9% 24% 28% 34% 3.78 .03 1,4305% 10% 25% 32% 28% 3.68 .00 67,5774% 9% 25% 28% 34% 3.78 .04 866

10% 16% 32% 20% 22% 3.28 .15 693% 7% 20% 32% 38% 3.94 .06 3091% 7% 28% 27% 36% 3.91 .12 747% 11% 26% 27% 29% 3.61 .12 1125% 11% 27% 31% 25% 3.58 .01 23,0585% 11% 24% 34% 26% 3.65 .01 8,1354% 9% 24% 32% 31% 3.78 .01 15,5463% 10% 24% 32% 31% 3.78 .01 9,1003% 7% 22% 32% 35% 3.88 .02 2,9565% 12% 25% 30% 27% 3.62 .01 8,783

11% 20% 27% 22% 19% 3.18 .11 140 4% 13% 30% 52% 4.30 .18 23

3% 5% 21% 71% 4.58 .13 387% 33% 27% 33% 3.80 .30 15

11% 6% 22% 33% 28% 3.61 .30 181% 7% 28% 27% 36% 3.91 .12 741% 5% 18% 27% 48% 4.16 .08 1645% 12% 28% 31% 24% 3.58 .09 1565% 5% 14% 41% 36% 4.00 .23 226% 15% 30% 30% 18% 3.39 .20 333% 8% 16% 32% 40% 3.99 .11 995% 5% 37% 21% 32% 3.68 .27 192% 4% 27% 31% 37% 3.96 .14 522% 5% 28% 36% 29% 3.86 .09 1072% 4% 9% 26% 59% 4.36 .09 1072% 10% 46% 26% 16% 3.45 .10 92

10% 16% 32% 20% 22% 3.28 .15 6911% 13% 24% 18% 34% 3.53 .22 383% 8% 25% 34% 30% 3.79 .10 1174% 17% 21% 30% 28% 3.60 .17 47

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Nutritional content

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 111: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 33aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Value

1% 2% 17% 30% 50% 4.26 .06 2281% 3% 15% 32% 49% 4.24 .00 47,0331% 2% 17% 30% 50% 4.26 .06 228

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 1% 6% 19% 74% 4.64 .02 1,1330% 1% 9% 27% 62% 4.49 .00 55,6950% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.63 .03 681

9% 16% 75% 4.67 .08 572% 5% 13% 80% 4.69 .05 245

4% 19% 76% 4.72 .07 67 10% 27% 64% 4.54 .07 83

0% 1% 9% 25% 64% 4.52 .01 19,0340% 1% 9% 28% 61% 4.48 .01 6,8480% 1% 9% 27% 62% 4.49 .01 12,8041% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .01 7,4290% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.53 .01 2,3741% 2% 10% 29% 59% 4.43 .01 7,2071% 1% 7% 22% 69% 4.56 .07 108

6% 11% 83% 4.78 .13 18 8% 13% 79% 4.71 .13 24

8% 8% 8% 33% 42% 3.92 .38 128% 15% 8% 69% 4.31 .35 13

4% 19% 76% 4.72 .07 67 3% 5% 17% 75% 4.64 .07 121 2% 5% 20% 74% 4.66 .06 129 25% 75% 4.75 .11 16 13% 21% 67% 4.54 .15 24

4% 1% 11% 84% 4.71 .09 79 36% 64% 4.64 .13 14 3% 13% 84% 4.82 .07 38

1% 5% 12% 82% 4.73 .07 93 6% 21% 72% 4.66 .06 94 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .08 67 9% 16% 75% 4.67 .08 57 17% 28% 55% 4.38 .14 29

1% 4% 21% 73% 4.66 .07 94 6% 25% 69% 4.64 .10 36

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Value

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 112: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 33bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Value

6% 11% 27% 35% 21% 3.54 .07 2636% 11% 27% 32% 23% 3.54 .00 55,8606% 11% 27% 35% 21% 3.54 .07 263

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8% 13% 23% 23% 32% 3.58 .03 1,4447% 13% 24% 29% 27% 3.55 .00 67,7638% 14% 24% 22% 32% 3.57 .04 876

13% 17% 27% 14% 30% 3.31 .16 715% 11% 22% 28% 35% 3.76 .07 3096% 12% 18% 26% 38% 3.77 .14 77

15% 14% 24% 23% 23% 3.24 .13 1118% 14% 26% 28% 24% 3.46 .01 23,0869% 16% 26% 27% 22% 3.39 .01 8,1346% 11% 22% 31% 30% 3.68 .01 15,5986% 12% 24% 29% 29% 3.65 .01 9,2186% 11% 21% 30% 31% 3.70 .02 2,9567% 13% 24% 29% 27% 3.57 .01 8,7729% 14% 31% 22% 23% 3.36 .10 141

9% 23% 32% 36% 3.95 .21 226% 6% 14% 26% 49% 4.06 .20 35

13% 19% 19% 50% 4.06 .28 1611% 6% 22% 22% 39% 3.72 .32 186% 12% 18% 26% 38% 3.77 .14 77

10% 18% 27% 23% 23% 3.32 .10 1647% 13% 27% 22% 31% 3.57 .10 1565% 18% 27% 23% 27% 3.50 .26 22

13% 6% 28% 28% 25% 3.47 .23 322% 13% 17% 27% 41% 3.92 .11 100

11% 16% 26% 16% 32% 3.42 .32 196% 14% 20% 20% 41% 3.76 .18 513% 11% 25% 35% 26% 3.71 .10 1103% 11% 13% 28% 46% 4.03 .11 1123% 12% 17% 19% 49% 4.00 .12 95

13% 17% 27% 14% 30% 3.31 .16 7126% 18% 18% 21% 16% 2.82 .24 3815% 17% 26% 21% 21% 3.16 .12 11913% 13% 28% 17% 28% 3.35 .20 46

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Value

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 113: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 34aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Availability of posted menu items

1% 8% 17% 34% 40% 4.05 .07 2271% 5% 14% 37% 43% 4.16 .00 47,1551% 8% 17% 34% 40% 4.05 .07 227

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 8% 25% 65% 4.52 .02 1,1191% 2% 11% 35% 51% 4.33 .00 54,7120% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .03 674

5% 40% 54% 4.49 .08 571% 2% 6% 19% 72% 4.59 .05 2511% 4% 22% 72% 4.63 .09 67

4% 14% 29% 53% 4.30 .10 701% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.31 .01 18,7351% 3% 11% 38% 48% 4.29 .01 6,6951% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.36 .01 12,6381% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.38 .01 7,4001% 2% 8% 34% 55% 4.40 .02 2,3441% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.30 .01 6,901

3% 11% 28% 58% 4.42 .08 108 11% 17% 72% 4.61 .16 18 7% 26% 67% 4.59 .12 27 18% 27% 55% 4.36 .24 11 8% 8% 85% 4.77 .17 13

1% 4% 22% 72% 4.63 .09 67 2% 7% 25% 66% 4.53 .07 122

1% 9% 25% 65% 4.54 .06 126 8% 8% 23% 62% 4.38 .27 13 8% 4% 25% 63% 4.42 .19 24

3% 3% 5% 13% 77% 4.58 .10 77 45% 18% 36% 3.91 .28 11 8% 24% 68% 4.59 .11 37

1% 2% 4% 24% 69% 4.58 .08 99 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .07 93 5% 9% 33% 53% 4.35 .10 66 5% 40% 54% 4.49 .08 57 14% 41% 45% 4.32 .15 22

1% 1% 3% 29% 66% 4.57 .07 93 3% 11% 14% 71% 4.54 .14 35

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Availability of posted menu items

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 114: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 34bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Availability of posted menu items

3% 13% 26% 34% 25% 3.65 .07 2684% 9% 19% 34% 34% 3.85 .00 56,5543% 13% 26% 34% 25% 3.65 .07 268

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 5% 10% 30% 51% 4.22 .03 1,4463% 6% 14% 33% 46% 4.13 .00 67,1993% 5% 9% 31% 52% 4.23 .03 8836% 6% 25% 18% 46% 3.93 .14 722% 4% 8% 31% 55% 4.34 .05 3221% 4% 8% 34% 53% 4.34 .10 773% 12% 22% 27% 36% 3.80 .12 923% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.09 .01 23,0183% 6% 14% 34% 44% 4.12 .01 8,0662% 5% 13% 30% 50% 4.20 .01 15,4943% 6% 13% 34% 45% 4.13 .01 9,2762% 5% 10% 32% 52% 4.26 .02 2,9322% 6% 15% 33% 43% 4.08 .01 8,4146% 11% 9% 32% 43% 3.95 .10 141

17% 22% 30% 30% 3.74 .23 233% 3% 11% 18% 66% 4.42 .16 38

11% 11% 26% 53% 4.21 .24 195% 5% 11% 26% 53% 4.16 .27 191% 4% 8% 34% 53% 4.34 .10 774% 7% 8% 30% 51% 4.17 .08 1662% 3% 10% 27% 59% 4.37 .07 1576% 6% 28% 28% 33% 3.78 .27 187% 14% 10% 28% 41% 3.83 .24 292% 1% 11% 27% 59% 4.40 .09 100

13% 25% 38% 25% 3.75 .25 166% 6% 21% 67% 4.44 .14 522% 4% 6% 37% 51% 4.32 .08 1193% 1% 5% 29% 62% 4.47 .08 1111% 4% 13% 36% 46% 4.22 .09 956% 6% 25% 18% 46% 3.93 .14 72

14% 28% 21% 38% 3.83 .21 293% 3% 8% 39% 49% 4.29 .08 119

9% 7% 35% 50% 4.26 .14 46

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Availability of posted menu items

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 115: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 35aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of menu choices

0% 2% 12% 33% 52% 4.34 .05 2270% 1% 9% 34% 56% 4.43 .00 47,5230% 2% 12% 33% 52% 4.34 .05 227

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.45 .02 1,1221% 2% 10% 35% 53% 4.38 .00 55,0020% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .03 673

4% 7% 38% 52% 4.38 .10 561% 3% 7% 25% 64% 4.48 .05 251

6% 30% 64% 4.58 .07 67 1% 13% 31% 55% 4.39 .09 75

0% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .01 18,8320% 1% 9% 36% 53% 4.40 .01 6,7211% 2% 11% 35% 52% 4.35 .01 12,6951% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.36 .01 7,4151% 1% 8% 34% 56% 4.44 .02 2,3591% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .01 6,981

1% 9% 31% 58% 4.47 .07 108 11% 6% 83% 4.72 .16 18 12% 27% 62% 4.50 .14 26 20% 10% 70% 4.50 .27 10 15% 8% 77% 4.62 .21 13 6% 30% 64% 4.58 .07 67

1% 2% 11% 28% 59% 4.42 .07 121 2% 11% 33% 55% 4.40 .07 126 8% 46% 46% 4.38 .18 13 4% 12% 23% 62% 4.42 .17 26

3% 5% 4% 22% 66% 4.43 .11 76 33% 8% 58% 4.25 .28 12 3% 8% 31% 59% 4.46 .12 39

1% 3% 6% 26% 64% 4.49 .08 100 1% 11% 26% 62% 4.49 .08 93 5% 11% 32% 53% 4.33 .10 66 4% 7% 38% 52% 4.38 .10 56 8% 42% 50% 4.42 .13 24

1% 3% 7% 36% 53% 4.37 .09 92 11% 31% 58% 4.47 .12 36

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 116: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 35bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of menu choices

10% 16% 18% 34% 22% 3.42 .08 2697% 15% 23% 31% 24% 3.48 .01 57,363

10% 16% 18% 34% 22% 3.42 .08 269 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 7% 12% 33% 45% 4.10 .03 1,4454% 10% 18% 33% 35% 3.85 .00 67,7133% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.12 .04 8786% 21% 21% 24% 28% 3.48 .15 713% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.25 .05 3231% 7% 12% 33% 47% 4.18 .11 765% 9% 18% 33% 35% 3.84 .12 975% 10% 19% 33% 33% 3.79 .01 23,1595% 12% 18% 33% 31% 3.74 .01 8,1214% 9% 16% 33% 38% 3.94 .01 15,5943% 8% 16% 33% 40% 3.99 .01 9,3193% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.00 .02 2,9585% 10% 19% 33% 33% 3.79 .01 8,5637% 9% 11% 35% 38% 3.88 .10 141

17% 17% 26% 39% 3.87 .24 233% 11% 16% 70% 4.51 .15 37

5% 26% 26% 42% 4.05 .22 1911% 6% 17% 22% 44% 3.83 .33 181% 7% 12% 33% 47% 4.18 .11 764% 8% 12% 29% 47% 4.08 .09 1652% 3% 10% 32% 53% 4.30 .07 1586% 6% 17% 44% 28% 3.83 .26 186% 10% 6% 39% 39% 3.94 .22 313% 1% 9% 35% 52% 4.33 .09 101

12% 35% 24% 29% 3.71 .25 174% 8% 8% 32% 48% 4.12 .16 502% 3% 9% 34% 52% 4.31 .08 1203% 2% 5% 28% 62% 4.45 .08 1112% 9% 20% 36% 33% 3.87 .11 956% 21% 21% 24% 28% 3.48 .15 716% 10% 19% 26% 39% 3.81 .22 312% 3% 11% 44% 40% 4.16 .08 1164% 9% 15% 40% 32% 3.87 .16 47

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 117: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 36aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of healthy menu choices

3% 3% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .07 2241% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.32 .00 47,2243% 3% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .07 224

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 6% 14% 25% 51% 4.15 .03 1,1072% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.27 .00 54,4464% 6% 15% 25% 51% 4.12 .04 6672% 7% 22% 27% 42% 4.00 .14 554% 4% 11% 25% 56% 4.25 .07 2476% 6% 15% 28% 45% 3.98 .15 653% 5% 11% 25% 56% 4.26 .12 732% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.28 .01 18,6461% 3% 12% 31% 53% 4.31 .01 6,6902% 4% 13% 31% 50% 4.22 .01 12,5462% 4% 13% 31% 51% 4.25 .01 7,2942% 4% 11% 31% 51% 4.25 .02 2,3312% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.30 .01 6,940

10% 8% 21% 15% 47% 3.82 .13 105 6% 17% 78% 4.50 .23 18 15% 30% 56% 4.41 .14 27

8% 15% 23% 15% 38% 3.62 .38 138% 8% 8% 15% 62% 4.15 .37 136% 6% 15% 28% 45% 3.98 .15 653% 3% 11% 26% 56% 4.30 .09 1173% 10% 15% 26% 45% 3.99 .10 125

42% 58% 4.58 .15 12 4% 8% 28% 60% 4.44 .16 25

4% 5% 11% 24% 55% 4.22 .13 748% 8% 17% 17% 50% 3.92 .40 125% 3% 16% 29% 47% 4.11 .18 385% 3% 11% 25% 56% 4.23 .11 99

1% 12% 25% 62% 4.48 .08 933% 9% 14% 45% 29% 3.88 .13 652% 7% 22% 27% 42% 4.00 .14 554% 8% 17% 17% 54% 4.08 .25 243% 5% 12% 24% 56% 4.24 .11 936% 3% 6% 26% 59% 4.29 .19 34

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of healthy menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 118: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 36bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of healthy menu choices

8% 15% 26% 33% 18% 3.38 .07 2678% 14% 24% 32% 22% 3.45 .01 56,7578% 15% 26% 33% 18% 3.38 .07 267

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 11% 20% 29% 36% 3.82 .03 1,4066% 12% 22% 30% 29% 3.65 .00 66,7614% 10% 20% 29% 36% 3.83 .04 8589% 31% 22% 18% 21% 3.10 .16 684% 9% 17% 28% 43% 3.98 .06 3131% 7% 24% 29% 39% 3.97 .12 727% 8% 27% 31% 26% 3.60 .12 957% 13% 23% 30% 26% 3.55 .01 22,8327% 13% 22% 31% 27% 3.58 .01 8,0395% 10% 21% 30% 33% 3.75 .01 15,3874% 10% 22% 31% 32% 3.77 .01 9,0974% 9% 20% 31% 36% 3.86 .02 2,9057% 13% 22% 30% 27% 3.56 .01 8,502

13% 20% 31% 15% 20% 3.08 .11 137 9% 39% 52% 4.43 .14 23

3% 11% 14% 71% 4.51 .16 35 6% 19% 44% 31% 4.00 .22 16

11% 16% 16% 32% 26% 3.47 .31 191% 7% 24% 29% 39% 3.97 .12 722% 6% 11% 32% 49% 4.19 .08 1604% 10% 24% 28% 33% 3.77 .09 1566% 6% 25% 38% 25% 3.69 .28 16

13% 13% 19% 32% 23% 3.39 .24 311% 10% 10% 32% 46% 4.11 .11 96

38% 31% 31% 3.94 .21 166% 6% 16% 27% 45% 3.98 .17 493% 3% 26% 32% 36% 3.93 .10 1173% 4% 6% 30% 58% 4.36 .09 1112% 17% 38% 27% 17% 3.39 .11 909% 31% 22% 18% 21% 3.10 .16 686% 9% 31% 25% 28% 3.59 .21 322% 9% 16% 42% 31% 3.92 .09 1167% 22% 11% 22% 39% 3.65 .20 46

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of healthy menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 119: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 37aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of vegetarian menu choices

21% 14% 15% 18% 31% 3.25 .11 18818% 12% 16% 21% 33% 3.38 .01 40,33721% 14% 15% 18% 31% 3.25 .11 188

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19% 9% 15% 19% 38% 3.48 .05 98617% 11% 15% 21% 35% 3.46 .01 46,65421% 8% 15% 18% 38% 3.42 .06 59722% 14% 16% 24% 22% 3.10 .21 4913% 9% 16% 20% 42% 3.67 .10 21223% 6% 10% 18% 44% 3.53 .21 6214% 12% 14% 21% 39% 3.61 .18 6618% 11% 15% 21% 35% 3.44 .01 15,77618% 12% 15% 22% 33% 3.41 .02 5,60018% 11% 14% 21% 35% 3.45 .01 10,91114% 11% 14% 23% 38% 3.59 .02 6,27817% 11% 12% 22% 37% 3.50 .03 2,06917% 11% 15% 21% 36% 3.47 .02 6,02030% 5% 21% 13% 31% 3.09 .17 9611% 6% 17% 11% 56% 3.94 .34 1813% 8% 17% 21% 42% 3.71 .29 2423% 23% 15% 8% 31% 3.00 .45 13

10% 20% 10% 60% 4.20 .36 1023% 6% 10% 18% 44% 3.53 .21 6217% 13% 14% 18% 38% 3.46 .15 10422% 12% 16% 16% 35% 3.29 .15 1098% 17% 17% 33% 25% 3.50 .38 125% 10% 10% 29% 48% 4.05 .26 21

11% 14% 17% 17% 41% 3.63 .18 6425% 8% 25% 8% 33% 3.17 .47 1226% 3% 3% 18% 50% 3.62 .30 3418% 6% 13% 22% 40% 3.60 .17 8215% 5% 13% 25% 43% 3.75 .16 8022% 10% 19% 22% 27% 3.22 .20 5922% 14% 16% 24% 22% 3.10 .21 4919% 14% 10% 14% 43% 3.48 .36 2120% 5% 11% 20% 44% 3.63 .17 849% 9% 19% 22% 41% 3.75 .24 32

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 120: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 37bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of vegetarian menu choices

12% 14% 30% 25% 20% 3.27 .09 2008% 11% 26% 29% 26% 3.53 .01 43,772

12% 14% 30% 25% 20% 3.27 .09 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6% 9% 25% 22% 38% 3.78 .04 1,1346% 10% 25% 27% 32% 3.68 .01 52,0746% 9% 25% 23% 37% 3.75 .05 697

10% 21% 35% 15% 19% 3.13 .17 524% 8% 23% 18% 47% 3.97 .08 2442% 6% 19% 25% 48% 4.11 .13 639% 8% 29% 23% 31% 3.59 .14 787% 11% 26% 26% 30% 3.60 .01 17,5927% 11% 26% 27% 30% 3.63 .02 5,9856% 10% 23% 26% 35% 3.75 .01 12,2445% 9% 23% 27% 36% 3.80 .01 7,2065% 8% 23% 28% 36% 3.80 .02 2,3257% 10% 26% 27% 30% 3.62 .01 6,722

17% 13% 30% 16% 24% 3.18 .13 111 10% 33% 57% 4.48 .15 21

3% 13% 10% 74% 4.52 .17 31 6% 44% 19% 31% 3.75 .25 16

7% 7% 21% 21% 43% 3.86 .35 142% 6% 19% 25% 48% 4.11 .13 635% 10% 24% 23% 38% 3.80 .11 1285% 8% 29% 26% 33% 3.75 .10 1297% 7% 33% 27% 27% 3.60 .31 15

17% 8% 25% 29% 21% 3.29 .28 243% 8% 22% 19% 48% 4.01 .13 73

15% 15% 31% 38% 3.92 .31 132% 10% 17% 15% 56% 4.12 .18 413% 7% 26% 22% 42% 3.92 .12 883% 6% 9% 19% 63% 4.33 .11 896% 16% 32% 23% 23% 3.42 .14 69

10% 21% 35% 15% 19% 3.13 .17 528% 4% 38% 12% 38% 3.69 .25 265% 6% 28% 32% 28% 3.71 .12 938% 16% 24% 16% 37% 3.58 .22 38

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 121: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 38aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Overall

0% 3% 11% 33% 53% 4.35 .06 2230% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.40 .00 47,4380% 3% 11% 33% 53% 4.35 .06 223

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .02 1,1350% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.52 .00 55,4570% 1% 6% 21% 71% 4.62 .03 677

10% 21% 69% 4.59 .09 580% 0% 6% 18% 76% 4.69 .04 251

3% 18% 79% 4.76 .06 66 2% 6% 29% 63% 4.52 .08 83

0% 1% 8% 31% 60% 4.49 .01 18,8640% 1% 7% 32% 60% 4.50 .01 6,7840% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.54 .01 12,7610% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.57 .01 7,4880% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.58 .01 2,3690% 1% 7% 30% 61% 4.49 .01 7,1921% 1% 12% 16% 71% 4.54 .08 109

22% 78% 4.78 .10 18 19% 22% 59% 4.41 .15 27 36% 64% 4.64 .15 11 7% 20% 73% 4.67 .16 15 3% 18% 79% 4.76 .06 66 1% 4% 24% 71% 4.66 .06 119 1% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .06 126 33% 67% 4.67 .13 15 8% 4% 38% 50% 4.29 .19 24

1% 1% 4% 18% 75% 4.64 .09 76 7% 21% 71% 4.64 .17 14

3% 3% 18% 78% 4.68 .12 40 3% 14% 83% 4.80 .05 99 8% 18% 74% 4.66 .06 92 3% 9% 21% 67% 4.52 .10 67 10% 21% 69% 4.59 .09 58 10% 23% 67% 4.57 .12 30 1% 3% 27% 68% 4.63 .06 95 6% 21% 74% 4.68 .10 34

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Service: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 122: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 38bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Overall

1% 3% 18% 40% 39% 4.12 .05 2682% 3% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .00 57,2621% 3% 18% 40% 39% 4.12 .05 268

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 4% 11% 32% 52% 4.28 .02 1,4622% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .00 68,3862% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.29 .03 8751% 13% 14% 35% 38% 3.94 .13 722% 5% 12% 30% 51% 4.25 .05 3291% 8% 29% 62% 4.50 .09 781% 5% 7% 38% 49% 4.30 .08 1082% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.22 .01 23,2192% 4% 12% 34% 47% 4.21 .01 8,1972% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.27 .01 15,6992% 4% 11% 30% 53% 4.28 .01 9,4353% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.24 .02 2,9942% 3% 10% 33% 53% 4.32 .01 8,8434% 6% 13% 33% 44% 4.06 .09 142

13% 9% 39% 39% 4.04 .21 233% 13% 21% 63% 4.42 .15 38

11% 5% 26% 58% 4.32 .23 1910% 5% 5% 24% 57% 4.14 .29 211% 8% 29% 62% 4.50 .09 781% 2% 14% 29% 55% 4.35 .07 1612% 3% 12% 29% 54% 4.31 .07 156

10% 10% 30% 50% 4.20 .22 203% 3% 6% 39% 48% 4.26 .17 311% 2% 17% 26% 54% 4.31 .09 101

5% 16% 32% 47% 4.21 .21 192% 4% 8% 31% 56% 4.35 .13 521% 6% 10% 38% 46% 4.22 .08 1223% 2% 7% 28% 60% 4.41 .09 1101% 2% 5% 30% 62% 4.49 .08 941% 13% 14% 35% 38% 3.94 .13 72

3% 3% 45% 50% 4.42 .11 382% 3% 11% 39% 45% 4.22 .08 118

11% 13% 32% 45% 4.11 .15 47

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Service: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 123: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 39aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Speed of service

0% 3% 11% 30% 55% 4.37 .06 2210% 2% 10% 36% 51% 4.35 .00 47,4390% 3% 11% 30% 55% 4.37 .06 221

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.65 .02 1,1300% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.52 .00 55,5790% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.64 .03 6752% 5% 22% 71% 4.60 .10 581% 4% 18% 78% 4.71 .04 249

3% 27% 70% 4.67 .07 66 2% 6% 26% 66% 4.55 .08 82

0% 1% 7% 30% 61% 4.50 .01 18,9090% 1% 7% 31% 61% 4.52 .01 6,8120% 1% 6% 29% 63% 4.54 .01 12,7970% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.57 .01 7,5050% 1% 6% 29% 64% 4.56 .01 2,3711% 1% 8% 31% 59% 4.47 .01 7,186

2% 8% 16% 74% 4.62 .07 108 11% 89% 4.89 .08 18 19% 19% 63% 4.44 .15 27 9% 9% 27% 55% 4.27 .30 11 7% 14% 79% 4.71 .16 14 3% 27% 70% 4.67 .07 66 2% 5% 31% 62% 4.54 .06 119 1% 6% 17% 75% 4.67 .06 126 27% 73% 4.73 .12 15 4% 4% 38% 54% 4.42 .16 24

3% 4% 14% 79% 4.67 .09 76 7% 21% 71% 4.64 .17 14

3% 3% 15% 80% 4.70 .12 40 17% 83% 4.83 .04 99 1% 7% 14% 78% 4.70 .07 92 4% 4% 16% 75% 4.61 .10 67

2% 5% 22% 71% 4.60 .10 58 3% 10% 17% 69% 4.52 .15 29 5% 23% 71% 4.66 .06 94 30% 70% 4.70 .08 33

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Speed of service

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 124: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 39bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Speed of service

2% 5% 14% 36% 44% 4.15 .06 2652% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.13 .00 57,1482% 5% 14% 36% 44% 4.15 .06 265

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 5% 14% 29% 49% 4.13 .03 1,4614% 7% 15% 31% 43% 4.03 .00 68,3913% 4% 12% 29% 52% 4.22 .03 876

11% 11% 18% 32% 27% 3.52 .16 714% 7% 20% 26% 43% 3.98 .06 3293% 5% 10% 26% 56% 4.28 .12 784% 4% 12% 35% 46% 4.15 .10 1073% 7% 16% 33% 41% 4.02 .01 23,2396% 9% 17% 31% 37% 3.85 .01 8,2084% 7% 14% 29% 45% 4.04 .01 15,6974% 8% 14% 30% 44% 4.01 .01 9,4315% 9% 15% 28% 43% 3.95 .02 2,9912% 4% 12% 31% 50% 4.22 .01 8,8269% 9% 13% 36% 34% 3.79 .10 1414% 4% 22% 26% 43% 4.00 .24 238% 5% 8% 21% 58% 4.16 .20 38

5% 11% 32% 53% 4.32 .20 19 5% 14% 24% 57% 4.33 .20 21

3% 5% 10% 26% 56% 4.28 .12 781% 4% 7% 28% 60% 4.43 .07 1643% 4% 13% 19% 61% 4.31 .08 1565% 5% 30% 60% 4.35 .24 207% 3% 20% 30% 40% 3.93 .21 302% 5% 20% 27% 47% 4.11 .10 101

11% 16% 21% 53% 4.16 .24 192% 8% 18% 18% 54% 4.14 .16 504% 10% 27% 25% 34% 3.75 .10 1223% 2% 13% 27% 55% 4.31 .09 1101% 3% 6% 28% 61% 4.45 .09 95

11% 11% 18% 32% 27% 3.52 .16 713% 11% 47% 39% 4.21 .14 383% 3% 13% 40% 42% 4.14 .09 1184% 9% 13% 36% 38% 3.96 .16 47

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Speed of service

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 125: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 40aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Hours of operation

0% 2% 10% 28% 59% 4.43 .05 2230% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.43 .00 47,5170% 2% 10% 28% 59% 4.43 .05 223

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.49 .02 1,1241% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 55,2981% 3% 10% 24% 63% 4.44 .03 671

11% 23% 66% 4.55 .09 561% 1% 5% 23% 70% 4.60 .05 2492% 2% 6% 27% 64% 4.50 .10 662% 1% 6% 24% 66% 4.50 .10 821% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 18,7971% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.38 .01 6,7531% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .01 12,7490% 2% 8% 29% 61% 4.48 .01 7,4751% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.40 .02 2,3481% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.46 .01 7,1771% 5% 12% 22% 60% 4.36 .09 108

22% 78% 4.78 .10 18 19% 22% 59% 4.41 .15 27 27% 27% 45% 4.18 .26 11 7% 36% 57% 4.50 .17 14

2% 2% 6% 27% 64% 4.50 .10 663% 2% 7% 32% 58% 4.40 .08 120

4% 7% 22% 67% 4.52 .07 125 7% 13% 80% 4.73 .15 15

8% 4% 4% 33% 50% 4.13 .25 244% 1% 5% 17% 72% 4.53 .11 76

7% 29% 64% 4.57 .17 143% 10% 23% 64% 4.46 .14 39

1% 26% 73% 4.72 .05 98 3% 11% 16% 70% 4.52 .09 89

1% 6% 13% 25% 54% 4.24 .12 67 11% 23% 66% 4.55 .09 56 7% 21% 72% 4.66 .11 29

1% 1% 9% 26% 64% 4.50 .08 94 3% 3% 26% 68% 4.59 .12 34

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Hours of operation

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 126: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 40bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Hours of operation

8% 14% 19% 28% 30% 3.58 .08 2687% 12% 16% 30% 35% 3.75 .01 57,1998% 14% 19% 28% 30% 3.58 .08 268

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.08 .03 1,4424% 9% 15% 29% 43% 3.99 .00 67,9524% 7% 16% 30% 43% 4.01 .04 8643% 6% 14% 27% 51% 4.17 .13 713% 7% 13% 29% 47% 4.10 .06 3211% 6% 3% 25% 65% 4.45 .11 773% 5% 10% 31% 51% 4.24 .10 1095% 10% 16% 30% 39% 3.88 .01 23,0494% 9% 14% 31% 43% 4.00 .01 8,1424% 8% 15% 28% 45% 4.03 .01 15,6164% 8% 14% 29% 45% 4.03 .01 9,3555% 8% 15% 30% 43% 3.98 .02 2,9603% 6% 12% 28% 51% 4.17 .01 8,8315% 4% 17% 32% 42% 4.02 .09 1395% 18% 14% 14% 50% 3.86 .29 225% 3% 11% 24% 58% 4.26 .18 385% 16% 37% 42% 4.11 .24 195% 5% 10% 25% 55% 4.20 .26 201% 6% 3% 25% 65% 4.45 .11 774% 7% 19% 31% 38% 3.92 .09 1623% 7% 16% 30% 44% 4.03 .09 154

10% 25% 65% 4.35 .27 20 9% 9% 44% 38% 4.09 .16 32

2% 9% 13% 26% 49% 4.12 .11 995% 5% 16% 21% 53% 4.11 .27 192% 16% 24% 58% 4.36 .13 503% 6% 13% 30% 48% 4.13 .10 1193% 4% 17% 27% 50% 4.17 .10 1074% 10% 15% 27% 45% 3.98 .12 943% 6% 14% 27% 51% 4.17 .13 71

3% 13% 29% 55% 4.37 .13 386% 10% 15% 32% 37% 3.84 .11 1172% 13% 16% 40% 29% 3.80 .16 45

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Hours of operation

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 127: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 41aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Helpfulness of staff

1% 5% 15% 31% 49% 4.21 .06 2181% 3% 12% 34% 50% 4.29 .00 47,1961% 5% 15% 31% 49% 4.21 .06 218

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .02 1,1200% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 55,2360% 2% 8% 23% 66% 4.52 .03 6722% 2% 13% 32% 52% 4.30 .12 561% 1% 4% 18% 76% 4.67 .04 246

3% 25% 72% 4.69 .07 65 2% 9% 27% 62% 4.48 .08 81

1% 2% 11% 31% 55% 4.38 .01 18,7460% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.38 .01 6,7560% 2% 9% 30% 59% 4.46 .01 12,7520% 1% 8% 29% 61% 4.49 .01 7,4510% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.53 .01 2,3521% 3% 10% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 7,180

5% 12% 18% 65% 4.44 .08 109 6% 28% 67% 4.61 .14 18 4% 15% 19% 62% 4.38 .18 26 9% 18% 73% 4.64 .20 11 7% 20% 73% 4.67 .16 15 3% 25% 72% 4.69 .07 65 2% 8% 32% 58% 4.47 .07 118

1% 2% 6% 23% 68% 4.56 .07 126 27% 73% 4.73 .12 15 4% 13% 33% 50% 4.29 .18 24

1% 1% 5% 16% 76% 4.64 .09 75 8% 8% 15% 69% 4.46 .27 13

3% 8% 15% 74% 4.59 .14 39 2% 18% 80% 4.78 .05 97

1% 1% 7% 18% 74% 4.62 .08 91 5% 14% 21% 61% 4.38 .11 66

2% 2% 13% 32% 52% 4.30 .12 56 10% 28% 62% 4.52 .13 29 2% 5% 24% 68% 4.59 .07 94

3% 24% 73% 4.64 .14 33

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Helpfulness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 128: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 41bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Helpfulness of staff

2% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.12 .06 2572% 4% 13% 30% 51% 4.25 .00 56,7752% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.12 .06 257

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 4% 12% 25% 57% 4.32 .02 1,4482% 3% 11% 29% 55% 4.30 .00 68,0002% 4% 12% 26% 56% 4.30 .03 8691% 6% 20% 33% 40% 4.04 .12 702% 3% 11% 23% 61% 4.37 .05 3241% 3% 4% 23% 69% 4.56 .09 771% 3% 13% 28% 56% 4.34 .08 1082% 4% 12% 31% 51% 4.26 .01 23,0662% 4% 10% 30% 54% 4.31 .01 8,1562% 4% 10% 27% 56% 4.32 .01 15,6242% 4% 10% 27% 58% 4.35 .01 9,3923% 3% 10% 28% 56% 4.31 .02 2,9792% 3% 11% 28% 56% 4.34 .01 8,7843% 4% 13% 30% 51% 4.22 .08 140

9% 22% 13% 57% 4.17 .22 233% 13% 16% 68% 4.47 .15 386% 6% 6% 22% 61% 4.28 .28 18

10% 5% 19% 67% 4.33 .27 211% 3% 4% 23% 69% 4.56 .09 772% 4% 10% 23% 61% 4.39 .07 1613% 3% 17% 21% 55% 4.21 .08 155

5% 40% 55% 4.45 .17 20 3% 19% 28% 50% 4.25 .16 32

1% 6% 9% 19% 65% 4.42 .09 1016% 6% 17% 11% 61% 4.17 .29 182% 4% 6% 22% 67% 4.47 .13 511% 2% 14% 26% 58% 4.38 .08 1181% 3% 11% 26% 59% 4.40 .08 110

2% 11% 27% 61% 4.46 .08 941% 6% 20% 33% 40% 4.04 .12 70

13% 29% 58% 4.45 .12 383% 4% 13% 35% 45% 4.16 .09 1172% 7% 13% 28% 50% 4.17 .15 46

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Helpfulness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 129: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 42aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Friendliness of staff

1% 5% 14% 29% 52% 4.26 .06 2181% 3% 11% 32% 53% 4.33 .00 47,2941% 5% 14% 29% 52% 4.26 .06 218

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 7% 20% 71% 4.59 .02 1,1210% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .00 55,2780% 3% 8% 20% 70% 4.56 .03 6702% 11% 29% 59% 4.43 .11 562% 4% 18% 76% 4.67 .04 249

5% 21% 74% 4.70 .07 66 4% 8% 23% 66% 4.51 .09 80

1% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.42 .01 18,7890% 2% 9% 32% 57% 4.43 .01 6,7780% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .01 12,7350% 1% 7% 27% 65% 4.54 .01 7,4540% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .01 2,3591% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.43 .01 7,1641% 3% 11% 19% 66% 4.47 .08 109

28% 72% 4.72 .11 18 19% 22% 59% 4.41 .15 27 9% 9% 82% 4.73 .19 11 7% 20% 73% 4.67 .16 15 5% 21% 74% 4.70 .07 66 4% 6% 26% 64% 4.49 .07 118 4% 8% 17% 71% 4.55 .07 124 7% 13% 80% 4.73 .15 15 8% 8% 17% 67% 4.42 .20 24

4% 5% 18% 72% 4.55 .10 76 8% 31% 62% 4.54 .18 13 5% 16% 79% 4.74 .09 38 16% 84% 4.84 .04 98 1% 8% 17% 74% 4.64 .07 92 3% 12% 19% 66% 4.48 .10 67

2% 11% 29% 59% 4.43 .11 56 4% 7% 29% 61% 4.46 .15 28 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.65 .07 93

3% 18% 79% 4.70 .13 33

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Friendliness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 130: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 42bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Friendliness of staff

2% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .06 2612% 4% 12% 27% 54% 4.27 .00 57,0232% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .06 261

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 3% 12% 23% 60% 4.36 .03 1,4472% 3% 10% 26% 58% 4.34 .00 68,0643% 3% 13% 23% 59% 4.32 .03 871

9% 14% 29% 49% 4.17 .12 702% 2% 11% 20% 65% 4.42 .05 3211% 1% 5% 23% 69% 4.57 .09 771% 4% 9% 25% 61% 4.42 .08 1082% 3% 11% 28% 55% 4.30 .01 23,0862% 3% 10% 27% 59% 4.37 .01 8,1712% 3% 10% 25% 59% 4.36 .01 15,6332% 3% 9% 24% 61% 4.39 .01 9,3873% 2% 9% 25% 60% 4.38 .02 2,9772% 3% 10% 26% 58% 4.35 .01 8,8113% 4% 12% 25% 56% 4.29 .08 140

9% 17% 13% 61% 4.26 .22 233% 11% 14% 73% 4.54 .15 375% 5% 5% 21% 63% 4.32 .27 19

10% 5% 19% 67% 4.33 .27 211% 1% 5% 23% 69% 4.57 .09 772% 3% 10% 26% 59% 4.38 .07 1624% 6% 18% 16% 56% 4.15 .09 155

5% 5% 25% 65% 4.50 .18 20 6% 6% 29% 58% 4.39 .16 31

3% 1% 11% 18% 67% 4.44 .10 995% 5% 16% 16% 58% 4.16 .28 192% 4% 10% 14% 71% 4.47 .14 512% 4% 8% 22% 64% 4.42 .09 1192% 2% 12% 24% 61% 4.40 .09 110

1% 4% 31% 64% 4.58 .06 95 9% 14% 29% 49% 4.17 .12 70 11% 26% 63% 4.53 .11 38

4% 1% 18% 26% 51% 4.18 .10 116 2% 18% 24% 56% 4.33 .13 45

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Friendliness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 131: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 43aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Overall

0% 9% 23% 68% 4.58 .05 2260% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.57 .00 47,4810% 9% 23% 68% 4.58 .05 226

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 1% 5% 18% 76% 4.67 .02 1,1190% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.59 .00 55,1541% 1% 6% 18% 74% 4.64 .03 667

10% 19% 71% 4.60 .09 580% 1% 4% 16% 80% 4.73 .04 251

16% 84% 4.84 .04 68 1% 9% 20% 69% 4.57 .08 75

0% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .01 18,8340% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .01 6,7460% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .01 12,6680% 1% 5% 23% 70% 4.62 .01 7,4460% 1% 4% 19% 75% 4.68 .01 2,3561% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.58 .01 7,1051% 3% 5% 21% 71% 4.58 .08 106

11% 22% 67% 4.56 .17 18 15% 22% 63% 4.48 .14 27 20% 80% 4.80 .13 10 7% 7% 86% 4.79 .15 14 16% 84% 4.84 .04 68

1% 2% 4% 22% 72% 4.62 .07 120 2% 18% 80% 4.77 .04 124 7% 13% 80% 4.73 .15 15 4% 22% 74% 4.65 .15 23

1% 3% 20% 76% 4.67 .09 75 15% 31% 54% 4.38 .21 13

3% 13% 85% 4.77 .11 39 2% 14% 84% 4.82 .04 99

1% 4% 17% 77% 4.70 .07 92 17% 17% 66% 4.49 .10 65 10% 19% 71% 4.60 .09 58 17% 17% 67% 4.50 .16 24

1% 2% 8% 16% 73% 4.58 .08 93 6% 8% 86% 4.81 .09 36

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Cleanliness: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 132: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 43bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Overall

1% 6% 13% 37% 43% 4.15 .06 2682% 5% 13% 38% 42% 4.13 .00 57,4051% 6% 13% 37% 43% 4.15 .06 268

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 2% 9% 31% 56% 4.37 .02 1,4501% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.36 .00 68,1222% 2% 9% 30% 57% 4.38 .03 8743% 3% 18% 42% 34% 4.01 .11 711% 2% 9% 32% 56% 4.38 .05 3233% 1% 5% 23% 68% 4.52 .10 772% 2% 7% 30% 60% 4.44 .08 1052% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.28 .01 23,1601% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.37 .01 8,1871% 2% 9% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 15,6071% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.45 .01 9,3852% 2% 7% 27% 62% 4.47 .02 2,9882% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.37 .01 8,7962% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.26 .08 140

13% 30% 57% 4.43 .15 233% 3% 24% 71% 4.61 .13 386% 17% 33% 44% 4.11 .25 18

19% 29% 52% 4.33 .17 213% 1% 5% 23% 68% 4.52 .10 771% 1% 9% 29% 61% 4.48 .06 1643% 3% 9% 28% 58% 4.36 .07 1575% 5% 21% 68% 4.47 .23 193% 3% 10% 47% 37% 4.10 .18 301% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.34 .09 99

6% 6% 6% 83% 4.67 .20 182% 20% 14% 64% 4.38 .13 501% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.37 .07 1212% 6% 31% 61% 4.50 .07 111

4% 5% 38% 53% 4.39 .08 933% 3% 18% 42% 34% 4.01 .11 71

5% 32% 63% 4.58 .10 383% 3% 8% 31% 55% 4.31 .09 1182% 2% 9% 32% 55% 4.34 .14 44

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Cleanliness: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 133: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 44aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Serving areas

0% 9% 28% 63% 4.52 .05 2250% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 47,4080% 9% 28% 63% 4.52 .05 225

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 7% 22% 69% 4.56 .02 1,0971% 2% 8% 26% 65% 4.52 .00 54,4320% 2% 7% 22% 68% 4.56 .03 661

2% 11% 20% 68% 4.54 .10 561% 2% 4% 21% 71% 4.60 .05 245

4% 18% 78% 4.74 .06 68 6% 15% 25% 54% 4.27 .11 67

0% 2% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .01 18,6880% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.52 .01 6,6831% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.50 .01 12,5471% 2% 7% 26% 65% 4.53 .01 7,3880% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.63 .01 2,3271% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.50 .01 6,800

3% 10% 23% 64% 4.49 .08 104 18% 18% 65% 4.47 .19 17 15% 35% 50% 4.35 .15 26 10% 30% 60% 4.50 .22 10 7% 14% 79% 4.71 .16 14 4% 18% 78% 4.74 .06 68

1% 3% 6% 24% 66% 4.50 .08 116 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.66 .06 124 15% 23% 62% 4.46 .22 13 13% 4% 35% 48% 4.17 .21 23

4% 3% 3% 21% 70% 4.50 .11 76 33% 25% 42% 4.08 .26 12 24% 76% 4.76 .07 38 1% 20% 79% 4.78 .04 97

1% 2% 5% 19% 72% 4.59 .08 93 2% 12% 27% 59% 4.44 .09 66 2% 11% 20% 68% 4.54 .10 56 5% 16% 16% 63% 4.37 .22 19

1% 1% 9% 19% 70% 4.56 .08 93 9% 6% 19% 66% 4.41 .17 32

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Serving areas

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 134: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 44bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Serving areas

1% 3% 12% 36% 48% 4.26 .05 2682% 4% 11% 36% 47% 4.24 .00 57,3181% 3% 12% 36% 48% 4.26 .05 268

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.29 .02 1,4071% 3% 10% 33% 54% 4.35 .00 67,1211% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.27 .03 8643% 4% 10% 39% 44% 4.17 .12 701% 4% 13% 32% 50% 4.28 .05 3083% 5% 27% 65% 4.52 .09 77

3% 9% 38% 50% 4.34 .08 882% 3% 10% 35% 50% 4.29 .01 23,0191% 2% 9% 33% 54% 4.36 .01 8,1131% 3% 9% 31% 55% 4.36 .01 15,4111% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.41 .01 9,2722% 2% 7% 28% 62% 4.47 .02 2,9532% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.35 .01 8,3541% 6% 15% 36% 42% 4.11 .08 138

17% 30% 52% 4.35 .16 233% 8% 28% 61% 4.44 .15 366% 11% 11% 39% 33% 3.83 .28 18

5% 20% 20% 55% 4.25 .22 203% 5% 27% 65% 4.52 .09 771% 2% 11% 31% 55% 4.38 .06 1592% 4% 11% 29% 54% 4.29 .08 157

6% 6% 38% 50% 4.31 .22 16 4% 7% 48% 41% 4.26 .15 27 6% 11% 31% 51% 4.27 .09 96 6% 6% 12% 76% 4.59 .21 17

2% 4% 16% 26% 52% 4.22 .14 501% 3% 13% 39% 44% 4.23 .08 120

5% 7% 33% 55% 4.39 .08 111 7% 10% 37% 47% 4.24 .09 92

3% 4% 10% 39% 44% 4.17 .12 70 14% 43% 43% 4.29 .13 28

3% 3% 9% 34% 51% 4.28 .09 116 6% 14% 25% 56% 4.31 .15 36

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Serving areas

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 135: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 45aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

0% 8% 26% 65% 4.55 .05 2240% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.53 .00 47,1840% 8% 26% 65% 4.55 .05 224

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.52 .02 1,0581% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.47 .00 53,1621% 3% 7% 24% 65% 4.51 .03 639

5% 24% 71% 4.65 .08 553% 2% 5% 19% 71% 4.54 .06 237

6% 22% 72% 4.66 .07 652% 3% 16% 19% 60% 4.32 .12 621% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.49 .01 18,4051% 2% 7% 29% 61% 4.47 .01 6,5841% 3% 8% 27% 61% 4.43 .01 12,1671% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.49 .01 7,1830% 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.63 .01 2,3302% 2% 8% 26% 62% 4.43 .01 6,494

5% 6% 21% 68% 4.52 .08 103 12% 24% 65% 4.53 .17 17 24% 12% 64% 4.40 .17 25 9% 9% 18% 64% 4.36 .31 11

7% 7% 14% 71% 4.43 .31 14 6% 22% 72% 4.66 .07 65

1% 6% 7% 26% 59% 4.36 .09 1082% 6% 27% 65% 4.55 .07 121

8% 17% 75% 4.67 .19 12 5% 5% 29% 62% 4.48 .18 21

3% 4% 22% 72% 4.59 .09 74 33% 25% 42% 4.08 .26 12 3% 27% 70% 4.68 .09 37

1% 2% 21% 76% 4.69 .07 971% 1% 4% 25% 69% 4.58 .08 89

2% 11% 27% 61% 4.47 .09 66 5% 24% 71% 4.65 .08 55

6% 6% 24% 6% 59% 4.06 .31 171% 1% 9% 20% 69% 4.54 .09 877% 11% 7% 19% 56% 4.04 .26 27

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 136: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 45bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

1% 8% 14% 38% 39% 4.06 .06 2663% 8% 18% 35% 36% 3.92 .00 57,1791% 8% 14% 38% 39% 4.06 .06 266

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 8% 18% 32% 39% 3.96 .03 1,3582% 6% 15% 32% 45% 4.11 .00 65,3853% 8% 20% 34% 35% 3.89 .04 8313% 17% 13% 30% 37% 3.81 .14 702% 7% 18% 26% 47% 4.09 .06 2984% 3% 9% 27% 57% 4.31 .12 751% 6% 15% 42% 36% 4.05 .10 843% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.02 .01 22,6472% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.11 .01 7,9652% 6% 14% 31% 47% 4.13 .01 14,8952% 5% 13% 30% 51% 4.23 .01 9,0052% 3% 9% 29% 57% 4.36 .02 2,9573% 6% 15% 33% 44% 4.09 .01 7,9174% 12% 18% 34% 33% 3.81 .10 137

30% 30% 39% 4.09 .18 233% 21% 15% 62% 4.32 .17 34

6% 13% 44% 38% 4.13 .22 16 5% 21% 21% 53% 4.21 .22 19

4% 3% 9% 27% 57% 4.31 .12 753% 7% 20% 38% 32% 3.88 .09 1444% 10% 18% 29% 39% 3.90 .09 147

20% 7% 47% 27% 3.80 .28 154% 4% 19% 44% 30% 3.93 .19 27

10% 14% 28% 48% 4.14 .10 96 6% 12% 24% 59% 4.35 .23 17

4% 8% 16% 25% 47% 4.04 .16 512% 5% 22% 29% 42% 4.05 .09 121

9% 22% 31% 38% 3.98 .09 1104% 8% 16% 42% 29% 3.85 .11 923% 17% 13% 30% 37% 3.81 .14 70

20% 48% 32% 4.12 .15 255% 6% 25% 32% 32% 3.77 .11 111

11% 11% 14% 18% 46% 3.79 .27 28

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 137: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 46aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Location

2% 7% 14% 34% 42% 4.08 .07 2271% 4% 13% 34% 48% 4.23 .00 47,5332% 7% 14% 34% 42% 4.08 .07 227

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 3% 9% 29% 57% 4.37 .03 1,1191% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .00 54,8151% 4% 10% 31% 53% 4.31 .03 6712% 2% 12% 32% 53% 4.32 .12 572% 1% 7% 23% 67% 4.52 .05 2501% 1% 3% 28% 66% 4.55 .09 671% 1% 14% 28% 55% 4.35 .10 741% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.26 .01 18,7101% 4% 11% 36% 48% 4.25 .01 6,7071% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .01 12,6321% 3% 9% 31% 56% 4.39 .01 7,4291% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.39 .02 2,3391% 3% 10% 30% 55% 4.35 .01 6,9992% 6% 11% 26% 55% 4.25 .10 108

6% 18% 76% 4.71 .14 17 12% 23% 65% 4.54 .14 26

9% 9% 27% 55% 4.18 .38 11 23% 15% 62% 4.38 .24 13

1% 1% 3% 28% 66% 4.55 .09 67 5% 10% 36% 48% 4.28 .08 116

1% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.35 .08 127 29% 71% 4.71 .13 14

5% 5% 5% 24% 62% 4.33 .24 215% 6% 24% 64% 4.42 .11 78

14% 21% 64% 4.50 .20 14 5% 11% 34% 50% 4.29 .14 38 3% 4% 26% 67% 4.57 .07 98 4% 9% 32% 55% 4.38 .09 92 7% 9% 39% 45% 4.21 .11 67

2% 2% 12% 32% 53% 4.32 .12 57 28% 36% 36% 4.08 .16 25

3% 1% 12% 31% 54% 4.31 .10 953% 6% 14% 77% 4.63 .14 35

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Location

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 138: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 46bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Location

2% 9% 12% 32% 45% 4.08 .06 2701% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.43 .00 57,3932% 9% 12% 32% 45% 4.08 .06 270

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 3% 13% 32% 51% 4.27 .02 1,4511% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.44 .00 67,9131% 3% 12% 36% 48% 4.26 .03 8771% 10% 18% 28% 42% 4.00 .13 712% 2% 12% 25% 59% 4.37 .05 3233% 4% 9% 26% 58% 4.33 .11 763% 1% 20% 26% 50% 4.19 .10 1041% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.41 .01 23,1451% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.45 .01 8,1591% 2% 8% 27% 61% 4.45 .01 15,5821% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.47 .01 9,3821% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.48 .01 2,9801% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.48 .01 8,6664% 15% 39% 42% 4.16 .08 140

9% 13% 30% 48% 4.17 .21 233% 13% 24% 61% 4.39 .15 38

5% 32% 63% 4.58 .14 19 24% 29% 48% 4.24 .18 21

3% 4% 9% 26% 58% 4.33 .11 762% 2% 13% 40% 43% 4.19 .07 1611% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.29 .07 1565% 11% 32% 53% 4.26 .24 193% 17% 23% 57% 4.30 .18 304% 2% 13% 23% 58% 4.28 .10 99

21% 21% 58% 4.37 .19 19 4% 8% 25% 63% 4.47 .11 51

1% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.51 .07 1211% 4% 9% 30% 56% 4.38 .08 1121% 4% 8% 37% 49% 4.29 .09 951% 10% 18% 28% 42% 4.00 .13 713% 3% 28% 28% 39% 3.97 .17 361% 4% 14% 40% 41% 4.16 .08 120

7% 14% 30% 50% 4.23 .14 44

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Location

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 139: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 47aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Layout of facility

1% 9% 21% 42% 27% 3.84 .07 2242% 8% 18% 38% 34% 3.93 .00 47,3511% 9% 21% 42% 27% 3.84 .07 224

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 6% 14% 32% 45% 4.13 .03 1,1122% 7% 17% 37% 37% 4.01 .00 54,5192% 7% 14% 33% 44% 4.10 .04 6685% 14% 23% 28% 30% 3.63 .16 573% 4% 11% 30% 52% 4.24 .06 2431% 1% 6% 36% 55% 4.42 .10 671% 5% 18% 32% 43% 4.10 .11 772% 8% 17% 37% 36% 3.97 .01 18,6302% 7% 17% 40% 34% 3.97 .01 6,6852% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.00 .01 12,4812% 6% 15% 37% 40% 4.08 .01 7,3792% 6% 13% 38% 41% 4.12 .02 2,3332% 7% 17% 36% 38% 4.02 .01 7,0122% 10% 18% 30% 41% 3.98 .10 105

11% 11% 28% 50% 4.17 .25 18 19% 31% 50% 4.31 .15 26 18% 36% 45% 4.27 .24 11 8% 23% 23% 46% 4.08 .29 13

1% 1% 6% 36% 55% 4.42 .10 672% 7% 13% 44% 34% 4.03 .09 1162% 8% 14% 28% 47% 4.10 .09 127

7% 14% 36% 43% 4.14 .25 144% 4% 4% 35% 52% 4.26 .22 234% 6% 12% 22% 56% 4.19 .13 77

14% 29% 57% 4.43 .20 14 11% 16% 32% 42% 4.05 .16 38

2% 2% 8% 40% 47% 4.29 .09 97 7% 13% 30% 50% 4.24 .10 92

3% 4% 13% 36% 43% 4.12 .12 675% 14% 23% 28% 30% 3.63 .16 57

8% 35% 31% 27% 3.77 .19 262% 6% 12% 33% 47% 4.16 .10 947% 7% 7% 20% 60% 4.20 .23 30

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Layout of facility

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 140: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 47bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Layout of facility

1% 3% 15% 37% 44% 4.21 .05 2662% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.30 .00 57,3001% 3% 15% 37% 44% 4.21 .05 266

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 3% 15% 34% 45% 4.18 .02 1,4312% 3% 11% 33% 50% 4.28 .00 67,4982% 3% 14% 37% 44% 4.18 .03 8641% 4% 16% 31% 47% 4.19 .11 703% 4% 16% 31% 46% 4.13 .06 3171% 3% 7% 29% 61% 4.45 .10 762% 3% 22% 32% 41% 4.08 .09 1042% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.26 .01 23,0042% 4% 11% 33% 49% 4.23 .01 8,1502% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.26 .01 15,3831% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.33 .01 9,3251% 2% 10% 30% 56% 4.38 .02 2,9642% 3% 10% 33% 52% 4.31 .01 8,6734% 2% 15% 39% 39% 4.07 .09 138

9% 22% 26% 43% 4.04 .21 233% 3% 14% 19% 62% 4.35 .17 37

6% 44% 50% 4.44 .15 185% 24% 19% 52% 4.14 .24 211% 3% 7% 29% 61% 4.45 .10 761% 3% 15% 40% 41% 4.16 .07 1602% 6% 12% 32% 49% 4.20 .08 1565% 5% 16% 32% 42% 4.00 .26 193% 3% 17% 33% 43% 4.10 .19 305% 5% 17% 33% 40% 3.98 .11 100

26% 32% 42% 4.16 .19 192% 4% 16% 24% 53% 4.22 .14 492% 6% 14% 35% 44% 4.13 .09 1211% 3% 12% 35% 50% 4.29 .08 1091% 4% 15% 36% 43% 4.16 .10 921% 4% 16% 31% 47% 4.19 .11 70

3% 28% 31% 39% 4.06 .15 362% 1% 13% 45% 39% 4.19 .08 119

21% 29% 50% 4.29 .13 38

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Layout of facility

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 141: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 48aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Appearance

2% 10% 20% 37% 31% 3.84 .07 2242% 8% 19% 38% 33% 3.92 .00 47,2382% 10% 20% 37% 31% 3.84 .07 224

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 6% 13% 32% 47% 4.15 .03 1,1172% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.02 .00 54,3841% 8% 14% 33% 44% 4.11 .04 669

12% 4% 18% 26% 40% 3.79 .18 573% 4% 9% 30% 54% 4.27 .06 2492% 2% 9% 26% 62% 4.45 .10 663% 5% 12% 39% 41% 4.11 .11 762% 7% 18% 37% 37% 3.99 .01 18,5302% 8% 18% 39% 33% 3.94 .01 6,6652% 7% 17% 36% 39% 4.02 .01 12,5322% 5% 15% 37% 41% 4.11 .01 7,3591% 4% 12% 37% 46% 4.23 .02 2,3272% 7% 18% 36% 38% 4.01 .01 6,9721% 8% 18% 25% 47% 4.09 .10 106

17% 28% 56% 4.39 .18 18 22% 30% 48% 4.26 .16 27 36% 18% 45% 4.09 .28 11

14% 21% 7% 57% 3.93 .40 142% 2% 9% 26% 62% 4.45 .10 661% 13% 10% 38% 38% 4.00 .10 1171% 8% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .09 126

43% 57% 4.57 .14 144% 4% 9% 39% 43% 4.13 .22 233% 6% 9% 31% 51% 4.21 .12 77

15% 31% 54% 4.38 .21 133% 5% 15% 33% 44% 4.10 .16 391% 4% 6% 31% 57% 4.40 .09 96

8% 12% 32% 49% 4.22 .10 92 3% 17% 42% 38% 4.15 .10 66

12% 4% 18% 26% 40% 3.79 .18 574% 12% 19% 42% 23% 3.69 .21 263% 9% 12% 31% 46% 4.07 .11 946% 6% 3% 31% 54% 4.23 .19 35

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Appearance

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 142: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 48bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Appearance

1% 5% 18% 44% 32% 4.01 .05 2681% 3% 10% 34% 52% 4.32 .00 57,1811% 5% 18% 44% 32% 4.01 .05 268

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 2% 13% 35% 48% 4.23 .02 1,4341% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.34 .00 67,4733% 2% 13% 37% 45% 4.19 .03 8671% 3% 19% 26% 51% 4.22 .11 692% 2% 11% 31% 54% 4.34 .05 3201% 1% 3% 34% 61% 4.51 .09 743% 1% 23% 34% 39% 4.06 .09 1041% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.28 .01 22,9491% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.35 .01 8,1251% 2% 10% 33% 53% 4.34 .01 15,4601% 2% 8% 31% 58% 4.42 .01 9,3221% 1% 7% 30% 60% 4.45 .01 2,9711% 2% 11% 33% 53% 4.34 .01 8,6476% 3% 12% 40% 39% 4.04 .09 140

4% 22% 22% 52% 4.22 .20 233% 16% 21% 61% 4.37 .15 386% 6% 39% 50% 4.28 .24 18

16% 26% 58% 4.42 .18 191% 1% 3% 34% 61% 4.51 .09 741% 1% 17% 37% 44% 4.23 .07 1602% 3% 11% 35% 49% 4.28 .07 1565% 21% 26% 47% 4.11 .25 197% 3% 27% 33% 30% 3.77 .21 302% 2% 10% 34% 52% 4.31 .09 99

26% 21% 53% 4.26 .20 192% 14% 30% 54% 4.34 .12 503% 3% 7% 34% 53% 4.32 .09 1183% 2% 13% 34% 48% 4.23 .09 1082% 4% 17% 39% 37% 4.05 .10 941% 3% 19% 26% 51% 4.22 .11 69

19% 44% 36% 4.17 .12 363% 3% 8% 44% 42% 4.21 .08 118

17% 26% 57% 4.39 .11 46

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Appearance

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 143: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 49aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Availability of seating

0% 1% 12% 37% 49% 4.33 .05 2271% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.36 .00 47,2180% 1% 12% 37% 49% 4.33 .05 227

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 4% 10% 25% 60% 4.39 .03 1,0812% 4% 11% 32% 50% 4.26 .00 52,8271% 4% 10% 25% 60% 4.39 .03 656

4% 14% 25% 57% 4.36 .12 563% 4% 8% 23% 62% 4.38 .06 2391% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .09 672% 3% 19% 25% 51% 4.21 .12 631% 4% 11% 32% 52% 4.30 .01 18,3011% 4% 11% 35% 50% 4.27 .01 6,5462% 5% 13% 33% 48% 4.19 .01 12,1332% 4% 11% 31% 51% 4.26 .01 7,1591% 2% 8% 32% 57% 4.43 .02 2,3153% 5% 12% 31% 49% 4.19 .01 6,3741% 4% 10% 29% 56% 4.36 .09 107

6% 6% 18% 71% 4.53 .21 17 4% 17% 25% 54% 4.29 .19 24 23% 23% 8% 46% 3.77 .36 13

8% 15% 15% 62% 4.23 .34 131% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .09 672% 6% 10% 29% 53% 4.27 .09 1092% 4% 11% 20% 63% 4.40 .09 123

15% 15% 69% 4.54 .22 13 9% 14% 23% 55% 4.23 .22 22

3% 3% 3% 25% 68% 4.52 .10 779% 18% 18% 55% 4.09 .39 11

5% 27% 68% 4.62 .10 37 4% 9% 22% 64% 4.47 .08 98 4% 9% 26% 60% 4.43 .09 91 11% 25% 65% 4.54 .09 65 4% 14% 25% 57% 4.36 .12 56 29% 41% 29% 4.00 .19 17

1% 5% 7% 26% 61% 4.39 .09 9415% 7% 7% 26% 44% 3.78 .28 27

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Availability of seating

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 144: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 49bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Availability of seating

1% 6% 17% 37% 38% 4.05 .06 2723% 7% 16% 32% 43% 4.05 .00 57,2421% 6% 17% 37% 38% 4.05 .06 272

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8% 14% 22% 26% 30% 3.56 .03 1,3574% 8% 16% 30% 43% 4.00 .00 65,2038% 15% 23% 26% 28% 3.51 .04 8396% 4% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .14 69

12% 15% 22% 24% 28% 3.42 .08 2931% 5% 16% 18% 60% 4.30 .11 778% 15% 20% 29% 28% 3.54 .14 794% 8% 17% 31% 41% 3.98 .01 22,6684% 9% 16% 29% 41% 3.93 .01 7,9743% 7% 16% 29% 44% 4.04 .01 14,8523% 9% 17% 29% 42% 3.97 .01 9,0092% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.23 .02 2,9563% 8% 17% 30% 43% 4.01 .01 7,745

14% 16% 20% 22% 28% 3.33 .12 139 5% 27% 32% 36% 4.00 .20 22

6% 9% 21% 15% 48% 3.91 .22 336% 19% 19% 19% 38% 3.63 .34 16

6% 24% 29% 41% 4.06 .23 171% 5% 16% 18% 60% 4.30 .11 776% 20% 27% 29% 18% 3.34 .10 1477% 15% 19% 30% 29% 3.58 .10 1516% 35% 12% 29% 18% 3.18 .31 177% 11% 25% 29% 29% 3.61 .23 289% 17% 24% 24% 26% 3.41 .13 968% 15% 8% 31% 38% 3.77 .38 138% 6% 18% 20% 48% 3.94 .18 50

13% 17% 20% 25% 24% 3.30 .12 1192% 12% 27% 25% 34% 3.76 .11 106

10% 17% 21% 28% 24% 3.39 .13 926% 4% 17% 30% 42% 3.99 .14 69

10% 5% 29% 29% 29% 3.62 .27 218% 16% 26% 28% 22% 3.41 .11 116

25% 14% 18% 21% 21% 3.00 .29 28

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Availability of seating

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 145: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 50aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

1% 4% 15% 36% 44% 4.18 .06 2241% 4% 14% 39% 43% 4.20 .00 46,8911% 4% 15% 36% 44% 4.18 .06 224

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 5% 11% 30% 53% 4.28 .03 1,0832% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.19 .00 52,7692% 5% 12% 30% 51% 4.24 .04 653

5% 16% 36% 43% 4.17 .12 582% 3% 6% 30% 58% 4.38 .06 2351% 3% 30% 66% 4.58 .09 674% 6% 19% 24% 47% 4.04 .14 701% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.19 .01 18,1631% 4% 14% 39% 41% 4.15 .01 6,5392% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.15 .01 12,1211% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.25 .01 7,1431% 2% 8% 35% 54% 4.38 .02 2,3003% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.12 .01 6,5041% 5% 15% 31% 48% 4.21 .09 106

12% 18% 71% 4.59 .17 174% 13% 30% 52% 4.26 .21 23

15% 8% 23% 54% 3.69 .44 13 23% 23% 54% 4.31 .24 13

1% 3% 30% 66% 4.58 .09 675% 6% 14% 30% 45% 4.05 .11 1092% 5% 11% 27% 56% 4.31 .09 123

14% 29% 57% 4.43 .20 144% 4% 13% 26% 52% 4.17 .23 231% 4% 4% 32% 59% 4.43 .10 759% 18% 9% 64% 4.18 .40 11

3% 8% 32% 57% 4.43 .13 37 2% 5% 31% 62% 4.53 .07 98 6% 10% 33% 51% 4.30 .09 90 5% 12% 34% 49% 4.28 .11 65 5% 16% 36% 43% 4.17 .12 58

5% 14% 27% 27% 27% 3.59 .25 221% 6% 10% 30% 53% 4.27 .10 93

12% 12% 4% 27% 46% 3.85 .28 26

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 146: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 50bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

3% 6% 18% 38% 35% 3.98 .06 2692% 4% 13% 35% 46% 4.19 .00 57,1833% 6% 18% 38% 35% 3.98 .06 269

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5% 9% 21% 29% 36% 3.82 .03 1,3652% 5% 14% 33% 45% 4.14 .00 65,3844% 11% 22% 30% 32% 3.76 .04 8383% 7% 19% 23% 49% 4.07 .13 707% 6% 19% 28% 40% 3.89 .07 2931% 5% 16% 28% 50% 4.20 .11 767% 11% 22% 31% 30% 3.65 .13 882% 6% 15% 35% 42% 4.09 .01 22,5982% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.16 .01 7,9922% 6% 14% 32% 45% 4.13 .01 14,8672% 5% 14% 31% 48% 4.18 .01 9,0262% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.30 .02 2,9502% 5% 14% 33% 46% 4.15 .01 7,9527% 12% 25% 27% 30% 3.63 .10 138

5% 27% 27% 41% 4.05 .20 229% 3% 30% 6% 52% 3.88 .23 33

13% 25% 13% 50% 4.00 .29 166% 28% 22% 44% 4.00 .27 181% 5% 16% 28% 50% 4.20 .11 764% 8% 28% 37% 23% 3.67 .09 1455% 13% 19% 30% 32% 3.72 .10 1516% 11% 22% 44% 17% 3.56 .26 187% 10% 28% 31% 24% 3.55 .22 295% 8% 20% 30% 37% 3.86 .12 977% 14% 14% 14% 50% 3.86 .38 144% 6% 16% 18% 56% 4.16 .16 505% 4% 14% 33% 44% 4.07 .10 1182% 10% 20% 27% 41% 3.94 .11 1085% 12% 17% 36% 29% 3.72 .12 923% 7% 19% 23% 49% 4.07 .13 707% 11% 19% 30% 33% 3.70 .24 273% 14% 23% 34% 26% 3.67 .10 116

19% 11% 22% 30% 19% 3.19 .27 27

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 147: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 51aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Environmentally friendly practices related to food

6% 6% 21% 26% 41% 3.90 .08 1985% 6% 17% 29% 43% 3.99 .01 43,3286% 6% 21% 26% 41% 3.90 .08 198

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6% 4% 16% 24% 51% 4.10 .04 1,0224% 5% 15% 28% 47% 4.08 .00 49,7085% 4% 18% 24% 49% 4.08 .05 620

17% 2% 19% 25% 38% 3.65 .21 485% 3% 9% 24% 59% 4.29 .07 2257% 5% 13% 20% 56% 4.13 .16 616% 6% 21% 26% 41% 3.91 .14 685% 6% 16% 28% 46% 4.05 .01 16,9765% 5% 15% 30% 45% 4.05 .01 6,0925% 5% 15% 27% 47% 4.06 .01 11,4463% 4% 13% 28% 51% 4.20 .01 6,6834% 5% 14% 29% 49% 4.14 .02 2,1044% 5% 15% 28% 47% 4.08 .01 6,4086% 4% 21% 25% 44% 3.97 .12 1006% 19% 6% 69% 4.31 .30 168% 13% 21% 58% 4.21 .25 249% 9% 9% 73% 4.36 .39 11

8% 25% 67% 4.58 .19 127% 5% 13% 20% 56% 4.13 .16 613% 5% 17% 21% 54% 4.19 .10 1056% 3% 18% 27% 46% 4.05 .11 1147% 21% 29% 43% 4.00 .31 14

5% 5% 38% 52% 4.38 .18 216% 6% 6% 26% 57% 4.24 .13 72

18% 36% 18% 27% 3.36 .43 115% 3% 16% 22% 54% 4.16 .19 373% 3% 11% 23% 59% 4.30 .11 875% 2% 18% 26% 49% 4.13 .12 885% 5% 17% 32% 42% 4.00 .14 60

17% 2% 19% 25% 38% 3.65 .21 485% 14% 27% 18% 36% 3.68 .27 226% 7% 18% 19% 51% 4.02 .13 897% 7% 27% 60% 4.33 .20 30

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 148: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 51bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Environmentally friendly practices related to food

3% 4% 27% 36% 29% 3.84 .07 2343% 4% 19% 36% 38% 4.02 .00 51,5223% 4% 27% 36% 29% 3.84 .07 234

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 4% 18% 32% 44% 4.11 .03 1,2373% 4% 18% 33% 42% 4.09 .00 60,6493% 4% 19% 31% 43% 4.09 .04 751

6% 25% 38% 32% 3.96 .12 533% 4% 15% 28% 51% 4.21 .06 2792% 2% 8% 34% 55% 4.39 .10 646% 3% 16% 43% 32% 3.93 .11 903% 4% 18% 34% 41% 4.06 .01 20,7103% 4% 18% 35% 40% 4.06 .01 7,2972% 4% 18% 32% 43% 4.10 .01 13,8372% 4% 17% 31% 45% 4.13 .01 8,3652% 3% 16% 32% 46% 4.17 .02 2,6053% 4% 18% 33% 43% 4.09 .01 7,8366% 6% 20% 32% 36% 3.87 .10 122

11% 26% 63% 4.53 .16 193% 9% 27% 61% 4.42 .16 33

8% 31% 62% 4.46 .24 136% 12% 6% 24% 53% 4.06 .31 172% 2% 8% 34% 55% 4.39 .10 642% 1% 21% 33% 43% 4.12 .08 1382% 4% 19% 33% 41% 4.06 .08 1396% 6% 56% 33% 4.06 .25 18

11% 4% 11% 41% 33% 3.81 .24 272% 2% 13% 36% 47% 4.22 .10 86

27% 40% 33% 4.07 .21 154% 7% 7% 24% 59% 4.26 .17 462% 4% 18% 23% 53% 4.21 .10 104

4% 15% 29% 52% 4.29 .09 981% 4% 17% 33% 44% 4.15 .11 75

6% 25% 38% 32% 3.96 .12 533% 3% 23% 40% 30% 3.90 .18 304% 2% 29% 33% 33% 3.88 .10 1013% 5% 21% 26% 46% 4.08 .17 39

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 149: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 52aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Social/ethical practices related to food

7% 6% 23% 23% 41% 3.87 .09 1935% 7% 18% 28% 41% 3.92 .01 42,3467% 6% 23% 23% 41% 3.87 .09 193

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6% 3% 16% 24% 50% 4.09 .04 1,0055% 6% 16% 27% 45% 4.02 .01 48,5465% 3% 18% 25% 49% 4.09 .05 606

15% 2% 15% 29% 40% 3.77 .20 485% 3% 10% 22% 59% 4.27 .07 2238% 5% 15% 20% 52% 4.03 .16 617% 4% 27% 24% 37% 3.79 .15 676% 6% 17% 28% 44% 3.99 .01 16,5556% 6% 17% 29% 42% 3.96 .02 5,9196% 6% 16% 26% 46% 4.01 .01 11,2104% 5% 14% 27% 50% 4.14 .01 6,5124% 5% 15% 28% 48% 4.09 .02 2,0625% 6% 17% 27% 45% 4.02 .01 6,2887% 3% 19% 25% 46% 4.00 .12 976% 19% 6% 69% 4.31 .30 168% 13% 21% 58% 4.21 .25 24

10% 10% 10% 70% 4.30 .42 10 8% 33% 58% 4.50 .19 12

8% 5% 15% 20% 52% 4.03 .16 613% 5% 17% 22% 53% 4.17 .11 1007% 3% 17% 24% 48% 4.03 .11 1157% 36% 21% 36% 3.79 .32 145% 10% 38% 48% 4.24 .22 216% 7% 6% 21% 61% 4.24 .14 71

18% 45% 9% 27% 3.27 .43 113% 8% 17% 28% 44% 4.03 .18 365% 2% 12% 21% 60% 4.30 .12 866% 2% 17% 25% 49% 4.10 .12 875% 19% 37% 39% 4.04 .14 57

15% 2% 15% 29% 40% 3.77 .20 485% 14% 29% 19% 33% 3.62 .27 215% 2% 18% 24% 51% 4.15 .12 887% 13% 27% 53% 4.20 .21 30

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 150: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

TABLE 52bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Social/ethical practices related to food

3% 7% 23% 35% 32% 3.88 .07 2303% 4% 20% 35% 39% 4.04 .00 50,4523% 7% 23% 35% 32% 3.88 .07 230

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 3% 18% 32% 45% 4.14 .03 1,2192% 3% 18% 32% 43% 4.11 .00 59,1392% 3% 19% 31% 44% 4.13 .04 7424% 2% 21% 42% 32% 3.96 .13 532% 3% 16% 28% 51% 4.23 .06 2732% 2% 11% 29% 57% 4.38 .11 635% 3% 20% 41% 31% 3.90 .11 883% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.07 .01 20,2492% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.09 .01 7,0672% 3% 19% 31% 45% 4.13 .01 13,5052% 3% 17% 31% 47% 4.17 .01 8,1352% 3% 16% 31% 48% 4.19 .02 2,5362% 3% 18% 32% 44% 4.13 .01 7,6484% 3% 21% 32% 39% 3.99 .10 119

5% 21% 11% 63% 4.32 .23 193% 9% 25% 63% 4.44 .16 32

31% 69% 4.69 .13 136% 17% 33% 44% 4.11 .25 182% 2% 11% 29% 57% 4.38 .11 631% 2% 20% 31% 45% 4.16 .08 1342% 1% 22% 33% 42% 4.11 .08 1416% 6% 6% 56% 28% 3.94 .25 18

12% 4% 15% 38% 31% 3.73 .25 261% 2% 12% 33% 51% 4.30 .10 81

20% 47% 33% 4.13 .19 155% 2% 9% 30% 53% 4.26 .16 431% 3% 18% 25% 53% 4.27 .09 101

3% 11% 32% 53% 4.35 .08 961% 3% 18% 34% 45% 4.18 .11 744% 2% 21% 42% 32% 3.96 .13 53

3% 34% 31% 31% 3.90 .17 295% 3% 28% 30% 34% 3.85 .11 1035% 5% 24% 27% 39% 3.90 .18 41

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit# 15Retail Unit# 16Retail Unit# 17Retail Unit# 18Retail Unit# 19Retail Unit# 20Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2016 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2017 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 151: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

Appendix

Page 152: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016
Page 153: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

The National Association of College & University Food ServicesCUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

Please take a few moments to share your opinions about the food service at this campus facility. Your thoughtful and candidresponses will help us serve you better. Please return your completed questionnaire to one of the survey administrators on site, or dropit in the nearby "return box." To preserve confidentiality, your name is not requested. Thank you for your participation.

Demographics (For data classification purposes)

You may use pen or pencil. Please fill in the marks like this: Not like this:

1. Which of the following best describes you? (Mark only one)Student Faculty Administration/Staff Other

First year2. If you are a student, what is your class status? (Mark only one)

Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Other

MaleFemale

On campus (university-owned housing) Off campus

3. Gender Identity . . .

4. Do you live . . .Your Thoughts . . .

Very Dissatisfied1. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the dining services provided by your college/university?

Somewhat Dissatisfied Mixed Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied

Food:Overall Taste Eye appeal Freshness Nutritional content Value

Menu:Availability of posted menu items Variety of menu choices Variety of healthy menu choices Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Service:Overall Speed of service Hours of operation Helpfulness of staff Friendliness of staff

Cleanliness:Overall Serving areas Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Dining Environment:Location Layout of facility Appearance Availability of seating Comfort

Environmentally-friendly practicesrelated to food Social/ethical practices related to food

(seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

We welcome your comments on the back of this page.

Environmental Stewardship/Sustainability:

Copyright © 2016. The National Association of College & University Food Services. All Rights Reserved. CP36-0056 (C1.F3)

NotApplicable

VeryDissatisfied

1

SomewhatDissatisfied

2Mixed

3

SomewhatSatisfied

4

VerySatisfied

5

VeryImportant

5

SomewhatImportant

4Mixed

3

Not VeryImportant

2

Not at AllImportant

1

Other IdentityTransgender

IMPORTANCE(Select one rating per line)

SATISFACTION(Select one rating per line)

2. Please rate your satisfaction with the following items and their importance to you. (Rate the items as they apply to this facility in general,without regard to any specific meal.)

SAMPLE

Page 154: NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 Packets... · 2017. 4. 17. · NACUFS CS 2016 Report - Boilerplate Part 1 ... 17 2016

Thank you for your valuable input.Copyright © 2016. The National Association of College & University Food Services. All Rights Reserved.

Is there anything else concerning campus dining that you wish to share?

If you could make one change to any aspect of the dining services at this college/university, what would it be?

SAMPLE