Every year is an opportunity to point out different things about the “Best Places to Work” effort for government agencies. This year it’s kind of handy because they have published the ranks and changes since 2003 and across categories. Remember they are ranks, not absolute values, so other agencies going down can have just as much influence as the agencies we’re interested in going up.
Here’s the Forest Service:
Questions: (1) Do these differences actually mean anything (e.g. for 2007 66.4 was above median and in 2016 66.6 was below the median)?. It might be more useful to see the actual scores if the same questions were being asked through time.
Here are some other graphs
(2) it looks like scores have been climbing since 2013 based on the index score trend graph. What happened in 2013? Does it mean anything?
(3) They also have a graph of workforce size, which appears to have taken a big hit between 2010 and 2011 (4K ish employees). Is that real?
For comparison, here is BLM. The two agencies appear to have identical rank and index in 2017 (252 and 60.1). FS went up 2.5 and BLM 4.3.
Here is the National Park Service:
I don’t know who exactly qualifies as senior leadership in the survey, but all three agencies were extremely close in their rankings on this. It also looks like.
It looks like all three agencies had a downward trend in total ranks starting in 2012. Their workforces also took a relatively big hit between 2010 and 2011. Are these perhaps related?
Perhaps others have more ideas and information on these observations.