2012 ARMY MWR SERVICES SURVEY

Transcription

1 2012 ARMY MWR SERVICES SURVEY Fort Hamilton 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA USA

2 Introduction The 2012 Army MWR Services Survey was designed to ensure that the Army has the data needed to make well-informed business and programming decisions about recreational facilities, activities, and programs and to help ensure that such programs and services are available to meet the needs of the community. Specifically, the goals of the Army MWR Services Survey include: Provide input for the Family and MWR five-year planning cycle Provide insight for daily operations and marketing planning Meet the requirements for needs assessments under AR and fulfill the requirement for customer satisfaction data in the Installation Status Report Help to justify program and budget decisions for Family and MWR Programs and Services Assist Family and MWR managers in making the decisions of business managers about new and existing programs and services in the Garrison The Army MWR Services Survey also helps to demonstrate the positive impact that Family and MWR programs have on intermediate-level variables such as Soldier and Spouse satisfaction with Army life, which in turn directly drive readiness and retention in the military. The Army MWR Services Survey is the most appropriate and well-tailored data source to empirically validate these linkages and demonstrate the contribution of Family and MWR programs to important Army outcomes. The study reports present survey findings to achieve each of these goals. The Garrison-level reports present findings specific for each installation, and because each installation s survey includes tailored questions with tailored responses, and installation-specific questions about local Family and MWR facilities and programs, each Garrison-level report presents results specific for that installation. The analyses include a demographic profile summary of the program users at the installation, descriptive statistics of survey data, and a strategic marketing analysis that incorporates usage, interest and satisfaction ratings of specific programs and services, and links these ratings to overall satisfaction measures through a key driver analysis. The Garrison-level reports also inform each Garrison as to which potential programs and services are of greatest interest to prospective users. In short, the Garrison-level reports provide Family and MWR program managers with action-oriented results concerning the facilities, programs, and services in their Garrison. While this study is quite comprehensive and has been conducted under a rigorous research methodology Commanders and IMCOM decision-makers should keep in mind that it is somewhat of a snapshot of conditions existing at the time the survey was conducted. Commanders and IMCOM decision-makers should also consider data and insights from Town Halls, ICE, Senior Spouse groups, IMCOM and Staff, and other informal channels of collecting the voice of the customer as part of their action plan. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 2

3 Limitations on data reporting The original sampling and data collection methodology was designed to achieve a predetermined number of returned surveys to allow data to be reported for each of the four patron groups (i.e., Active Duty; Spouses of Active Duty; Retirees; and Civilian employees), and for the Garrison population overall. While this goal was achieved for the majority of the Garrisons surveyed, there were 6 Garrisons where survey returns were not sufficient to allow reporting for all four patron groups. For these 6 Garrisons only data for the Garrison population overall and the three patron groups with sufficient data are reported. For the Fort Hamilton Garrison report, data from Active Duty are included in Garrison totals, but are not presented separately due to insufficient data for this group (n<30). In addition, data from Spouses are not reportable for most survey items as the number of respondents in this group was also very low (n=34). Because data (percentages) based on small sample sizes (in this case, less than 30 returned surveys) can be unreliable, we have limited reporting to only those instances where the data are based on 30 or more responses. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Executive Summary Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents For Fort Hamilton Satisfaction With Family and MWR Programs and Services Satisfaction With Family and MWR Programs and Services Importance and Awareness of MWR Programs Most Important MWR Programs to Have on a Garrison Awareness of MWR Programs and Facilities Family and MWR Program Outcomes Outdoor Recreation Outdoor Recreation Centers Picnic and Recreation Areas Individual and Team Sports On Post Golf Courses Indoor Pools on Post Outdoor Pools on Post Fitness Centers / Physical Fitness On Post Fitness Centers Army Leisure Travel Services Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Entertainment and Events Family and MWR Army Entertainment Leisure Recreation and Special Interests On Post Bowling Center Arts and Crafts Activities On Post Automotive Skills Center On Post Warrior Zones (Active Duty Only) Libraries On Post Libraries Army Child, Youth, and School Age Programs and Services Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 4

5 13.1 Army Child Care Services Food and Beverage Location of Meals Eaten Out Frequency of Meals Eaten Out Importance of Certain Factors in the Decision of Where to Eat Out Amount Spent on Meals When Eating Off Post Level of Satisfaction with Selected Food and Beverage Services APPENDIX A: Comparison of Selected Survey Items to 2005 Survey Data APPENDIX B: Background of Survey APPENDIX C: Survey Methodology and Administration APPENDIX D: Army MWR Services Survey Report Portal APPENDIX E: ICF Qualifications APPENDIX F: 2012 ARMY MWR SERVICES SURVEY Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 5

6 1. Executive Summary The objective of this Army MWR Services Survey was to obtain the opinions, perceptions, attitudes, and interests of personnel supported by respective installations about specified MWR programs and to obtain an assessment of market share and market potential for MWR Programs and Services at the installation level. The project involved conducting surveys of 272,411 persons stationed at or associated with 75 Army Garrisons worldwide. The specific focus was on the four market segments of Active Duty Service Members; Spouses of Active Duty Service Members; DoD Civilians; and Retirees. Target populations included individuals living on and off post. Data collection operations were conducted February 29, 2012 through May 23, 2012 and included both and United States Postal Service (USPS) mail options for respondents to complete the survey. The Fort Hamilton survey results are based on 594 returned surveys and have been weighted across the 4 respondent groups to be representative of the total Garrison population. Following is a general summary of the Fort Hamilton survey results: Overall, a majority of respondents (60%) indicated they are satisfied with the Army Family and MWR Programs and Services at Ft. Hamilton; less than 10 percent (4%) are dissatisfied. Compared to other places they had been stationed/assigned, slightly less than one-half (43%) of respondents rated the Army Family and MWR Programs and Services at Ft. Hamilton as Above average or Among the best. Large percentages of respondents indicated AAFES/Exchange as a recent (within the past 12 months) source of information about Family and MWR services and activities. Direct Mail and Word of Mouth (friends, colleagues, other) on post also had high percentages of respondents indicating these as sources of information. For Retirees and Civilians, Fitness Center/Physical Fitness Center and Army Lodging were both rated in their top seven most important programs. Retirees also rated Swimming Pools; Leisure Travel Services/Ticket and Registration Office; Community Center; Library; and Athletic Fields/Sports Courts as their top seven most important programs. Civilians rated the Child Development Center as a top seven most important program. Almost two-thirds of all respondents (63%) indicated that special events (4 th of July celebrations) should be considered Very important in MWR funding decisions for Ft. Hamilton. The predominant users of MWR Programs and Services at Ft. Hamilton are Retirees. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 6

7 2. Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents For Fort Hamilton The table below provides demographic and other descriptive characteristics of the survey respondents for Fort Hamilton. Data shown in the table are unweighted. As noted in the Executive Summary, survey results presented in all other sections of this report are weighted to reflect the Garrison population totals provided by DMDC. Because not all respondents answered every question, totals for some descriptive categories reported below may be less than the number of total survey respondents. AD SPOUSE RETIREE CIVILIAN TOTAL Population (DMDC Data) , ,722 Percent of Total 3% 18% 71% 8% Sample Size , ,079 Percent of Total 4% 22% 65% 10% Respondents Percent of Total 1% 6% 82% 11% Gender Age Male % 0% 92% 7% Female % 29% 43% 27% 25 or Younger % 100% 0% 0% 26 to % 82% 9% 9% 31 to % 63% 13% 19% 36 to % 38% 8% 38% 41 and older % 1% 89% 9% Education Level Some High School % 13% 87% 0% High School Grad/GED % 6% 82% 13% Some College % 6% 82% 9% College Degree % 8% 79% 12% Post Grad Study/Degree % 3% 85% 10% Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 7

8 AD SPOUSE RETIREE CIVILIAN TOTAL Marital/Family Status Married, living with spouse 5 N/A % 90% 9% Married, not living with spouse 2 N/A % 81% 6% Single 1 N/A % 80% 20% Widowed 0 N/A % 85% 15% Single Parent 0 N/A % 69% 31% Have Children Living With Them Child < 6 yrs % 39% 48% 9% Child 6 to < 13 yrs % 22% 60% 13% Child 13 to < 16 yrs % 10% 68% 19% Child 16 to 18 yrs % 4% 83% 13% Rank/Grade Jr Enl (E1 E4) Jr NCO (E5 E6) Sr NCO (E7 E9) WO (WO1 CW5) Co Grade Off (O1 O3) 0 N/A N/A N/A 0% 4 N/A N/A N/A 57% 1 N/A N/A N/A 14% 1 N/A N/A N/A 14% 0 N/A N/A N/A 0% 1 N/A N/A N/A 14% Field Grade Off (O4 O6) 7 Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 8

9 AD SPOUSE RETIREE CIVILIAN Residence Location On Post % 49% 23% 11% Off Post % 3% 86% 11% TOTAL Commute Time From Post < 10 min % 0% 79% 21% min % 7% 76% 16% min % 0% 93% 7% min % 2% 89% 9% 60 min % 5% 78% 16% Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 9

10 3. Satisfaction With Family and MWR Programs and Services This section presents data on overall satisfaction with Family and MWR Programs and Services, at Fort Hamilton. 3.1 Satisfaction With Family and MWR Programs and Services Overall Satisfaction with Family and MWR Programs and Services and overall satisfaction with military life was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from Very satisfied to Very dissatisfied and included a mid-point of Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. In addition, respondents were asked to rate the Army Family and MWR Programs at their installation using the scale: Among the best; Above average; Average; Below average; Among the worst. A Does not apply response option was also provided. Figure 3.1 presents overall satisfaction with Family and MWR Programs and Services at this installation for the total Garrison population and for each of the response groups. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Figure 3.1 Overall Satisfaction With Army Family and MWR Programs and Services at Fort Hamilton Very Satisfied / Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied Army Overall 60% 33% 7% Workforce Overall 55% 37% 7% Garrison Overall 60% 36% 4% AD Spouse 52% 36% 12% Retiree 62% 36% 2% Civilian 60% 33% 6% Note: No percentage reported for groups w ith insufficient data (n<30). Overall, three-fifths of respondents (60%) indicated they are satisfied with the Army Family and MWR Programs and Services at Ft. Hamilton. Less than five percent (4%) are dissatisfied. Greater percentages of Retirees (62%) and Civilians (60%) indicated being satisfied with the programs than Spouses (52%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 10

11 Figure 3.2 presents respondents rating of Family and MWR Programs and Services at their current installation as compared to other places they have been stationed. The data are presented for the total Garrison population and for each individual response group. Figure 3.2 Overall Rating of Family and MWR Programs and Services at Fort Hamilton Compared to Other Places They Have Been Stationed Above Average/Among the Best Average Below Average/Among the Worst Garrison 43% 47% 9% AD Spouse Retiree 48% 46% 6% Civilian 38% 49% 13% Note: No percentage reported for groups w ith insufficient data (n<30). Overall, compared to other places they had been stationed/assigned, over two-fifths (43%) of respondents rated Ft. Hamilton as Above average or Among the best. Slightly less than onehalf (48%) of Retirees rated this installation as Above average or Among the best, while just about two-fifths (38%) of Civilians rated Ft. Hamilton as Above average or Among the best. Only 9% of respondents rated the MWR Programs and Services at this Garrison as Below average or Among the worst compared to other places they had been stationed/assigned. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 11

12 4. Importance and Awareness of MWR Programs This section provides information on importance of Army Family and MWR Programs and sources respondents use to obtain information about these programs. 4.1 Most Important MWR Programs to Have on a Garrison To obtain information on the importance of certain Army Family and MWR Programs in MWR funding decisions, respondents were asked to indicate a level of importance (ranging from Not at all important to Very important ) on a list of up to four Garrison-specific programs. Figure 4.1 presents the percent of respondents indicating that a particular program was Very important. Figure 4.1 Importance of Programs in MWR Funding Decisions for Fort Hamilton Special Events (4th of July Celebrations) 63% Club Systems 34% Activity Centers 55% Bowling Centers 21% 0% 50% Almost two-thirds of all respondents (63%) indicated that special events (4 th of July celebrations) should be considered Very important in MWR funding decisions for Ft. Hamilton. In addition, over one-half of respondents (55%) also indicated that activity centers should be considered a Very important MWR funding priority for this Garrison. To obtain information on the importance of a wide range of certain Army Family and MWR Programs, the respondents were asked to select from a list of programs which ones they considered most important to have on an Army Garrison. Respondents were asked to select no more than seven programs. Table 4.1 presents data on most important programs to have on an Army Garrison as viewed by the different respondent groups surveyed. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 12

13 Table 4.1 Most Important Programs to Have on an Army Garrison for Fort Hamilton by Response Group Program AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Garrison Total Fitness Center/Physical Fitness Center N/A N/A 66% 82% 70% Army Lodging N/A N/A 71% 68% 65% Swimming Pools N/A N/A 43% N/A 44% Child Development Center N/A N/A 30% 61% 40% Library N/A N/A 39% N/A 40% Community Center N/A N/A 40% N/A 39% Leisure Travel Service/Ticket and Registration Office N/A N/A 42% N/A 38% Athletic Fields/Sports Courts N/A N/A 37% N/A 36% Clubs N/A N/A 36% N/A 32% School Age Services N/A N/A 22% N/A 32% Bowling Center N/A N/A 30% N/A 31% Post Picnic and Recreation Areas N/A N/A 24% N/A 24% Better Opportunities for Single Soldiers (BOSS) N/A N/A 18% N/A 19% Recreation Lodging N/A N/A 21% N/A 18% Outdoor Recreation N/A N/A 18% N/A 18% Automotive Skills N/A N/A 18% N/A 17% Car Wash N/A N/A 14% N/A 15% Arts and Craft center N/A N/A 15% N/A 14% Cabins & Campgrounds, RV Parks N/A N/A 11% N/A 9% Golf Course N/A N/A 9% N/A 7% Golf Practice Facility/Driving Range N/A N/A 6% N/A 5% Warrior Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). For Retirees and Civilians, Fitness Center/Physical Fitness Center and Army Lodging were both rated in their top seven most important programs. Retirees also rated Swimming Pools; Leisure Travel Services/Ticket and Registration Office; Community Center; Library; and Athletic Fields/Sports Courts as their top seven most important programs. Civilians rated the Child Development Center as a top seven most important program. There were insufficient data to report the percentages for most programs among Civilians. 4.2 Awareness of MWR Programs and Facilities To gather information on awareness of MWR Programs and Facilities, respondents were asked to indicate from a list of up to ten sources those sources where they had heard about Family MWR services, events, and activities in the past 12 months. Table 4.2 presents data on sources respondents have heard about their Garrison s Family and MWR services, events and activities in the past 12 months. The survey had the capacity to list up to ten sources. The first seven sources were common to all installations; the remaining three allowed each Garrison to list sources that might be specific to the Garrison. Since many of the installations listed a source that could be regarded as social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) those results have been included. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 13

14 Table 4.2 Sources From Which Respondents Have Heard About Fort Hamilton s Family and MWR Services Source AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Garrison Total AAFES/Exchange N/A 24% 59% 23% 50% Direct Mail N/A 33% 49% 16% 44% Word of Mouth (friends, colleagues, other) N/A 33% 30% 66% 36% Commissary/DECA N/A 16% 38% 17% 33% Bulletin boards on post N/A 24% 26% 63% 30% N/A 33% 19% 74% 28% Print N/A 27% 23% 37% 26% ArmyMWR.com Website N/A 30% 21% 35% 24% Social Media N/A 39% 12% 35% 20% Family Readiness Group (FRG) N/A 21% 11% 14% 14% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). AAFES/Exchange emerged as the top recent (within the past 12 months) source of information about Family and MWR services and activities at Ft. Hamilton. Direct Mail and Word of Mouth (friends, colleagues, other) on post also received the Garrison s next highest percentages indicating these as sources of information. The data in Table 4.2 could also be interpreted as how best to reach certain patron groups. For example, an campaign or Bulletin Boards on post could be more effective at reaching Civilians than other patron groups. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 14

15 5. Family and MWR Program Outcomes Fort Hamilton had less than 30 Active Duty respondents, thus no summary of Family and MWR Program Outcomes is available. The figure which was designated to present data on Family and MWR Program Outcomes (Figure 5.1) has been removed from this report. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 15

16 6. Outdoor Recreation This section presents this Garrison s data on use, frequency of use, interest, and opinions on the quality and convenience of outdoor recreation areas on post (e.g., outdoor recreation center, picnic and recreation areas). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in three selected outdoor recreation activities using a 4-point scale ranging from Not at all interested to Very interested. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had used various outdoor recreation facilities in the past 12 months and, if so, how frequently they used each. Frequency of use was captured by asking the respondent to select from one of three categories: Less than once per month; 1-3 times per month; or 4 or more times per month. In addition, those respondents who indicated they used a particular facility were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with each of five general features associated with the facility (facilities, equipment, variety of programs offered, convenience, and staff). Satisfaction was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from Very dissatisfied to Very satisfied and included a mid-point of Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Figure 6.1 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular outdoor recreation activity, providing a snapshot of the relative market potential for each. Figure 6.1 Interest in Outdoor Recreation Activities Camping (e.g. at campgrounds, RV parks, cabins) 47% Picnic/Cookouts 74% Hunting, fishing or shooting 44% Skydiving 22% Theme Parks 65% Trips to neighboring metropolitan cities 74% 0% 50% With the exception of skydiving, 44% or more of respondents at Ft. Hamilton indicated an interest in each of the listed outdoor recreation activities. Interest in picnic/cookouts and trips to neighboring metropolitan cities were highest 74% of respondents indicated they were Somewhat/Very interested in both activities. About two-thirds of respondents (65%) indicated an interest in theme parks. Figure 6.2 presents the data for each of the four response groups: Active Duty, Spouses, Retirees, and Civilians. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 16

17 Figure 6.2 Interest in Outdoor Recreation Activities by Response Group Camping (e.g. at campgrounds, RV parks, cabins) 55% 47% 39% Picnic/Cookouts 71% 69% 88% Hunting, fishing or shooting 38% 31% 47% AD Spouse Skydiving 26% 19% 27% Retiree Civilian Theme Parks Trips to neighboring metropolitan cities 60% 64% 84% 81% 71% 72% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). With the exception of hunting, fishing, or shooting and skydiving, interest percentages were generally higher for Spouses than the other response groups. For Spouses, the greatest percentage of interest was for picnic/cookouts (88%); the highest percentages for Retirees were shown for picnics/cookouts and trips to neighboring metropolitan cities (both at 71%). The activity with the highest percentage of Civilian interest was trips to neighboring metropolitan cities (72%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 17

18 6.1 Outdoor Recreation Centers Summary of On Post Outdoor Recreation Center Users*, ** Active Duty Spouse Retiree Civilian 3% 35% 54% 8% AGE 25 or younger or older 12% 8% 5% 8% 66% Enlisted 100% PAYGRADE (ACTIVE DUTY) Officers 0% COMMUTE TIME FROM POST Less than 10 mins mins mins mins 60 mins or more 6% 27% 25% 19% 23% Yes HAVE CHILDREN No 34% 66% MARITAL STATUS Married Not Married 62% 38% *Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding. **Summary of users data are based on the total number of users at this Garrison. Over one-half of on post outdoor recreation center users were Retirees (54%), a little over onethird were Spouses (35%), and the remaining 11% were Civilians (8%) or Active Duty (3%). All Active Duty users were enlisted (100%). About two-thirds of users (66%) were 41 years of age Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 18

19 or older. Approximately three-fifths of users were married (62%) and about one-third had children (34%). Outdoor Recreation Center Overall Use and Frequency of Use Figure 6.3 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they used the on post outdoor recreation center in the past 12 months. Data are presented for the Garrison overall as well as for each response group. Figure 6.4 presents frequency of use for those who indicated they used an on post outdoor recreation center at this Garrison. Figure 6.3 Use of Outdoor Recreation Centers by Response Group Garrison Total 14% AD Spouse 27% Retirees 11% Civilians 14% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 19

20 Figure 6.4 Frequency of Use of Outdoor Recreation Centers by Response Group Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison Total 56% 28% 16% AD Spouse Retirees 60% 25% 15% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Overall, 14% of respondents indicated they used an on post outdoor recreation center within the past 12 months. Spouses (27%) were more likely than Retirees (11%) and Civilians (14%) to indicate they have used an on post outdoor recreation center within the past 12 months. Of those who used an on post outdoor recreation center, over one-half (56%) indicated they used it Less than once per month. There were insufficient data to report Civilian usage patterns of outdoor recreation centers. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 20

21 Outdoor Recreation Center Satisfaction Figure 6.5 presents data on overall satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with outdoor recreation centers and satisfaction with selected features. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Figure 6.6 presents data on overall satisfaction and satisfaction with selected features by response group. Figure 6.5 Satisfaction With Outdoor Recreation Centers Overall and Selected Features* Army Overall 83% Workforce Overall 77% Garrison Overall Facilities 78% Equipment 73% Variety of programs 49% Staff Convenience 64% 68% 0% 50% *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data to report the overall satisfaction of on post outdoor recreation centers. With the exception of variety of programs (49%), satisfaction with each of the five general features associated with outdoor recreation centers was moderately high and ranged from 64% to 78%. The largest percent of users (78%) indicated being satisfied with facilities (e.g., cleanliness). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 21

22 Figure 6.6 Satisfaction With Outdoor Recreation Centers by Response Group Overall and Selected Features* Overall Satisfaction Facilities 90% Equipment Variety of programs 66% 79% AD Spouse Retirees Civilians Staff 85% Convenience 77% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data to present overall satisfaction percentages for all response groups and insufficient data to present satisfaction of the outdoor recreation center features for Civilians. In general, satisfaction levels of Retirees were moderately high across the various program features with two-thirds or more (66%) indicating their satisfaction with each feature. Retirees were most satisfied with the facilities (90%) followed by staff (85%). Summary of Interest, Use, and Satisfaction With On Post Outdoor Recreation Centers Almost one-half or more (44%) of respondents indicated an interest in each of these outdoor recreation activities with the exception being skydiving (22%). Interest in picnics/cookouts and trips to neighboring metropolitan cities were the highest 74% of respondents indicated they were Somewhat/Very interested in both activities. Overall, 14% of respondents indicated they used an on post outdoor recreation center within the past 12 months. Of those who used an on post outdoor recreation center, 56% indicated they used it Less than once per month. The majority of users indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with each of the outdoor recreation center features (percentages ranged from 64% to 78%) with the exception of variety of programs (49%). Retirees reported their highest levels of satisfaction with the facilities (90%) and staff (85%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 22

23 6.2 Picnic and Recreation Areas Summary of On Post Picnic and Recreation Area Users*, ** Active Duty Spouse Retiree Civilian 5% 29% 49% 16% AGE 25 or younger or older 6% 10% 7% 9% 67% Enlisted 50% PAYGRADE (ACTIVE DUTY) Officers 50% COMMUTE TIME FROM POST Less than 10 mins mins mins mins 60 mins or more 5% 32% 18% 26% 18% HAVE CHILDREN Yes No 40% 60% MARITAL STATUS Married Not Married 67% 33% *Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding. **Summary of users data are based on the total number of users at this Garrison. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 23

24 The largest percentage of picnic and recreation area users was Retirees (49%); over onequarter (29%) was Spouses, and the remaining 21% were Civilians (16%) or Active Duty (5%). One-half (50%) of Active Duty users were enlisted members. About two-thirds of users (67%) were 41 years of age or older. The majority of users were married (67%) and about two-fifths (40%) had children. Picnic and Recreation Areas Overall Use and Frequency of Use Figure 6.7 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they used the on post picnic and recreation area in the past 12 months. Figure 6.8 presents frequency of use for those who indicated they used the on post picnic and recreation area. Figure 6.7 Use of On Post Picnic and Recreation Areas Garrison Total 19% AD Spouse 31% Retirees 13% Civilians 35% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 24

25 Figure 6.8 Frequency of Use of On Post Picnic and Recreation Areas by Response Group Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison Total 63% 24% 12% AD Spouse Retirees 79% 15% 6% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Despite almost three-quarters of respondents indicating interest in picnics/cookouts (74%), only about one-fifth (19%) of respondents indicated they used an on post picnic and recreation area within the past 12 months. Civilians reported the highest percentage of use (35%) of an on post picnic area within the past 12 months, followed by Spouses (31%). Retirees had the lowest percentage (13%). Of those who reported using an on post picnic and recreation area, 63% indicated they used it Less than once per month. Retirees usage of on post picnic and recreation areas was somewhat lower than the total Garrison usage. There were insufficient data to report Civilian usage patterns of on post picnic and recreation areas. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 25

26 Picnic and Recreation Areas Satisfaction Figure 6.9 presents data on overall satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with picnic and recreation areas and satisfaction with selected features. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Figure 6.10 presents data on overall satisfaction and satisfaction with selected features by response group. Figure 6.9 Satisfaction With On Post Picnic and Recreation Areas Overall and Selected Features* Army Overall 83% Workforce Overall 78% Garrison Overall Facilities Equipment Staff Convenience 81% 79% 75% 77% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data to report the overall satisfaction of on post picnic and recreation areas at Ft. Hamilton. When examining satisfaction with each of four general features associated with on post picnic and recreation areas, all features had moderately high levels of satisfaction. The highest percentages were seen for facilities (81%); equipment (79%); and convenience (77%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 26

27 Figure 6.10 Satisfaction With On Post Picnic and Recreation Areas by Response Group Overall and Selected Features* Overall Satisfaction Facilities 89% Equipment Staff 76% 81% AD Spouse Retirees Civilians Convenience 86% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data to report overall satisfaction for all response groups. Additionally, only Retirees had sufficient satisfaction data on the four features of on post picnic and recreation areas to be reported: In most cases, Retirees indicated high levels of satisfaction with each of the selected features with the highest percentage being for facilities (89%) followed closely by convenience (86%). Summary of Interest, Use, and Satisfaction With On Post Picnic and Recreation Areas Roughly three-quarters of respondents indicated an interest in picnics/cookouts (74%). The largest percentage, almost one-half (49%), of picnic and recreation area users were Retirees, over one-quarter were Spouses (29%), and the remaining 21% were Civilians (16%) or Active Duty (5%). Overall, 19% of respondents indicated they used an on post picnic and recreation area within the past 12 months. Of those who reported using on post picnic and recreation areas, 63% indicated they used it Less than once per month. The majority (86%) of users indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with each of the selected features of the on post picnic and recreation areas with about four-fifths indicating satisfaction with facilities (81%) and equipment (79%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 27

28 7. Individual and Team Sports This section presents this Garrison s data on interest in individual and team sports and use, frequency of use, and satisfaction with sports facilities on post (i.e., golf courses, indoor pools, and outdoor pools). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in individual and team sports, whether they had used on post sports facilities in the past 12 months, and, if so, how frequently they used each. Level of interest was measured on a 4-point scale ranging from Not at all interested to Very interested. Frequency of use was captured by asking the respondent to select from one of three categories: Less than once per month; 1-3 times per month; or 4 or more times per month. In addition, those respondents who indicated they used a particular facility were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with four to six general features associated with the facility (e.g., facilities; variety of programs offered; staff, etc.). Satisfaction was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from Very dissatisfied to Very satisfied and included a mid-point of Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Figure 7.1 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular individual sport. Figure 7.1 Interest in Individual Sports (Percent Somewhat/Very Interested) Golf 34% Running 58% Racquetball 38% Tennis 42% 0% 50% Interest in running was highest of individual sports with 58% of respondents indicating they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in this activity. Interest in tennis was next highest at 42%, followed by racquetball (38%) and golf (34%). Figure 7.2 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular team sport. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 28

29 Figure 7.2 Interest in Team Sports (Percent Somewhat/Very Interested) Basketball 29% Soccer 22% Flag Football 21% Volleyball 32% Softball 36% 0% 50% Interest in softball was the highest of team sports with a little more than one-third of respondents (36%) indicating they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in this activity. Interest in the remaining team sports listed ranged from 21% (flag football) to 32% (volleyball). Figure 7.3 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular individual sport for each of the four response groups. Figure 7.4 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested in a particular team sport for each of the four response groups. Figure 7.3 Interest in Individual Sports by Response Group (Percent Somewhat/Very Interested) Golf 21% 32% 36% Running 51% 58% 76% AD Spouse Racquetball 35% 40% 47% Retiree Civilian Tennis 35% 37% 0% 50% 74% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 29

30 Figure 7.4 Interest in Team Sports by Response Group (Percent Somewhat/Very Interested) Basketball 25% 29% 44% Soccer 16% 21% 44% Flag Football Volleyball 23% 19% 25% 25% 33% 58% AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Softball 33% 41% 45% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). In individual sports, Spouses (76%), Civilians (58%), and Retirees (51%) had their highest interest percentages in running. A larger percentage of Spouses (74%) were interested in tennis than either Civilians (37%) or Retirees (35%). Among team sports, Spouses generally reported higher levels of interest in volleyball, soccer, and basketball than Civilians and Retirees. Spouses showed greatest interest in volleyball (58%). Civilians (45%) and Retirees (33%) reported their greatest interest in softball (45%). Overall, Retiree interest in the five team sports was lowest of all response groups. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 30

31 7.1 On Post Golf Courses Summary of On Post Golf Users Fort Hamilton does not have an on post golf course, thus no summary of on post golf course users is available. Those figures which were designated to present data on golf courses (Figures 7.5 through Figure 7.8) have been removed from this report. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 31

32 7.2 Indoor Pools on Post Summary of On Post Indoor Pool Users Fort Hamilton does not have an on post indoor pool, thus no summary of on post indoor pool users is available. Those figures which were designated to present data on indoor pools (Figures 7.9 through Figure 7.12) have been removed from this report. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 32

33 7.3 Outdoor Pools on Post Summary of On Post Outdoor Pool Users*, ** Active Duty Spouse Retiree Civilian 5% 27% 58% 10% AGE 25 or younger or older 0% 4% 11% 13% 72% Enlisted PAYGRADE (ACTIVE DUTY) Officers 50% 50% COMMUTE TIME FROM POST Less than 10 mins mins mins mins 60 mins or more 10% 41% 23% 14% 13% Yes HAVE CHILDREN No 49% 51% Married MARITAL STATUS Not Married 73% 27% *Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding. **Summary of users data are based on the total number of users at this Garrison. Almost three-fifths (58%) of on post outdoor pool users were Retirees (58%), over one-quarter were Spouses (27%), and the remaining 15% were Civilians (10%) or Active Duty members (5%). One-half of Active Duty users were enlisted (50%). Most users (72%) were 41 years of Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 33

34 age or older. About three-quarters of users were married (73%) and about one-half had children (49%). Outdoor Pools Use and Frequency of Use Figure 7.13 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they used the on post outdoor pools in the past 12 months. Figure 7.14 presents frequency of use for those who indicated they use the on post outdoor pools. Data are presented for the Garrison population overall as well as for each response group. Figure 7.13 Use of Outdoor Pool Garrison Total 16% AD Spouse 24% Retirees 13% Civilians 19% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Figure 7.14 Outdoor Pool Frequency of Use Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison Total 23% 38% 39% AD Spouse Retirees 28% 44% 28% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 34

35 Overall, less than one-fifth (16%) of respondents indicated they used on post outdoor pools within the past 12 months. Use was higher among Spouses (24%) than Civilians (19%) and Retirees (13%). On post outdoor pool usage at Ft. Hamilton was moderately high. Of those who indicated they used an on post outdoor pool, two-thirds (67%) indicated they used it 1-3 times per month or more. Frequency of use tended to be slightly lower among Retirees than the total Garrison. There were insufficient data to report frequency of use percentages for Civilians. Outdoor Pools Satisfaction Figure 7.15 presents data on overall satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with outdoor pools and with selected features. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Figure 7.16 presents data on overall satisfaction and satisfaction with selected features by response group. Figure 7.15 Satisfaction With Outdoor Pools Overall and Selected Features* Army Overall Workforce Overall 80% 79% Garrison Overall 63% Facilities 70% Variety of aquatic programming 52% Staff Hours of operation 68% 70% Price of season pass 46% 0% 50% *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. Almost two-thirds (63%) of users indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with on post outdoor pools overall. Examining satisfaction with each of five general features associated with outdoor pools, the largest percent of users indicated being satisfied with the facilities (e.g., cleanliness) and the hours of operation (70% each). About two-thirds of users were satisfied with staff (68%). Users indicated their lowest levels of satisfaction with the price of a season pass (46%) and the variety of aquatic programming (52%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 35

36 Figure 7.16 Satisfaction With Outdoor Pools by Response Group Overall and Selected Features* Overall Satisfaction Facilities 86% Variety of aquatic programming Staff Hours of operation 68% 82% 82% AD Spouse Retirees Civilians Price of season pass 57% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data to report overall satisfaction percentages for all response groups as well as satisfaction percentages for Civilians on the five features of on post outdoor pools. Retirees expressed greatest satisfaction with the facilities (86%), staff (82%), and hours of operation (82%). About two-thirds (68%) of Retirees were satisfied with the variety of aquatic programming and only 57% were satisfied with the price of a season pass. Summary of Use and Satisfaction With On Post Outdoor Pools Over one-half of on post outdoor pool users were Retirees (58%), over one-quarter were Spouses (27%), and the remaining 15% were Civilians (10%) or Active Duty (5%). Overall, less than one out of five (16%) respondents indicated they used on post outdoor pools within the past 12 months. Use was highest for Spouses (24%). Of those who indicated they used an on post outdoor pool, two-thirds (67%) indicated they used it 1-3 times per month or more. Frequency of use tended to be slightly lower among Retirees than the total Garrison. Almost two-thirds (63%) of users indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with on post outdoor pools overall. Of the on post outdoor pool features, facilities and hours of operation (both 70%) received the highest satisfaction percentages. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 36

37 8. Fitness Centers / Physical Fitness This section presents this Garrison s data on interest in physical fitness activities and use, frequency of use, and satisfaction with on post fitness centers. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in various physical fitness activities using a 4-point scale ranging from Not at all interested to Very interested. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they used on post fitness facilities. Frequency of use was captured by asking the respondent to select from one of four categories: Never; Less than once per week; 1-3 times per week; or 4 or more times per week. In addition, those respondents who indicated they used an on post fitness facility were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with each of five general features associated with the facility (e.g., variety of programs offered, hours of operation). Satisfaction was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from Very dissatisfied to Very satisfied and included a mid-point of Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; respondents could also indicate that the feature does not apply to the fitness facility they used at their Garrison. Figure 8.1 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular physical fitness activity. Figure 8.1 Interest in Physical Fitness Activities Group exercise classes 67% Weight/strength training 67% Personal fitness training 73% Cardiovascular training 82% Yoga 50% Cycling 62% 0% 50% Interest in the listed physical fitness activities was quite high with at least one-half (50%) of respondents indicating an interest in each of the six listed activities. Interest in cardiovascular training was highest with 82% of respondents indicating they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in this physical fitness activity. A slightly lower percentage of respondents indicated an interest in personal fitness training (73%). About two-thirds of respondents (67%) indicated being interested in group exercise classes or weight/strength training. Figure 8.2 presents the data for each of the four response groups: Active Duty, Spouses, Retirees, and Civilians. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 37

38 Figure 8.2 Interest in Physical Fitness Activities by Response Group Group exercise classes 59% 70% 91% Weight/strength training 62% 61% 84% Personal fitness training 67% 91% 86% AD Spouse Cardiovascular training 78% 81% 94% Retiree Civilian Yoga 39% 57% 88% Cycling 60% 61% 72% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). While interest varied greatly across the activities for the different response groups, there were some preferences. The greatest interest for Spouses (94%), Civilians (81%), and Retirees (78%) was in cardiovascular training. Spouses reported markedly higher levels of interest for physical fitness activities over all response groups. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 38

39 8.1 On Post Fitness Centers Summary of On Post Fitness Center Users*, ** Active Duty Spouse Retiree Civilian 8% 26% 53% 13% AGE 25 or younger or older 2% 7% 10% 9% 73% Enlisted PAYGRADE (ACTIVE DUTY) Officers 71% 29% COMMUTE TIME FROM POST Less than 10 mins mins mins mins 60 mins or more 9% 27% 26% 24% 15% Yes HAVE CHILDREN No 34% 66% Married MARITAL STATUS Not Married 69% 31% *Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding. **Summary of users data are based on the total number of users at this Garrison. Over one-half of on post fitness center users were Retirees (53%), approximately one-quarter were Spouses (26%), and the remaining 21% were Civilians (13%) or Active Duty (8%). A large percentage of Active Duty users were enlisted (71%). Most users (73%) were 41 years of age or older. Just over two-thirds of users were married (69%) and over one-third had children (34%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 39

40 On Post Fitness Centers Use and Frequency of Use Figure 8.3 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they used an on post fitness facility. Figure 8.4 and several follow-on figures present frequency of use for the facility selected from a list of on post fitness facilities as the facility most often used by the respondent. Data are presented for the overall Garrison population as well as for each response group. Figure 8.3 Use of Fitness Centers by Response Group Garrison 36% AD Spouse 55% Retirees 27% Civilians 55% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 40

41 Figure 8.4 Frequency of Use Fitness Centers Less than once per week 1 3 times per week 4 or more times per week Fort Hamilton Sports & Fitness center 48% 29% 23% Figure 8.4a Frequency of Fitness Center Use Fort Hamilton Sports & Fitness center Less than once per week 1 3 times per week 4 or more times per week AD Spouse 28% 44% 28% Retiree 63% 22% 15% Civilian 47% 35% 18% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Overall, 36% of respondents indicated they used an on post fitness facility. Use of on post fitness facilities was highest for Spouses (55%) and Civilians (55%) and lowest among Retirees (27%). Just over one-half (52%) of respondents reported they used the Fort Hamilton Sports & Fitness Center 1-3 times per week or more. Spouses reported higher frequency of use of the Fort Hamilton Sports & Fitness Center than either Civilians or Retirees. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 41

42 On Post Fitness Centers Most Often Used and Satisfaction Only one on post fitness facility was available at Fort Hamilton, thus Figure 8.5 is not presented. Figure 8.6 presents data on overall satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with on post fitness centers and satisfaction with selected features by response group for the fitness center the respondent indicated as using most often. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Figure 8.6 Satisfaction With Fitness Centers* Army Overall Workforce Overall Garrison Overall 83% 87% 87% Facilities Equipment Variety of programs offered Staff Hours of operation 72% 77% 84% 87% 89% 0% 50% *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. The majority (87%) of users indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with fitness centers overall at Ft. Hamilton. Examining satisfaction with each of five general features associated with fitness centers, satisfaction with the equipment (89%), facilities (e.g., cleanliness) (87%), and hours of operation (84%) were highest. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 42

43 Figure 8.7 Satisfaction With Fitness Centers by Response Group Overall and Selected Features* Overall Satisfaction 88% Facilities 91% 82% Equipment Variety of programs offered 77% 69% 90% 88% AD Spouse Retirees Civilians Staff 64% 86% Hours of operation 89% 88% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data to report overall satisfaction of Civilians for on post fitness centers at Ft. Hamilton. Overall satisfaction of Retirees for fitness centers was moderately high (88%). Across the five selected features of on post fitness centers, Retirees tended to be more satisfied with each of the selected features (77%-91%) than Civilians (64%-88%). Summary of Interest, Use, and Satisfaction With Fitness Centers Interest in physical fitness activities was quite high with at least 50% of respondents indicating an interest in each of the activities. Interest in cardiovascular training was the highest with 82% of respondents indicating they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ). Over one-half of on post fitness center users were Retirees (53%), approximately onequarter were Spouses (26%), and the remaining 21% were Civilians (13%) or Active Duty (8%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 43

44 Overall, 36% of respondents indicated they used an on post fitness facility in the past 12 months. Use of on post fitness facilities was highest among Spouses (55%) and Civilians (55%) and lowest among Retirees (27%). With only slight variation across the response groups, a large majority (87%) of users indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with fitness centers overall. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 44

45 9. Army Leisure Travel Services This section presents this Garrison s data on interest in leisure entertainment activities and travel destinations, and use, frequency of use, and satisfaction with Leisure Travel/Ticket Offices. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in various leisure entertainment activities and travel destinations using a 4-point scale ranging from Not at all interested to Very interested. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had used an on post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office in the past 12 months and, if so, how frequently they used it. Frequency of use was captured by asking the respondent to select from one of three categories: Once per year or less; 1-3 times per year; or 4 or more times per year. In addition, those respondents who indicated they used a Leisure Travel/Ticket Office were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with each of six general features associated with the facility (e.g., variety of tours/packages offered, customer service of staff). Satisfaction was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from Very dissatisfied to Very satisfied and included a mid-point of Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; respondents could also indicate that the feature does not apply to the Leisure Travel/Ticket Office at their Garrison. Figure 9.1 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular leisure entertainment activity. Figure 9.1 Interest in Leisure Recreation and Special Interests Going to the movies Live music/concerts 80% 82% Attending auto racing 33% Theatre 77% Theme parks/amusement parks Attending pro sports events 68% 69% Attending local/college sports events 48% 0% 50% Except for attending auto racing (33%) and attending local/college/sports events (48%), all listed activities had interest levels (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) of 68% (theme parks/amusement parks) or greater. Large percentages of respondents indicated they were interested in going to the live music/concerts (82%), movies (80%), and the theatre (77%). Figure 9.2 presents the data for each of the four response groups: Active Duty, Spouses, Retirees, and Civilians. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 45

46 Figure 9.2 Interest in Leisure Recreation and Special Interests by Response Group Going to the movies 87% 79% 68% Live music/concerts 94% 78% 87% Attending auto racing Theatre Theme parks/amusement parks 35% 32% 35% 88% 73% 81% 97% 60% 66% AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Attending pro sports events 65% 67% 81% Attending local/college sports events 47% 49% 42% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Interest (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in leisure recreation and special interests varied across response groups. Spouses had the greatest interest in going to theme parks/amusement parks (97%) followed by live music/concerts (94%). Retirees had greatest interest in going to the movies (79%) and Civilians were most interested in live music/concerts (87%). Figure 9.3 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in selected vacation destinations. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 46

47 Figure 9.3 Interest in Travel Destinations at Fort Hamilton Beach 88% Cruise 75% Historic places 88% Outdoor activity destinations 58% Entertainment destinations 87% International/Foreign 76% 0% 50% While all destinations had an interest level of at least 58% (outdoor activity destinations), the largest percent of respondents at Ft. Hamilton indicated they were interested in going to the beach (88%) or historic places (88%) as a vacation travel destination. Respondents also expressed very high interest for entertainment destinations (87%). Figure 9.4 presents the data for each of the four response groups: Active Duty, Spouses, Retirees, and Civilians. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 47

48 Figure 9.4 Interest in Travel Destinations by Response Group Beach 85% 86% Cruise 73% 76% 72% Historic places Outdoor activity destinations 57% 57% 56% 91% 90% AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Entertainment destinations 85% 84% 97% International/Foreign 74% 66% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Among Retirees and Civilians, interest in going to historic places (91% and 90%, respectively) was higher than any of the other listed travel destinations. Spouses expressed highest interest for entertainment destinations (97%) above all other listed travel destinations. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 48

49 9.1 Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Summary of Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Users*, ** Active Duty Spouse Retiree Civilian 10% 26% 57% 7% AGE 25 or younger or older 5% 0% 13% 18% 65% Enlisted 67% PAYGRADE (ACTIVE DUTY) Officers 33% COMMUTE TIME FROM POST Less than 10 mins mins mins mins 60 mins or more 7% 14% 28% 34% 18% Yes HAVE CHILDREN No 45% 55% MARITAL STATUS Married Not Married 83% 17% *Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding. **Summary of users data are based on the total number of users at this Garrison. The predominant users of the on post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office were Retirees (57%), about one-quarter of the users were Spouses (26%), and the remaining 17% were Active Duty (10%) or Civilians (7%). Two-thirds of Active Duty users were enlisted (67%). Most users (65%) were Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 49

50 41 years of age or older. The majority of users were married (83%) and just under one-half had children (45%). Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Use and Frequency of Use Figure 9.5 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they used the on post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office in the past 12 months. Figure 9.6 presents frequency of use for those who indicated they used the on post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office. Data are presented for the Garrison population overall as well as for each response group. Figure 9.5 Use of Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Garrison Total 12% AD Spouse 19% Retirees 10% Civilians 10% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 50

51 Figure 9.6 Frequency of Use by Garrison and Response Group of the Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Once per year or less 1 3 times per year 4 or more times per year Garrison Total 39% 38% 23% AD Spouse Retirees 35% 45% 20% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Overall, only 12% of respondents at Ft. Hamilton indicated they used an on post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office in the past 12 months. Use was highest among Spouses (19%) and lowest among Retirees (10%) and Civilians (10%). Frequency of use of the Leisure Travel/Ticket Office at Ft. Hamilton was moderately high. Of those who used an on post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office, over three-fifths (61%) indicated they used it 1-3 times per year or more. There were insufficient data to present frequency of use information for Civilians. Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Satisfaction Figure 9.7 presents data on overall satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with Leisure Travel/Ticket Offices and satisfaction with selected features. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Figure 9.8 presents data on overall satisfaction and satisfaction with selected features by response group. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 51

52 Figure 9.7 Satisfaction With Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Overall and Selected Features* Army Overall Workforce Overall 80% 78% Garrison Overall Overall value of tours/packages offered Variety of tours/packages offered Quality of tours/packages offered 76% 80% 80% Advertisement of activities 68% Customer service of staff 82% Convenience 70% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data from respondents at Ft. Hamilton to report overall satisfaction with the Leisure Travel/Ticket Office. When examining satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with each of six general features associated with the Leisure Travel/Ticket Office, high percentages (68% or more) of respondents were Satisfied/Very satisfied with each feature. Customer service of staff (82%) received the highest satisfaction percentage followed by overall value of tours/packages offered (80%) and variety of tours/packages (80%). Lowest satisfaction from respondents was expressed for advertisement of activities (68%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 52

53 Figure 9.8 Satisfaction With Leisure Travel/Ticket Office by Response Group Overall and Selected Features* Overall Satisfaction Overall value of tours/packages offered 77% Variety of tours/packages offered Quality of tours/packages offered Advertisement of activities 55% 79% 77% AD Spouse Retirees Civilians Customer service of staff 79% Convenience 68% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data to present overall satisfaction percentages for all response groups and satisfaction of selected features for Civilians. Satisfaction levels with selected features of the on post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office were quite high among Retirees with the exception of advertisement of activities (55%). Retirees were most satisfied with the customer service of staff (79%) and the variety of tours/packages offered (79%), followed by the overall value of tours/packages offered (77%) and quality of tours/packages offered (77%). Summary of Use and Satisfaction With Leisure Travel/Ticket Office The predominant users of the on post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office were Retirees (57%), about one-quarter of the users were Spouses (26%), and the remaining 17% were Active Duty (10%) or Civilians (7%). Overall, 12% of respondents used the Leisure Travel/Ticket Office in the past 12 months with slightly more Spouses (19%) indicating they used the service than Retirees (10%) and Civilians (10%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 53

54 At least four-fifths of respondents were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with the customer service of staff (82%); overall value of tours/packages offered (80%); and variety of tours/packages offered (80%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 54

55 10. Entertainment and Events This section presents this Garrison s data on interest in seeing various types of music live in concert, and use of and satisfaction with Family and MWR Army Entertainment (i.e., concerts, theatre, and special events). Respondents were asked to indicate which types of music they would be most interested in seeing live in concert, and how satisfied they were with the Family and MWR Army Entertainment at their Garrison; respondents who indicated Not available/not applicable to this item were counted as non-users. Table 10.1 presents the percent of respondents who indicated various types of music they were most interested in seeing live in concert for the Garrison overall and for each of the four response groups. Table 10.1 Interest in Music by Response Group and Garrison Total Music AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Garrison Total Oldies (50 s, 60 s) N/A 26% 64% 37% 54% R&B N/A 41% 37% 35% 37% Jazz N/A 24% 39% 38% 37% Country N/A 29% 37% 32% 34% Pop N/A 47% 22% 38% 28% Classic Rock N/A 24% 28% 33% 28% Classical N/A 24% 29% 25% 27% Rock N/A 38% 21% 33% 25% Latin N/A 24% 20% 28% 21% Dance N/A 26% 19% 17% 20% Gospel N/A 26% 19% 12% 20% Hip Hop N/A 38% 6% 20% 14% Christian N/A 21% 8% 12% 12% Rap N/A 18% 3% 12% 7% I am not interested in concerts N/A 6% 6% 3% 5% Something Else N/A N/A N/A N/A 5% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Interest in oldies (50 s, 60 s) was the top music choice at Ft. Hamilton with over one-half (54%) of respondents indicating this was one of the types of music they were most interested in seeing live in concert. Retirees were more likely than all other response groups to indicate interest in oldies (50 s, 60 s). Spouses (47%) and Civilians (38%) reported their highest interest in pop (47%); Civilians were equally interested in jazz (38%). Overall, 5% indicated not being interested in concerts. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 55

56 10.1 Family and MWR Army Entertainment Summary of Family and MWR Army Entertainment Users*, **, *** Active Duty Spouse Retiree Civilian 4% 22% 65% 9% AGE 25 or younger or older 4% 6% 7% 6% 78% Enlisted PAYGRADE (ACTIVE DUTY) Officers 83% 17% COMMUTE TIME FROM POST Less than 10 mins mins mins mins 60 mins or more 7% 17% 21% 33% 22% Yes HAVE CHILDREN No 31% 69% MARITAL STATUS Married Not Married 72% 28% *Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding. ** Program use is reported based on the percent of respondents who reported their level of satisfaction with Family and MWR Army Entertainment at their Garrison (i.e., they did not indicate this program is not available/not applicable (Q38)). ***Summary of users data are based on the total number of users at this Garrison. Almost two-thirds of Family and MWR Army Entertainment services/programs users were Retirees (65%), over one-fifth (22%) were Spouses, and the remaining 13% were Civilians (9%), and Active Duty (4%). Over four-fifths of Active Duty users were enlisted (83%). Most Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 56

57 users (78%) were 41 years of age or older. About three-quarters of users were married (72%) and 31% had children. Family and MWR Army Entertainment Use Figure 10.1 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they used Family and MWR Army Entertainment services/programs. Figure 10.1 Use of Family and MWR Army Entertainment Garrison Total 71% AD Spouse 85% Retirees 65% Civilians 82% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton usage rates for Family and MWR Army Entertainment services/programs are moderately high with the majority of respondents (71%) indicating use of these programs in the past 12 months. Spouses reported the highest usage rates for Family and MWR Army Entertainment (85%) followed by Civilians (82%). Retirees reported the lowest use of Family and MWR Entertainment services/programs (65%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 57

58 Family and MWR Army Entertainment Satisfaction Figure 10.2 presents data on overall satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with Family and MWR Army Entertainment services/programs. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Figure 10.2 Satisfaction With Family and MWR Army Entertainment Very Satisfied / Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied Army Overall 43% 44% 13% Workforce Overall 34% 51% 16% Garrison Overall 47% 47% 6% AD Spouse Retirees 46% 51% 4% Civilians 50% 37% 13% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Overall, close to one-half (47%) of respondents indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with Family and MWR Army Entertainment services/programs. Satisfaction was slightly higher among Civilians (50%) than Retirees (46%). Summary of Use and Satisfaction With Family and MWR Army Entertainment Usage rates for Family and MWR Army Entertainment services/programs are moderately high. Overall, 71% of respondents indicated they used Family and MWR Army Entertainment services/programs. Almost one-half (47%) of respondents at Ft. Hamilton indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with Family and MWR Army Entertainment services/programs. Satisfaction was slightly higher among Civilians (50%) than Retirees (46%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 58

59 11. Leisure Recreation and Special Interests This section presents this Garrison s data on interest in leisure recreation activities and use, frequency of use, and satisfaction with on post bowling centers, arts and crafts activities, automotive skills centers, and Warrior Zones overall and with various features of each facility. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in various leisure recreation activities using a 4-point scale ranging from Not at all interested to Very interested. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had used on post leisure recreation facilities in the past 12 months and, if so, how frequently they used them. Frequency of use of bowling centers for various activities was captured by asking the respondent to select from one of four categories: Never; Sometimes, but less than once per month; 1-3 times per month; or 4 or more times per month. Frequency of use of the other on post facilities were captured by asking the respondent to select from one of three categories: Less than once per month; 1-3 times per month; or 4 or more times per month. In addition, those respondents who indicated they used an on post leisure recreation facility were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with each of five to seven general features associated with the facility (e.g., facilities, equipment). Satisfaction was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from Very dissatisfied to Very satisfied and included a mid-point of Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; respondents could also indicate that the feature does not apply to the leisure recreation facility at their Garrison. Figure 11.1 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular leisure recreation activity. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 59

60 Figure 11.1 Interest in Leisure Recreation and Special Interests Gaming (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) 27% Internet Café/WiFi Billiards/Darts/Card Games 51% 49% Bingo/Gaming machines 42% Bowling (open, leagues, tournaments, glow/disco) Miniature Golf (indoor/glow/outdoor) Art and Crafts (ceramics, jewelry making, framing, stained glass, wood working, etc.) Photography Auto Detailing/Washing Automotive skills (repair, maintenance, restoration) 55% 50% 48% 54% 41% 43% Life Drawing 25% 0% 50% Except for gaming (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) (27%) and life drawing (25%), most of the activities and special interests had interest percentages of roughly 40% or more. Overall, interest (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in bowling (55%) was highest among respondents followed by photography (54%) and Internet Café/Wi-Fi (51%). Figure 11.2 presents the data for each of the four response groups. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 60

61 Figure 11.2 Interest chart by Response Group Gaming (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) 34% 25% 31% Internet Café/WiFi 45% 56% 69% Billiards/Darts/Card Games 41% 50% 47% Bingo/Gaming machines 43% 41% 42% Bowling (open, leagues, tournaments, glow/disco) 52% 51% 66% Miniature Golf (indoor/glow/outdoor) Art and Crafts (ceramics, jewelry making, framing, stained glass, wood working, etc.) 48% 42% 40% 39% 58% 84% AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Photography 47% 44% 81% Auto Detailing/Washing Automotive skills (repair, maintenance, restoration) Life Drawing 25% 29% 26% 21% 25% 45% 41% 48% 39% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Interest in the listed activities and special interests varied considerably across the response groups. Spouses showed considerably more interest in arts and crafts (84%), photography (81%), and Internet Café/Wi-Fi (69%) than Retirees and Civilians. Retirees indicated their highest interest in bowling (52%) and billiards/darts/card games (50%). Retirees (48%) showed considerably more interest in automotive skills than Spouses (29%) and Civilians (26%). The greatest interest for Civilians (75%) was shown in Internet Café/Wi-Fi (56%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 61

62 11.1 On Post Bowling Center Summary of Bowling Center Users*, ** Active Duty Spouse Retiree Civilian 15% 30% 40% 14% AGE 25 or younger or older 0% 9% 9% 12% 71% Enlisted 71% PAYGRADE (ACTIVE DUTY) Officers 29% COMMUTE TIME FROM POST Less than 10 mins mins mins mins 60 mins or more 9% 33% 21% 19% 19% Yes HAVE CHILDREN No 51% 49% Married MARITAL STATUS Not Married 78% 22% *Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding. **Summary of users data are based on the total number of users at this Garrison. Approximately two-fifths of on post bowling center users were Retirees (40%), almost one-third were Spouses (30%), and the remaining 29% were Active Duty (15%) or Civilians (14%). Almost three-quarters of Active Duty users were enlisted (71%). Most users (71%) were 41 years of age or older. Slightly more than three-quarters of users were married (78%) and about one-half had children (51%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 62

63 On Post Bowling Center Use and Frequency of Use Figure 11.3 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they used the on post bowling center in the past 12 months. Figure 11.4a through Figure 11.4g present the frequency of use of on post bowling centers for various activities. Data are presented for the overall Garrison population as well as for each response group. Figure 11.3 Use of Bowling Center Garrison Total 19% AD Spouse 32% Retirees 11% Civilians 33% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 63

64 Figure 11.4a Frequency of Recreational Bowling/Open Play Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 72% 20% 9% AD Spouse Retirees 79% 19% 2% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). There were insufficient data (n<30) to provide results for Figures 11.4b-11.4e. Figure 11.4f Frequency of Video Games/Amusement Games Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 85% 9% 6% AD Spouse Retirees Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 64

65 Figure 11.4g Frequency of Unit Functions/Parties Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 85% 7% 8% AD Spouse Retirees Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Overall, 19% of respondents indicated they used an on post bowling center in the past 12 months. Use of on post bowling centers was higher among Civilians (33%) and Spouses (32%) and considerably lower among Retirees (11%). Of those who used an on post bowling center, frequency of use is greatest for recreational bowling/open play. There were insufficient data to make response group comparisons for most bowling center activities. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 65

66 On Post Bowling Center Satisfaction Figure 11.5 presents data on overall satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with on post bowling centers and satisfaction with selected features. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Figure 11.6 presents data on overall satisfaction and satisfaction with selected features by response group. Figure 11.5 Satisfaction with Bowling Center Overall Satisfaction and selected features* Army Overall 84% Workforce Overall 76% Garrison Overall 83% Facilities Price per game 86% 85% Variety of bowling programs 55% Quality of Equipment 72% Customer service of staff 77% Availability of lanes 67% Food and Beverage Service 76% 0% 50% *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. A large majority (83%) of users indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with bowling centers overall. With the exception of variety of bowling programs (55%), all general features associated with the bowling center showed high levels of satisfaction all were 67% or more. Satisfaction with the facilities (e.g., cleanliness, comfort) (86%) was the highest across all features followed by price per game (85%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 66

67 Figure 11.6 Satisfaction with Bowling Center by Response Group Overall Satisfaction Facilities 92% Price per game 89% Variety of bowling programs Quality of Equipment 56% 73% AD Spouse Retirees Civilians Customer service of staff 91% Availability of lanes 77% Food and Beverage Service 83% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Overall Satisfaction data were collected on the web survey version only. There were insufficient data to present overall satisfaction percentages for all response groups and insufficient data to show satisfaction percentages across the selected features of bowling centers for Civilians. Almost all Retirees (92%) were satisfied with the facilities and the customer service of staff (91%). Variety of bowling programs received the lowest satisfaction among Retirees (56%). Summary of Interest, Use and Satisfaction With Bowling Centers Over one-half (55%) of all respondents indicated an interest in bowling. About two-fifths of on post bowling center users were Retirees (40%), almost one-third were Spouses (30%), and the remaining 29% were Active Duty (15%) or Civilians (14%). Overall, 19% of respondents indicated they used an on post bowling center in the past 12 months. Use of on post bowling centers was higher among Civilians (33%) and Spouses (32%) and considerably lower among Retirees (11%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 67

68 Of those who used an on post bowling center, frequency of use was greatest for recreational bowling/open play and league play. A large percentage (83%) of users indicated they were satisfied (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) with on post bowling centers overall. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 68

69 11.2 Arts and Crafts Activities Summary of Arts and Crafts Activities Users Fort Hamilton had less than 30 respondents indicate they participated in on post arts and crafts activities in the past 12 months, thus no summary of on post arts and crafts activity users is available. Those figures which were designated to present data on arts and crafts (Figures 11.7 through Figure 11.10) have been removed from this report. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 69

70 11.3 On Post Automotive Skills Center Summary of Automotive Skills Center Users Fort Hamilton had less than 30 respondents indicate they used an on post automotive skills center in the past 12 months, thus no summary of on post automotive skill center users is available. Those figures which were designated to present data on the automotive skills center (Figures through Figure 11.14) have been removed from this report. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 70

71 11.4 On Post Warrior Zones (Active Duty Only) Summary of Warrior Zone Users Active Duty Fort Hamilton had less than 30 Active Duty respondents indicate they used an on post Warrior Zone in the past 12 months, thus no summary of on post Warrior Zone users is available. Those figures which were designated to present data on Warrior Zones (Figures through Figure 11.16) have been removed from this report. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 71

72 12. Libraries This section presents this Garrison s data on interest in library activities, use of on post libraries, and frequency of use of libraries for various activities. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in various library activities using a 4-point scale ranging from Not at all interested to Very interested. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate whether they used on post libraries and, if so, how frequently they used them for various activities. Frequency of use was captured by asking the respondent to select from one of four categories: Never; Sometimes, but less than once per month; 1-3 times per month; or 4 or more times per month. Figure 12.1 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they were interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular library activity. Figure 12.1 Interest in Library Activities Reading, viewing, listening to, or checking out materials 72% Studying/self development/independent research 62% Accessing the internet at the library 58% Accessing library resources from home 63% Library programs 56% 0% 50% Libraries ranked high (fifth) from a list of 22 programs from which respondents selected those most important to have on an Army Garrison. All of the library activities had at least one-half of respondents indicating an interest in the activity. Greatest interest (72%) was in reading, viewing, listening to, or checking out materials. Other high interest activities included accessing library resources from home (63%); and using the library for studying, self-development, and independent research (62%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 72

73 Figure 12.2 presents the data for each of the four response groups: Active Duty, Spouses, Retirees, and Civilians. Figure 12.2 Interest in Library Activities by Response Group Reading, viewing, listening to, or checking out materials 75% 71% 69% Accessing library resources from home 66% 61% 62% Studying/self development/independent research Accessing the internet at the library 63% 57% 49% 69% 63% 55% AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Library programs 51% 50% 75% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). While interest in library activities varied across the response groups, the variation carried a distinct pattern. Spouses generally had greater interest levels than the other response groups. In most cases, the next greatest level of interest was shown by Retirees, followed by Civilians. Spouses showed their greatest interest in reading, viewing, listening to, or checking out materials (75%) and library programs (75%). Spouses showed considerably higher interest in library programs than Retirees (51%) and Civilians (50%). Retirees (71%) and Civilians (69%) had their greatest percentages of interest in reading, viewing, listening to, or checking out materials. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 73

74 12.1 On Post Libraries Summary of On Post Library Users*, ** Active Duty Spouse Retiree Civilian 12% 36% 39% 13% AGE 25 or younger or older 0% 9% 15% 16% 60% Enlisted 80% PAYGRADE (ACTIVE DUTY) Officers 20% COMMUTE TIME FROM POST Less than 10 mins mins mins mins 60 mins or more 1% 32% 18% 25% 23% Yes HAVE CHILDREN No 54% 46% MARITAL STATUS Married Not Married 74% 26% *Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding. **Summary of users data are based on the total number of users at this Garrison. Approximately two-fifths of on post library users were Retirees (39%), 36% were Spouses, and the remaining 25% were Civilians (13%) or Active Duty (12%). Four-fifths of Active Duty users were enlisted (80%). More users (60%) were 41 years of age or older. About three-quarters of users were married (74%) and more than one-half (54%) had children. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 74

75 On Post Libraries Use and Frequency of Use Figure 12.3 presents the percent of respondents who indicated they used the on post library in the past 12 months. Figure 12.4 through Figure 12.9 present the frequency of use of the on post libraries for various activities. Data are presented for the Garrison population overall as well as for each response group. Figure 12.3 Use of Libraries Overall and by Response Group Garrison Total 19% AD Spouse 41% Retirees 11% Civilians 30% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 75

76 Figure 12.4a Frequency of Use of Libraries for Accessing the Internet Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 60% 24% 16% AD Spouse Retirees 47% 30% 23% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Figure 12.4b Frequency of Use of Libraries for Studying for Independent Research Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 65% 27% 8% AD 80% 20% Spouse Retirees 53% 32% 15% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 76

77 Figure 12.4c Frequency of Use of Libraries for Librarian Assistance with Reference, Research and/or Online Services Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 67% 23% 10% AD 81% 19% Spouse Retirees 48% 41% 11% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Figure 12.4d Frequency of Use of Libraries for Reading, Viewing, Listening and/or Checking Out Materials Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 55% 31% 14% AD Spouse Retirees 45% 32% 22% Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 77

78 Figure 12.4e Frequency of Use of Libraries for Children's Activities Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 52% 16% 33% AD 75% 25% Spouse Retirees Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Figure 12.4f Frequency of Use of Libraries for Adult Activities Less than once per month 1 3 times per month 4 or more times per month Garrison 71% 16% 12% AD 100% Spouse Retirees Civilians Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Overall, 19% of respondents indicated they used an on post library in the past 12 months. Use of on post libraries was higher among Spouses (41%) than Civilians (30%) or Retirees (11%). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 78

79 The overall frequency of use patterns were greatest for use of the libraries for children s activities and reading, viewing, listening to, and/or checking out materials. There were insufficient data to compare the frequency of use patterns across the four response groups depending on the particular library use activity. Retirees had their highest frequency of use in using the libraries for reading, viewing, listening to, and/or checking out materials and accessing the internet. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 79

80 13. Army Child, Youth, and School Age Programs and Services This section presents this Garrison s data on use of and opinions on the value of Army Child, Youth, and School Age programs and services, and interest in youth activities and youth sports. Respondents, who had at least one child under the age of 18 that live with them or stay with them often, were asked to indicate their level of interest in various youth activities and youth sports using a 4-point scale ranging from Not at all interested to Very interested. Respondents were also asked whether they use Army Child Care services. Respondents who indicated they do not use these services were asked to indicate their reasons for not using it. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with various statements intended to capture positive individual, family and organizational positive outcomes to which associated with Army Child, Youth, and School Age programs potentially contribute. Agreement was measured using a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Figure 13.1 presents the percent of respondents overall and the percent of each response group who indicated they have a child(ren) under 18 currently living in their home or staying with them often (e.g., weekends, vacation). Figure 13.1 Respondents Living With Children Under 18 by Response Group Garrison Total 26% AD Spouse Yes Retirees 15% Civilians 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). About one-quarter (26%) of respondents indicated they have children under 18 that live in their home or stay with them often. There were insufficient data to report the percentage of Civilians who reported having children under 18 living in their home or staying with them often. Only 15% of Retirees reported having children under 18 living in their home. Figure 13.2 presents the percent of respondents with children in each of four age groups (of those who indicated they have children under 18): 0 months to 5 years old, 6 to 12 years old, 13 to 15 years old, and 16 to 18 years old. Figure 13.3 presents the data for each of the four response groups: Active Duty, Spouses, Retirees, and Civilians. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 80

81 Figure 13.2 Age Groups of Children Living With Respondent* 0 months to 5 years old 42% 6 years to 12 years old 46% 13 years to 15 years old 25% 16 years to 18 years old 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Estimates do not sum to 100 because respondents could chose multiple items (Mark all that apply). Of those who indicated they have children under 18 that live in their home or stay with them often, slightly less than one-half (46%) indicated they have a child between 6 and 12 years old and about two-fifths (42%) indicated they have a child 0 to 5 years old. In addition, one-quarter (25%) indicated they have a child 13 to 15 years old. Figure 13.3 Age Groups of Children Living With Respondent by Response Group* AD Spouse 0 months to 5 years old Retiree 27% 35% 33% 45% 6 years to 12 years old 13 years to 15 years old 16 years to 18 years old Civilian 40% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). *Estimates do not sum to 100 because respondents could chose multiple items (Mark all that apply). There were insufficient data to report the percentage of Civilians with children in all age groups. Retirees indicated a surprisingly high percentage of younger children in their home with 27% reporting children in the age category 0 months to 5 years old. Within this same response group, 45% of Retirees reported having children between the ages of 6 to 12 in their home. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 81

82 Interest in Youth Activities and Sports Figure 13.4 presents the percent of respondents who indicated their children are interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular youth activity by age group. Figure 13.5 presents the percent of respondents who indicated their children are interested (percent Somewhat/Very interested ) in a particular youth sport by age group. Figure 13.4 Interest in Youth Activities by Child Age Group Parents Night Out 65% Instructional Classes (Ballet, Karate, etc.) 81% 90% Outdoor Adventure 81% 88% 85% Arts and Crafts Teen Lock in 43% 38% 81% 87% 0 months to 5 years old 6 years to 12 years old 13 years to 15 years old 16 years to 18 years old Homework/Tutoring 46% 79% Computer Lab 61% 94% Computer Graphics 61% 94% 90% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). In youth activities, interest varied considerably based on the age group of the child. For activities such as parents night out; instructional classes and arts and crafts, interest rates were higher among those with younger children. Parents with children in the age group 6 to 12 years old (81%) and in the 5 years and younger age group (90%) showed the greatest interest in instructional classes. Parents with children in the age group 6 to 12 years old were more likely Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 82

83 than parents of younger children to show interest in homework/tutoring, computer lab, and computer graphics. Parents with children in all age groups showed high interested in outdoor adventure. There were insufficient data to show percentages for parents with children age group 16 to 18 years old. Figure 13.5 Interest in Youth Sports by Child Age Group Bowling 58% 72% 82% Gymnastics 78% 75% 75% Martial Arts 80% 90% Golf 41% 0 months to 5 years old 6 years to 12 years old Skating 83% 13 years to 15 years old 16 years to 18 years old Swimming 93% 99% Horseback Riding 80% 85% Softball/Baseball 69% 0% 50% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). In youth sports, interest in swimming was the highest among all parents. There were insufficient data to show, in youth sports, the percentages of parents with children in the age group 16 to 18. There were also insufficient data to report, in youth sports, the percentages of parents with children in the age groups 0 months to 5 years old and 13 to 15 years old. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 83

84 13.1 Army Child Care Services Summary of Users of Army Child Care Services Fort Hamilton had less than 30 respondents indicate they use Army Child Care Services, thus no summary of Army Child Care Service users is available. Those figures which were designated to present data on Army Child Care Services (Figures 13.6 through Figure 13.8) have been removed from this report. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 84

85 14. Food and Beverage The food and beverage section of the survey asked specific questions about breakfast, lunch and dinner, including how often respondents eat out for these meals and whether they eat on post or off post. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of several factors (e.g., prices, hours of operation, menu choices, customer service, etc.) in their decision of where to eat out and how much they typically spend when eating off post. The final question asked about satisfaction with the food and beverage service provided at specific on post Family and MWR facilities Location of Meals Eaten Out Figure 14.1 presents the percent of respondents who eat on post, off post, both on and off post, and neither. The question was asked separately for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Figure 14.1 Frequency of Eating Out On Post and Off Post Never eat this meal out Eat out on post only Eat out on and off post Eat out off post only Dinner 22% 6% 25% 47% Lunch 26% 9% 39% 26% Breakfast 40% 5% 20% 35% In general, respondents were more likely to never eat out for breakfast (40%) than for any of the other meals. Likelihood of eating out for dinner (78%) was slightly higher than the likelihood to eat out for lunch (74%) or breakfast (60%). Almost one-half of respondents (47%) indicated they eat out off post only for dinner. About two-fifths (39%) indicated they eat out both on and off post for lunch. Figure 14.2 presents data for each meal by response group. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 85

86 Figure 14.2 Location of Meals Eaten Out by Response Group Never eat this meal out Eat out on post only Eat out on and off post Eat out off post only AD Breakfast Lunch Dinner Spouse Retiree Civilian AD Spouse Retiree Civilian AD Spouse 13% 9% 24% 28% 19% 29% 13% 10% 6% 9% 50% 22% 24% 21% 9% 44% 35% 59% 3% 13% 56% 52% 46% 28% 28% 18% 34% Retiree 39% 5% 20% 35% Civilian 35% 7% 17% 41% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). There was considerable variation across the response groups in the choice of locations to eat various meals out. Large percentages of each group indicated they do not eat breakfast out; however Spouses (50%) were more likely than Retirees (39%) and Civilians (35%) to never eat out for breakfast. For lunch, large percentages of each group (with some variation) indicated they eat this meal both on and off post. Civilians (59%) are more likely than other response groups to report eating lunch out on or off post. Large percentages of Spouses (56%), Civilians (52%) and, to a slightly lesser degree, Retirees (46%) indicated that when they eat out for dinner, it is off post only. It would appear that some meal choice locations are most likely influenced by whether a person lives on or off post. Figure 14.3 provides a comparison of the data for respondents who live on post compared to those who live off post. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 86

87 Figure 14.3 Comparison of Where Meals are Eaten Out by Residence Location Never eat this meal out Eat out on post only Eat out on and off post Eat out off post only Breakfast Lunch Dinner Live On post Live Off post Live On post Live Off post Live On post Live Off post 3% 14% 24% 5% 14% 16% 27% 7% 39% 40% 45% 22% 6% 5% 63% 36% 28% 19% 37% 49% 30% 27% 37% 6% In terms of an exclusive market, very few indicated they Eat out on post only. As would be expected, percentages of on post personnel who indicated they Eat out on post only are slightly higher than percentages of off post personnel. Percentages of respondents selecting Eat out off post only are higher for off post personnel than for on post personnel. With some exceptions, and expected variations across the specific meals, sizeable percentages of respondents indicated they Eat out on and off post. Because this group considers both on and off post locations, they could be viewed as a possible target for marketing on post food and beverage services. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 87

88 14.2 Frequency of Meals Eaten Out Figure 14.4 presents data on the frequency and location of meals eaten out. Percentages based only on respondents who reported they eat that meal out either on or off post. Figure 14.4 Frequency and Location of Meals Eaten Out* Breakfast Lunch Dinner Never Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Sometimes, but less than once/month 23% 29% 42% 47% 1 3 times/month 4 6 times/month 7 or more times/month 14% 65% 16% 73% 27% 18% 21% 27% 17% 16% 15% 22% 15% 17% 10% 10% 20% 20% 6% 1% 2% 7% 1% 1% 13% 4% *Percentages based only on respondents who reported they eat that meal out either on or off post. Large percentages of respondents indicated they never eat out for breakfast (73%) or dinner (65%) on post. Compared to breakfast and dinner, lunch was the meal more likely to be eaten out and at a much greater frequency than breakfast or dinner. Figures 14.5, 14.6, and 14.7 provide data on the frequency and location of meals eaten out for each of the four response groups. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 88

89 Figure 14.5 Frequency and Location of Meals Eaten Out Breakfast, by Response Group Never Sometimes, but less than once/month 1 3 times/month 4 6 times/month 7 or more times/month Civilian Retiree Spouse Active Duty Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post 40% 37% 52% 72% 74% 83% 19% 22% 13% 13% 19% 7% 11% 7% 7% 3% 10% 13% 19% 7% 1% 1% 10% 12% 9% 7% 6% 4% 22% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 89

90 Figure 14.6 Frequency and Location of Meals Eaten Out Lunch by Response Group Never Sometimes, but less than once/month 1 3 times/month 4 6 times/month 7 or more times/month Civilian Retiree Spouse Active Duty Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post 43% 23% 10% 52% 32% 28% 16% 27% 18% 17% 30% 11% 33% 28% 20% 23% 21% 20% 13% 13% 10% 10% 3% 17% 14% 4% 2% 19% 18% 25% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 90

91 Figure 14.7 Frequency and Location of Meals Eaten Out Dinner by Response Group Never Sometimes, but less than once/month 1 3 times/month 4 6 times/month 7 or more times/month Civilian Retiree Spouse Active Duty Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post Eat Out On Post Eat Out Off Post 17% 24% 28% 10% 33% 65% 16% 77% 9% 14% 28% 22% 17% 22% 15% 23% 10% 2% 2% 17% 13% 10% 28% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 91

92 14.3 Importance of Certain Factors in the Decision of Where to Eat Out Respondents were provided a list of factors (e.g., prices, hours of operation, menu choices, customer service, etc.) and asked to indicate how important (i.e., Very important, Somewhat important, Not very important, or Not at all important), each factor was in their decision about where to eat out. The question was asked separately for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Figure 14.8 presents the percentage of respondents who indicated the factor was important (percent Somewhat/Very important ) in their decision. Percentages are shown separately for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Figure 14.8 Percentage of Respondents Indicating a Factor in Their Decision of Where to Eat Out Was Very Important/Somewhat Important Prices Hours of operation Customer Service Location/convenience Menu choices Speed Appearance/cleanliness 89% 92% 91% 89% 87% 89% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 97% 97% 97% 90% 92% 90% 97% 97% 97% 0% 50% 100% Breakfast Lunch Dinner Figures 14.9, 14.10, and provide data for each of the factors contributing to where to eat out for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, respectively, for each respondent group. Factors such as appearance and cleanliness, menu choices, customer service, location, and convenience seemed to be considered slightly more important than prices, hours of operation, and speed regardless of the meal. Appearance and cleanliness, menu choices, and location/convenience were of equal importance for breakfast, lunch and, dinner and decisions. Speed was slightly more important in the decision of where to eat lunch than other meals. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 92

93 Figure 14.9 Percentage of Respondents Indicating a Factor in their Decision of Where to Eat Out Was Very Important/Somewhat Important Breakfast Prices 89% 82% Hours of operation 88% 90% Customer Service Location/convenience Menu choices 96% 97% 96% 92% 96% 97% AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Speed 89% 97% Appearance/cleanliness 97% 97% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 93

94 Figure Percentage of Respondents Indicating a Factor in their Decision of Where to Eat Out Was Very Important/Somewhat Important Lunch Prices 92% 86% Hours of operation 87% 88% Customer Service Location/convenience Menu choices 96% 96% 96% 94% 97% 94% AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Speed 91% 94% Appearance/cleanliness 0% 50% 100% 98% 98% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 94

95 Figure Percentage of Respondents Indicating a Factor in their Decision of Where to Eat Out Was Very Important/Somewhat Important Dinner Prices 92% 93% Hours of operation 88% 93% Customer Service Location/convenience Menu choices 96% 98% 96% 95% 97% 98% AD Spouse Retiree Civilian Speed 88% 98% Appearance/cleanliness 97% 100% 0% 50% 100% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). All factors show high levels of importance across all of the meals for each response group. Retirees place greater importance on prices for breakfast and lunch than Civilians; however for dinner, Retirees consider hours of operation to be a more important factor than Civilians. Civilians, on the other hand, consider speed to be a larger factor than Retirees for breakfast and dinner. Except for prices, speed, and hours of operation, differences in levels of importance varied by only a few percentage points across the response groups. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 95

96 14.4 Amount Spent on Meals When Eating Off Post Respondents were given a range of prices and asked to indicate how much they typically spend when eating out off post. Figures 14.12, 14.13, and present this data for each meal for each response group. Figure Amount Typically Spent (Per Person) When Eating Out for Breakfast Off Post Do not eat out for breakfast Less than $3.00 $3.00 $5.99 $6.00 $8.99 $9.00 or more AD Spouse 50% 3% 13% 9% 25% Retiree 38% 3% 21% 29% 10% Civilian 35% 9% 31% 21% 5% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 96

97 Figure Amount Typically Spent (Per Person) When Eating Out for Lunch Off Post Do not eat out for lunch Less than $6.00 $6.00 $9.99 $10.00 $14.99 $15.00 or more AD Spouse 22% 3% 47% 9% 19% Retiree 30% 4% 30% 26% 10% Civilian 17% 7% 57% 16% 3% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 97

98 Figure Amount Typically Spent (Per Person) When Eating Out for Dinner Off Post Do not eat out for dinner Less than $12.00 $12.00 $14.99 $15.00 $19.99 $20.00 or more AD Spouse 16% 13% 28% 13% 31% Retiree 23% 4% 13% 20% 39% Civilian 28% 19% 12% 17% 24% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). While there appeared to be very small differences across the response groups in terms of how much respondents typically spend on eating out, in general, Retirees tended to indicate spending slightly more for their meals than Spouses and Civilians. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 98

99 14.5 Level of Satisfaction with Selected Food and Beverage Services The final question in the Food and Beverage section asked respondents about their level of satisfaction with selected food and beverage services offered at specific Family and MWR services/facilities. Satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale ranging from Very dissatisfied to Very satisfied with a mid-point of Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Figure 14.15a through Figure 14.15f provides responses for the overall respondent sample for each of the facilities along with each respondent group for each of the facilities. For purposes of comparison, data for the Army overall and the overall total for the applicable Garrison Workforce category are also provided. Because the response scale included a Have not used and a Not available option, the data in Figures 14.15a through 14.15f are based on only those respondents who provided a satisfaction rating. Figure 14.15a Satisfaction With the Food and Beverage Service at Family and MWR Catering Services Very Satisfied / Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied Army Overall 52% 40% 8% Workforce Overall 51% 41% 8% Garrison Overall 58% 34% 8% AD Spouse Retiree 63% 34% 3% Civilian Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 99

100 Figure 14.15b Satisfaction With the Food and Beverage Service at Clubs Very Satisfied / Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied Army Overall 55% 34% 12% Workforce Overall 55% 31% 14% Garrison Overall 66% 25% 9% AD Spouse Retiree 71% 25% 4% Civilian 59% 20% 20% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Fort Hamilton does not have an on post golf course, thus Figure 14.15c, satisfaction with the golf course snack bar, has been removed from this report. Figure 14.15d Satisfaction With the Bowling Center Snack Bar Very Satisfied / Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied / Very Dissatisfied Army Overall 64% 27% 9% Workforce Overall 64% 28% 8% Garrison Overall 57% 34% 9% AD Spouse Retiree 58% 36% 6% Civilian 67% 18% 16% Note: No percentage reported for groups with insufficient data (n<30). Examining patron satisfaction with selected MWR food and beverage services, the clubs (66%); family and MWR catering services (58%); and the bowling center snack bar (57%) all showed satisfaction (percent Satisfied/Very satisfied ) from more than half of all patrons. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 100

101 In general, more Retirees (71%) reported being satisfied with the food and beverage services at the clubs than Civilians (59%). On the other hand, more Civilians (67%) reported being satisfied with the bowling center snack bar than Retirees (58%). Variation in levels of satisfaction by response group across the facilities ranged from 9 percentage points (satisfaction with the bowling center snack bar) to 12 percentage points (satisfaction with the food and beverage service at food and beverage services at the clubs). There were insufficient data to measure Civilian satisfaction across all of the selected MWR food and beverage services. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 101

102 APPENDIX A: Comparison of Selected Survey Items to 2005 Survey Data The 2012 MWR Services Survey was designed to be shorter, less complex and to present a lower burden on Army Community members than its predecessor survey instrument, the Army Leisure Needs Survey (LNS, fielded most recently in 2005). In light of the increasing number of surveys administered to Soldiers on behalf of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, other Federal agencies and outside organizations and an accompanying decline in overall response rates design features of the 2012 MWR Services survey included: A reduction of about 50% in the number of individual response elements from A methodological approach that asked respondents to consider one domain at a time. Respondents were presented a logical flow of questions that asked first about their interests in that domain (e.g., outdoor recreation), followed immediately by questions about their use of on post programs related to that domain and satisfaction ratings for that program. Elimination of overly large response category grids, which can appear intimidating and lend themselves to a patterned response or respondent straight-lining (i.e., checking all bubbles in a single column in order to complete the page quickly). Careful design of the web-based survey so that respondents lacking familiarity or interest with an activity or program would be automatically redirected, (using skip logic) to the next group of questions, to minimize item redundancy and respondent frustration. A cognitive pretest of the questionnaire with respondents from each patron group, the results of which demonstrated that nearly all patrons could complete the survey within 30 minutes. These changes were implemented to strike the appropriate balance for an MWR survey that fulfills IMCOM s requirements for actionable, reliable strategic marketing data while also recognizing the realities of increasing competition for Army Community members time and attention, particularly with respect to survey invitations. The resulting instrument proved successful in boosting response rates by 2 percentage points from the 2005 LNS, within a shorter fielding period; more than 4500 additional surveys were completed (56,721 completes in 2012 compared to 52,187 in 2005). As a result of the improvements in survey design described above, direct comparisons with 2005 survey items are limited, and in fact, were not the primary focus of the 2012 MWR Services Survey. Rather, the 2012 MWR Survey results should serve to provide MWR managers at all levels with up-to-date, customer derived information on their programs, and establish a new baseline upon which future trending can be conducted that incorporates these improvements to the instrument. With this caveat, this Appendix presents comparisons of selected 2012 MWR Services Survey results with those obtained from the 2005 LNS for this garrison. Where applicable, differences in question or response construction between the surveys are provided. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 102

103 Table A-1: Most Important MWR Programs and Services Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Fitness Center/Gymnasium 79% Fitness Center/Physical Fitness Center 70% Army Lodging 72% Army Lodging 65% Child Development Center 59% Swimming Pools 44% Library 56% Child Development Center 40% Youth Center 50% Library 40% Swimming Pool 49% Community Center 39% School Age Services 44% Leisure Travel Service/Ticket and Registration Office 38% Table A-2: Use of Post Picnic and Recreation Areas in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % Used Facility in Past 12 Months 13% Used Facility in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % 19% Table A-3: Frequency of Use of Post Picnic and Recreation Areas Among Users* Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Less than once per month 70% Less than once per month 63% 1-3 times per month 23% 1-3 times per month 24% 4 or more times per month 8% 4 or more times per month 12% * Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Table A-4: Use of On Post Fitness Centers in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % Used Facility in Past 12 Months 50% Used Facility in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % 36% Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 103

104 Table A-5: Frequency of Use of On Post Fitness Facilities Among Users* Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Less than once per month 17% Less than once per week 48% 1-3 times per month 31% 1-3 times per week 29% 4 or more times per month 52% 4 or more times per week 23% *The 2005 survey measured frequency per month. Since fitness facilities have relatively high frequency of use, the 2012 survey measured frequency per week. The 2012 survey measured use of and satisfaction with multiple facilities, if they existed. Data for 2012 in Tables A-5 and A-6 are based on users of the garrison s most frequently used facility. Table A-6: Overall Satisfaction with On Post Fitness Facilities Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Overall Satisfaction with On Post Fitness Center 79% Overall Satisfaction with On Post Fitness Centers 87% Table A-7: Use of On Post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % Used Facility in Past 12 Months 30% Used Facility in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % 12% Table A-8: Frequency of Use of On Post Leisure Travel/Ticket Office Among Users* Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Less than once per month 73% Once per year or less 39% 1-3 times per month 13% 1-3 times per year 38% 4 or more times per month 14% 4 or more times per year 23% *To improve the distribution of responses, the 2012 survey measured frequency of use per year, rather than per month as in Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 104

105 Table A-9: Music Interested in Seeing Live in Concert* Garrison Total % Oldies (50 s, 31% R&B/Soul 60 s) Garrison Total % 54% Oldies (50s & 60s) 24% R&B 37% * The 2005 survey measured preferred types of music. The 2012 survey measured types of music you would like to see in concert. Table A-10: Use of On Post Bowling Center in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % Used Facility in Past 12 Months 37% Used Facility in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % 19% Table A-11: Frequency of Use of On Post Bowling Center Among Users* Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Less than once per month 54% Less than once per month 72% 1-3 times per month 26% 1-3 times per month 20% 4 or more times per month 21% 4 or more times per month 9% *2012 survey data presented above are for Recreational Bowling/Open Play. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Table A-12: Overall Satisfaction with On Post Bowling Center Garrison Total % Overall Satisfaction with Bowling Center 89% Overall Satisfaction with Bowling Center Garrison Total % 83% Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 105

106 Table A-13: Use of On Post Library in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % Used Facility in Past 12 Months Garrison Total % 26% Used Facility in Past 12 Months 19% Table A-14: Frequency of Use of On Post Library Among Users* Garrison Total % Less than once per month 58% Sometimes, but less than once per month Garrison Total % 1-3 times per month 28% 1-3 times per month 31% 4 or more times per month 14% 4 or more times per month 14% * 2012 results presented above represent frequency of library use for Reading, viewing, listening and/or checking out materials. 55% Table A-15: Frequency of Eating Out for Breakfast (ON Post)* Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Never (ON Post) 68% Never (ON post) 73% Less than once per month 16% Less than once per month 17% 1-3 times per month 7% 1-3 times per month 7% 4-6 times per month 3% 4-6 times per month 1% 7 or more times per month 6% 7 or more times per month 1% * Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Table A-16: Frequency of Eating Out for Lunch (ON Post)* Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Never (ON Post) 48% Never (ON post) 47% Less than once per month 19% Less than once per month 27% 1-3 times per month 22% 1-3 times per month 15% 4-6 times per month 5% 4-6 times per month 6% 7 or more times per month 6% 7 or more times per month 4% * Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 106

107 Table A-17: Frequency of Eating Out for Dinner (ON Post) Garrison Total % Garrison Total % Never (ON Post) 61% Never (ON post) 65% Less than once per month 18% Less than once per month 22% 1-3 times per month 11% 1-3 times per month 10% 4-6 times per month 6% 4-6 times per month 1% 7 or more times per month 4% 7 or more times per month 2% Table A-18: Satisfaction with vs. Quality of Family and MWR Catering Services* Quality of MWR Catering Services Garrison Total % 52% Satisfaction with MWR Catering Services Garrison Total % 58% *The 2005 survey measured "quality" (percent reporting very good/good). The 2012 survey measured "satisfaction" (percent very satisfied/satisfied). Table A-19: Overall Satisfaction with Family and MWR Army Entertainment Services* Overall Quality of MWR Army Entertainment Services Garrison Mean Score 2.91 Overall Satisfaction with Family and MWR Army Entertainment Garrison Mean Score *The 2005 survey measured "quality" and 2012 survey measured satisfaction." Mean scores are presented rather than percent satisfied because the 2012 item was asked of all respondents, not just those reporting use Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 107

108 APPENDIX B: Background of Survey Regulations and policy require that Garrison Family and MWR programs engage in market research to understand the demographic profile of customers, along with their needs, preferences, and satisfaction. Additionally, the Deloitte 2009 U.S. Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Study of Garrison Family and MWR Overhead Efficiencies and the 2010 Family and MWR Marketing Data Call identified centralized research and survey support to Garrison marketing as an area of opportunity. Measuring leisure needs and market demands for Family and MWR programs will provide the critical data necessary to enable data-driven decision making for business planning, program development and resource allocation. The objective of this survey was to obtain the opinions, perceptions, attitudes, and interests of personnel supported by respective installations about specified MWR programs and to obtain an assessment of market share and market potential for MWR Programs and Services at the installation level. The 2012 Army MWR Services Survey provides data for the five-year program planning process and helps meet the requirements for needs assessments under AR and fulfill the requirement for customer satisfaction in the Installation Status Report Program. The project involved conducting surveys of persons stationed at or associated with 75 Army Garrisons worldwide. The specific focus was on the four market segments of Active Duty Service Members; Spouses of Active Duty Service Members; DoD Civilians; and Retirees. Target populations included individuals living on and off post. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 108

109 APPENDIX C: Survey Methodology and Administration Survey Design Based on discussions with Family and MWR Program Managers on the content of the Basic Survey Form (BSF), ICF prepared the first draft of the instrument. Further development and refinement of the instrument took place in an iterative process of reviewing and refining the survey internally to work out issues of clarity, flow, recording format, and length of administration, using feedback from internal ICF reviewers. Regular feedback on survey content was also provided by Family and MWR Program Managers. As feedback was received internally and from Family and MWR Program Managers, ICF revised the instrument and prepared a refined version for cognitive testing. Based on participant feedback during the cognitive testing and additional feedback from Family and MWR Program Managers, ICF revised the survey. After finalization of the questionnaire items, ICF developed a web version of the survey, providing participants with two separate modes of completing the survey. Sampling, Response Rates and Data Weighting Complete details of the sampling plan, response rates and weighting of the data can be found in Appendix B of the Army level report in this series. Exhibit C-1 summarizes the relevant sampling, and response rate information for Fort Hamilton. Exhibit C-1: Sampling, Response Rates, and Data Weighting for Fort Hamilton Active Duty Spouse Retirees Civilian Totals Garrison population Target sample size Sample size adjusted for ineligible persons Number of surveys returned by selfreported market segments Response rate Final weights The headings on the left side of Exhibit C-1 have the following meaning: Garrison population - the population of each market segment given by DMDC Target sample size - the desired sample size calculated for a 95% confidence and a 5% margin of error Sample size adjusted for ineligible persons - the actual sample size after removing those members of the target sample that are ineligible for various reasons; documented in detail in Appendix B of the Army level report Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 109

110 Number of surveys returned by self-reported market segments - the number of surveys for market segments as determined by respondents' answers to one of the survey questions, rather than by DMDC. Response rates - the number of surveys returned as a proportion of the adjusted sample size Final weights - the weights used in the data analysis for this Garrison Survey Administration Surveys were administered to participants in phases. We began by sending a pre-notification to Active Duty and DoD Civilians with an AKO address. About 10 days later, these pre-notification s were followed with an announcement that included a URL and personalized password for completing the survey over the web. Active Duty and DoD Civilians from this group who did not complete the web survey were sent up to 2 reminders. Those from this group who still did not complete the web survey at that point were moved to the USPS mail group. About two weeks after we began sending pre-notification s, we began sending prenotification letters via USPS to Spouses and Retirees. Over the next 6-8 weeks we then sent mail out packages (MOPs) to all of the remaining participants. MOPs included a survey announcement, paper version of the survey, and unique survey URL and password if the participant preferred to complete the web survey. Following receipt of the MOP, those who did not complete the survey were sent up to two additional reminders via USPS mail that included their URL and password. Data Processing and Cleaning Data received from mail and web surveys were merged on a weekly basis to provide regular, estimates of return rates. Upon conclusion of data collection, the web and USPS data sets were merged to create a final data file. Prior to conducting analyses, ICF employed data coding and cleaning procedures to ensure the quality of the data in the file. Additional Survey Comments In both the paper and web versions of the survey, respondents were given space to provide additional comments or to suggest new activities to be included in Army Family MWR Programs. Specifically, in both the paper and web versions of the survey the final question was: Do you have any additional comments about your post's Family and MWR programs, or any suggestions for new activities that you would like to share? If so, please use the space below. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 110

111 APPENDIX D: Army MWR Services Survey Report Portal To provide a means to answer nuanced questions by the user of this report or view additional data comparisons, ICF developed a report portal with a web-based interface to dynamic survey data. Using a dedicated password, the report user has access to the 62 questions in the survey. Pull-down menus provide filters to the survey data for selected demographic or respondent groups to generate customized results. More details of the Survey Portal can be found in Appendix C in the Army level report. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 111

112 APPENDIX E: ICF Qualifications For more than 25 years ICF has conducted social science research focused on military personnel, veterans and military families including five consecutive iterations of the Army MWR Leisure Market Survey (1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2005). Our interest in obtaining statistically valid results for the MWR Services Survey extends beyond our motivation as researchers to provide critical data to support IMCOM s decision-making for MWR business planning, program development and resource allocation. We are end users of the MWR surveys as well, regularly using these survey data to inform our marketing and field assessment studies (Project Validation Assessments/PVAs) for MWR programs in the Army and across the other military branches of service. More than two decades of experience in conducting over 200 PVAs worldwide across all services has given us an understanding of a wide range of MWR programs, including clubs/restaurants, bowling centers, golf courses, recreation lodging/motels/hotels, authorized retail operations, youth/teen centers, automotive skills centers, arts and crafts centers, community activity centers, sports fields and courts, skating rinks, aquatic facilities, outdoor recreation and equipment check-out centers, and entertainment facilities such as music and theater operations and Warrior Zones. Beyond MWR, ICF has helped the branches of service assess and support personnel and family readiness, warrior care, the home-based needs of service personnel and families, and the programs designed to address those needs. Our research-to-practice model has yielded solutions for improving service delivery and support, including the evaluation, design, implementation, and improvement of programs for Active and retired Service Members. Still longer is ICF s history serving federal, state, and local agencies, nonprofits, and the commercial sector in environment, energy, transportation, infrastructure, and public safety. Since 1969, ICF has been a global leader in the latest technologies to clients in these markets with over 4,500 employees serving in over 50 offices worldwide. Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 112

113 APPENDIX F: 2012 ARMY MWR SERVICES SURVEY Fort Hamilton ICF International Page 113

114 Army MWR Services Survey Fort Hamilton Please share your opinions of the Army's Family and MWR programs and services on this post by answering this survey. The results from this survey will help us decide where and how we can improve our service to customers. There are two ways to complete the survey: 1) Web: If you have internet access, we encourage you to complete the survey online. Please go to and type in your Web Survey Access Code, printed below. Your Web Survey Access Code: 2) Paper: If you do not have internet access or prefer completing a paper version of the survey, simply fill out this questionnaire and return it in the pre-addressed envelope provided. Please complete your survey as soon as possible. We appreciate your feedback very much, and thank you in advance for helping us to serve you better! MARKING INSTRUCTIONS Use a No. 2 pencil. You may use pen (blue or black ink) but making changes may not be possible. CORRECT MARK Fill in the circle completely. Erase cleanly any marks you wish to change. Do not make any stray marks on this form. INCORRECT MARKS Survey Approval Authority: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Control Number: DAPE-ARI-AO RCS: MILPC3 Privacy Act Advisory Statement: Authority 10 U.S.C. section Information will be used to compile statistical data on interests and satisfaction with Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation services at this installation. Statistical data on satisfaction levels and leisure trends may be compiled Army-wide. All responses are confidential. Disclosure of data is voluntary. There is no penalty for not providing requested information. DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA -1-