1. 2009 DoD MWR Customer Satisfaction Results

2. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Survey Methodology Survey Respondents 24,920 interviews were completed and used for analysis.  The resulting confidence interval is +/- 0.2 at 95% level of confidence. Interviews were conducted via the web July 29 th to August 28 th. All respondents were active duty Service members. Results were weighted based on the Authorized Troop Strength per the National Defense Authorization Act. Responses Proportions (before weighting) Proportions (after weighting) Air Force9,89640% 23% Army3,91616% 38% Marine Corps5,00720% 14% Navy6,10124% 25% Total Responses 24,920100% 22

3. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 3 81% CONUS, 19% Overseas 84% Male, 16% Female 75% White, 14% African American 70% Enlisted, 26% Officer 67% Married, 26% Single, 7% Joint Service 58% Have children under age 20 33% Under 30 yrs, 42% 30 to 39 yrs, 25% 40 yrs & over 20% Less than 5 yrs Active Duty, 19% 5 to 9 yrs, 41% 10 to 19 yrs, 20% 20 & over 10% Currently Deployed, 60% Previously Deployed, 30% Never Deployed Respondent Profile

4. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 4 Respondent Profile Time at Current Installation Total Less than 3 months9% 3 months to less than 6 months7% 6 months to less than 1 year14% 1 year or more71% Installations Stationed at Total First11% 2 to 551% 6 or more38% Residence Total Off-installation69% On-installation31%

5. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. DoD MWR CSI Model Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Overall Compared to Expectations Compared to Ideal Readiness Retention Organizational Commitment Unit Cohesion Fitness CSI Libraries CSI Outdoor Recreation CSI Single Program CSI Automotive Skills CSI Recreation Centers CSI Leisure Travel CSI 5 MWR Satisfaction Program Satisfaction Outcomes

6. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. DoD MWR CSI Model Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Overall Compared to Expectations Compared to Ideal Readiness 3.8 67 Retention 1.5 70 Organizational Commitment 1.6 81 Unit Cohesion 1.7 71 69 Fitness CSI (84% of respondents) 69 1.2 Libraries CSI (36% of respondents) 74 0.6 Outdoor Recreation CSI (29% of respondents) 72 2.3 Single Program CSI (4% of respondents*) 73 1.1 Automotive Skills CSI (23% of respondents) 72 0.3 Recreation Centers CSI (8% of respondents) 72 1.1 Leisure Travel CSI (30% of respondents) 72 0.8 6 Scores Impacts Within the context of this study, scores in the 60s are characterized as "fine but could use work," the 70s as "good job but keep working on it" and the 80s as "excellent - keep it up. “ At the program level, as well as MWR CSI, scores in the mid-70s are expected. It is unlikely that any program will or should achieve a score greater than 85. Top Priority *6% excluding Air Force

7. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Calculating Impacts A Simple Conceptual Example for a Mazda Miata Interior (leg room, head room, seat comfort, etc.) Handling (highway, snow, etc.) Brakes (reliability, durability, etc.) Etc. CSI (overall, v. expectations, v. ideal) Pam849…7 John5710…4 Carol369…2 ImpactHighLow …

8. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. DoD MWR Priority Matrix 88 Top Priority Fitness Programs Libraries Single Program Automotive Skills Recreation Centers Leisure Travel 65 80 0.00.51.01.52.02.5 Dimension Score Impact on Satisfaction Outdoor Recreation

9. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 9 MWR CSI 69 70 68 65 72 Total Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy

10. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Fitness Programs Top Priority 10 Fitness CSI (84% of respondents) 69 1.2 Facility Programs

11. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 11 Fitness Programs Usage Usage Average Across All Programs Fitness Programs Never use69%16% Used in past 12 months2%4% Currently use29%80% Frequency of Use Average Across All Programs Fitness Programs Occasionally38%18% Several times a year31%8% Several times a month17%18% Several times a week11%42% Daily3%15% Characteristics of current fitness program users are very similar to the total survey population

12. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Fitness Facilities and Programs Themes from Verbatim Comments The following are the most frequently mentioned areas of concern: Quality of facilities (e.g., appearance, cleanliness, maintenance) Hours of operation (e.g., times swimming and classes are available, seasonal availability) Availability of facilities (e.g., not too crowded or too small, open according to schedule, convenience) Availability of equipment (e.g., enough equipment for number of users, selection) Variety of classes and activities (e.g., Martial Arts, Aerobics, Triathlon) Cost of activities and services offered Quality of equipment (e.g., meets fitness needs, functions properly, general condition) 12

13. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 13 Fitness Programs CSI 69 68 69 71 Total Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy

14. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 14 Fitness Programs Total Impact on Fitness CSI 2.4 2.1

15. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 15 Fitness Programs – Programs Total 71 75 74 69 67 63 Fitness Programs- Programs Fitness hours of operation Helpfulness of fitness staff Variety of classes (yoga, Pilates, aerobics, etc.) Family exercise/fitness programs Times that classes are available

16. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 16 Fitness Programs – Facility Total 74 76 74 72 Fitness Programs- Facility Quality of equipment Variety of facilities (e.g., basketball courts, pool, running track, etc.) General condition of fitness facilities Availability of equipment

17. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 17 Fitness Programs Segment Score Differences 17 Higher Scoring Segments African American74 Less than 3 months at current installation 73 Warrant Officer73 20 years or more active duty71 Navy71 Fitness Program CSI: 69 Lower Scoring Segments Personally disabled59 Household member with disability 67 Masters/Doctorate degree67

18. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Outdoor Recreation Top Priority 18 Outdoor Recreation CSI (29% of respondents) 72 2.3 Rental Equip Activities Programs

19. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 19 Outdoor Recreation Total 2.4 1.5 Impact on Outdoor Rec CSI 1.0

20. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Remaining Programs 20

21. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 21 Libraries Facility

22. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 22 Single Programs CSI

23. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 23 Automotive Skills Program 73 78 75 74 66 57 Automotive Skills - Program Availability of tools Having tools that are up-to-date Prices and fees Variety of services and programs available Availability of lifts Automotive hours of operation Availability of paint booth

24. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 24 Leisure Travel Staff/Policy

25. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 25 Usage Average Across All Programs Rec Centers Never use69% 92% Used in past 12 months2% 0% Currently use29% 8% Recreation Centers Usage and Segment Score Differences Higher Scoring Segments Average Rec Center Score72 African American78 Less than 3 months at current installation 76 Stationed at first installation75 Navy75 Participate in 3 or less programs* 75 Participate in less than 25 activities** 74

26. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Desired Outcomes 26

27. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 27 Readiness

28. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 28 Readiness Total

29. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 29 Readiness Segment Score Differences 29 Readiness: 67 Higher Scoring Segments Participate in 11 or more programs* 72 Less than 3 months at current installation 72 African American71 Participate in more than 30 activities** 70 40 years of age or over69 18 years or more military service69 Navy69 Lower Scoring Segments Personally disabled58 Participate in less than 20 activities** 60 Participate in 3 or less programs*62 Marine Corps64 Under 25 years of age65 *From a list of 32 services and programs, respondents were asked to identify those that they use on installation, such as library, veterinary clinic, bowling center, etc. **From a list of 38 activities, respondents were asked to identify those in which they participate on installation or in the civilian community, such as golfing, gardening, going to movies, etc.

30. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 30 Unit Cohesion

31. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 31 Unit Cohesion Total

32. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 32 Organizational Commitment

33. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 33 Organizational Commitment Total

34. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 34 Retention

35. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Key Findings 35

36. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Key Findings Top Priorities Top Priority areas are 1) Fitness and 2) Outdoor Recreation Fitness Within Fitness, initial emphasis should be on low scoring (i.e., 60s) attributes under Programs. Fitness Facilities also need improvement. Fitness is the sole Top Priority area for those less than 25 years old. Outdoor Recreation Within Outdoor Recreation, primary focus should be on Rental Equipment. Desired Outcomes Of the four Desired Outcomes, MWR Satisfaction has the greatest impact on Readiness. 36

37. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Next Steps 37

38. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Next Steps Information Review Ensure that your decision makers, those responsible for each program, and those who are tasked with making program changes are familiar with the results Action Planning Set up action planning sessions to make sure that specific tasks and timelines are developed to address improvement opportunities Ensure that improvements that can be easily implemented (i.e., low cost, minimal effort) are made as soon as possible Survey Enhancements Learnings from the current survey will improve the quality of the next wave 38

39. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Appendix A Under 25 Model Under 25 Priority Matrix 39

40. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. DoD MWR CSI Model - Under 25 yrs Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Overall Compared to Expectations Compared to Ideal Readiness 3.9 65 Retention 2.0 52 Organizational Commitment 2.4 72 Unit Cohesion 2.4 64 69 Fitness CSI (88% of respondents) 70 1.6 Libraries CSI (42% of respondents) 74 0.8 Outdoor Recreation CSI (25% of respondents) 73 1.9 Single Program CSI (8% of respondents*) 75 1.7 Automotive Skills CSI (25% of respondents) 74 0.0 Recreation Centers CSI (9% of respondents) 73 1.7 Leisure Travel CSI (17% of respondents) 73 0.9 40 When setting priorities for improvement initiatives, scores, impacts and the percentage of personnel who participate in each program (i.e., percentage of respondents) should all be considered. The performance of each dimension on a 0 to 100 scale. Dimension scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions. Scores The change in the variable to the right that results from a five point change in a dimension score. Impacts *excludes Air Force respondents *14% excluding Air Force

41. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. DoD MWR Priority Matrix - Under 25 yrs 41 Top Priority Fitness Programs Libraries Outdoor Recreation Single Program Automotive Skills Recreation Centers Leisure Travel 65 80 0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0 Impact on Satisfaction Component Score

42. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Appendix B Detailed DoD MWR CSI Model 42

43. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. DoD MWR CSI Model Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Overall Compared to Expectations Compared to Ideal Readiness 3.8 67 Retention 1.5 70 Organizational Commitment 1.6 81 Unit Cohesion 1.7 71 69 Fitness CSI (84% of respondents) 69 1.2 Libraries CSI (36% of respondents) 74 0.6 Outdoor Recreation CSI (29% of respondents) 72 2.3 Single Program CSI (4% of respondents) 73 1.1 Automotive Skills CSI (23% of respondents) 72 0.3 Recreation Centers CSI (8% of respondents) 72 1.1 Leisure Travel CSI (30% of respondents) 72 0.8 Staff 80 Facility 75 0.4 4.3 Facility 74 Fees 73 4.0 0.6 Facility 75 Programs 74 1.9 2.8 Facility 74 Programs 71 2.4 2.1 Staff 78 Program 73 1.5 3.4 Programs 75 Staff/Policy 72 3.0 1.8 Rental Equip 73 Activities 73 2.4 1.0 Programs 72 1.5 43 The performance of each dimension on a 0 to 100 scale. Dimension scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions. Scores The change in the variable to the right that results from a five point change in a dimension score. Impacts When setting priorities for improvement initiatives, scores, impacts and the percentage of personnel who participate in each program (i.e., percentage of respondents) should all be considered.

44. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Appendix C CFI Group American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Score Calculation Deriving Impacts 44

45. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. CFI Group At a Glance Founded in 1988; Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan Principals are among the world experts in constituent/ stakeholder satisfaction Offices worldwide; 150 full-time consultants and researchers 80+ clients; 150 to 180 on-going consulting projects Patented analytical system – US # 6,192,319 CFI Group methodology underpins the respected econometric tool, the American Customer Satisfaction Index Results published quarterly 45

46. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Unique Features of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) The only uniform measure of customer satisfaction in the U.S. economy, covering sectors accounting for about 66% of GDP Measures the quality of economic output on a quarterly basis; complementary to productivity measures and indicative of consumer spending Uses multiple-item indicators to assess drivers of satisfaction Meets the objective of explaining desired outcomes Allows for comparison across agencies Illustrates how customer satisfaction is embedded in a system of cause and effect relationships 46

47. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. 47 ACSI Scores – National, Sector & Industry Q4 2008 – Q3 2009 Energy Utilities 74 Source: www.theacsi.org 76.0 Utilities 73.7 Utilities 73.7 Transportation 72.6 Transportation 72.6 Airlines 64 U.S. Postal Service 74 Express Delivery 82 Information 70.2 Information 70.2 Health Care & Social Assistance 78.5 Health Care & Social Assistance 78.5 Newspapers 63 Motion Pictures 74 Computer Software 75 Fixed Line Telephone Service 72 Wireless Telephone Service 69 Cellular Telephones 72 Cable & Satellite TV 63 Network Cable TV News 71 Hospitals 77 Ambulatory Care 80 Accommodation & Food Services 78.9 Accommodation & Food Services 78.9 Hotels 75 Full Service Restaurants 84 Limited Service Restaurants 78 Manufacturing/ Durable Goods 81.6 Manufacturing/ Durable Goods 81.6 Personal Computers 75 Electronics (TV/VCR/DVD) 83 Major Appliances 81 Automobiles & Light Vehicles 84 E-Business 81.5 E-Business 81.5 Manufacturing/ Nondurable Goods 81.5 Manufacturing/ Nondurable Goods 81.5 Public Administration/ Government 67.9 Public Administration/ Government 67.9 Retail Trade 75.2 Retail Trade 75.2 Finance & Insurance 76.0 Finance & Insurance 76.0 E-Commerce 80.0 E-Commerce 80.0 74Internet News & Information 83Internet Portals/Search Engines 83 Food Manufacturing 84 Pet Food 80 Athletic Shoes 85 Personal Care & Cleaning Products 68.0Local Government 67.8Federal Government 76Supermarkets 74Gasoline Stations 74Department & Discount Stores 76Specialty Retail Stores 78Health & Personal Care Stores 82 Retail 74Brokerage 75 Travel 85 Soft Drinks 84 Breweries 72 Cigarettes 82 Apparel 75Banks 84Credit Unions 73Health Insurance 78Life Insurance 81Property & Casualty Insurance

48. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Attributes (questions on the survey) are typically answered on a 1-10 scale Social science research shows 7-10 response categories are optimal Customers are familiar with a 10 point scale Before being reported, scores are transformed from a 1-10 to a 0- 100 scale The transformation is strictly algebraic; e.g. The 0-100 scale simplifies reporting: Often no need to report many, if any, decimal places 0-100 scale is useful as a management tool A Note About Score Calculation Orig. (1-10)Trans. (0-100) 10 211.1 322.2 877.8 988.9 10100 48

49. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Deriving Impacts Remember high school algebra? The general formula for a line is: y = mx + b The basic idea is that x is a “cause” and y is an “effect”, and m represents the slope of the line – summarizing the relationship between x & y CFI Group uses a sophisticated variation of the advanced statistical tool, Partial Least Squares (PLS) Regression, to determine impacts when many different causes (i.e., quality components) simultaneously effect an outcome (e.g., Customer Satisfaction) 49