2000 NORTHERN VIRGINIA TELEWORK FOCUS GROUPS 

 

SPONSOR:

 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

          Contact: Charlene “Gus” Robey, TDM and Marketing Section

 

RESEARCH VENDOR:

 

THE MARKETING SOURCE, INC., Chester, VA.   Conducted 2000

Contact:  Joni Carter

Telephone:  804-438-6091

Email:  marksorc@crosslink.net

 

OVERALL PURPOSE:

 

The 2000 Northern Virginia Telework focus groups were conducted with area employers to gain their input in the development of the initial Telework!VA program.  In addition, other TDM ideas for Northern Virginia employers were tested including the Employer Shuttle Capital Assistance Program and the Mobile Commuter Store.  The input from these five employer focus groups were used to develop the Northern Virginia TELEWORK!VA program and the Mobile Commuter Store currently operating in Northern Virginia. Program website:  www.teleworkva.org  

 

 

OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH:

 

Ž    Investigate proposed initiative programs that provide incentives for Northern Virginia businesses to develop or expand employee transportation programs. 

Ž    These initiative programs include the following:

Telework Incentive Program – This program would provide financial incentives and training to help employers start or expand telework programs.  This capital match program provides monetary incentives for teleworking from both home and telework centers.  The telework from home program would offset the cost of purchasing computer equipment, and the telework from a telework center would offset the cost of leasing space at a formal telework center.

Employer Shuttle Capital Assistance Program – This program would serve as an incentive to encourage businesses to provide employee shuttle service to the nearest rail or transit stop by paying the capital cost of leasing vans for the service.  The lease subsidy offer would be available to any employer who agreed to pay the operating and maintenance costs of providing the shuttle service.  The employer’s operating expense would include the salary and overhead for drivers, fuel, tires, maintenance, insurance, and applicable taxes.

Mobile Commuter Store – The primary objective is to provide Commuter Store services to employees in major commercial areas that may not have the densities required for a permanent and more costly retail outlet.  The Mobile Commuter Store would be a bus or mobile home that is retrofitted to serve as a small retail outlet on wheels.  The store would be stocked with timetables, maps, and brochures and sell transit fares for all the transit services operating in the region. It would accept Metrochek and provide Commuter Connection’s Ridematching and Guaranteed Ride Home services as well as information and services for bicycling, telecommuting, paratransit, and more. 

 

 

METHODOLOGY:

 

Mode of Data Collection

Employer focus groups in three Northern Virginia locations with varying levels of commute alternatives

Area represented

Alexandria/Arlington, Tyson’s Corner, Dulles

Group Population

In most cases, participants were human resource directors or facility managers

Survey Instrument

Moderator’s guide

Criteria for Participation

Persons responsible for establishing employee policy  

 

 

SELECTED KEY FINDINGS:

 

Ž    Retaining and recruiting employees:  All focus group participants agreed that attracting and recruiting good employees are problems for their business.  This opinion was shared by companies in urban areas as well as those located in the suburbs. 

Ž    Participants estimate that recruiting costs to fill vacant positions range from $300 for unskilled labor to as much as $15,000 for professional employees.  Some employers spend as much as $3,000 to recruit clerk-level employees for their business.

Ž    Attitudes toward employees’ work commute:  Participants unanimously agreed that traffic congestion affected their employees by causing stress and frustration and decreasing productivity among workers.  Due to the competition for good employees, all employers felt that it was to their advantage to assist employees in their commute to and from work.  They also mentioned that individual employees as well as local, state, and federal governments also shared in this responsibility.

Ž    Telework From Home Incentive Program:  Overall, respondents were favorable toward this program.  Some employers already had a formal telework program in place, while others had offered telecommuting to employees on an individual basis.  

Ž    While all participants felt that the program was a good idea, some small businesses felt that their management would be resistant to the general idea of teleworking.  Also, several participants acknowledged that telecommuting was not an appropriate fit for all types of companies, especially those that involved personal service or manufacturing.  Another concern voiced by the groups was the possible disruption to office synergy, which, in their opinion, would reduce productivity. In addition, some believed that their managers would feel that they would not have adequate control over employees who telecommute from home.  Lastly, companies voiced concern over OSHA requirements and liability issues.

Ž    It was apparent in all the groups that the employee participation requirement was a more crucial factor than the amount of the state’s reimbursement.   Company representatives noted it was important to have employees at the worksite at least two to three days per week.  Many participants agreed that the one-day-per-week requirement was not worth the effort of coordinating the program. 

Ž    When asked to estimate the number of employees who would be interested and able to use the Home Telework program, most estimated the number to be between 5% and 10%.

Ž    Telework From Telework Center Incentive Program:  Clearly, working from a Telework Center was not as popular as teleworking form home.  Most employers felt that once employees had made the effort to dress for work and get in their cars, they would prefer to drive to their offices rather than commute to a Telework Center.  Some employers also expressed concern about the lack of security and interaction with co-workers. Another objection was that the employer’s work force was coming from “all over” and that the Telework Centers were not conveniently located near the majority of their employees.  Lastly, employers were concerned about the cost of having to provide two office spaces (on-site space and Telework Center workstation).

Ž    The Telework Center concept was of most interest to companies seeking solutions for overcrowded businesses or as satellite offices on a project-by-project basis.  The two-year required commitment, however, was not attractive to participants who were considering the centers as a temporary solution.

Ž    As with the Telework from Home Program, the reimbursement portion was not as important as the participation level. 

Ž    While participants felt that the telework programs would create more flexibility in the workplace, most did not appear to believe the programs would greatly impact recruitment efforts.

Ž    Telework Educational Program:  Group participants were favorable about the educational component.  Many felt that this would address implementation and management issues.

Ž    Participants thought the program should include information on how to train and supervise employees who work either at home or a Telework Center.  In addition, they felt that information on tax issues, liability issues, and OSHA requirements, and ways to promote telework programs within their organization should be addressed. 

Ž    Most employers felt that quarterly training sessions were appropriate due to turnover among employees.

Ž    Employee Shuttle Program:  The employer shuttle service was most attractive to those employers who are located near a Metro station or those who may have multiple offices near Metro stations. 

Ž    The majority of participants felt that an employer-sponsored shuttle service would be too expensive for their company.  Many felt that they did not have a need for the shuttle.  In addition, many were concerned about the day-to-day management and the liability of running a shuttle service.  Some employers would prefer that a leasing company provide the insured van and driver as well as manage the program. They stated that they would rather be reimbursed for outsourcing the program or given a tax benefit for their participation.

Ž    As the reimbursement figure approached 100%, companies were noticeably more interested.  However, the operating and maintenance costs still appeared cost prohibitive for most businesses.  Smaller employers could see this service appropriately being shared among businesses located in the same vicinity.

Ž    Mobile Commuter Store Program:  The mobile commuter store program was widely accepted, particularly among larger businesses and companies that had nearby transportation alternatives. 

Ž    In addition to providing a convenient service to their existing public transportation users, employers believed that the mobile commuter store was an excellent promotional tool to educate and promote ridesharing among those who drive alone to work.

Ž    A few employers mentioned that they did not see the need for the mobile commuter store to visit their employer because there are few mass transit options for their employees.  In particular, companies in Western Fairfax/Loudoun Counties were less likely to see the benefits of the mobile store due to their inaccessibility to public transportation alternatives.

Ž    Proof of Performance and Evaluation:  Employers felt that their standard accounting process should be the only proof of performance needed for reimbursement purposes.  Most were willing to participate in an annual transportation survey to gauge the impact of the initiative programs.  However, they preferred that the survey be coordinated with other corporate surveys.

Ž    Communication: Professional association groups such as the local Human Resource Associations and Chambers of Commerce were mentioned as the most effective means to communicate specific details of the transportation programs. 

Ž    All groups felt that information about the programs should be targeted to Human Resource Directors and Facilities Managers.  They felt that the best way to distribute this information would be through the mail, Internet, and association publications.

 

AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS:

 

Moderator’s Guide

PowerPoint Presentation

Final Report

 

KEY WORDS:

 

Employer Shuttle Capital Assistance Program, Employer studies, Focus Groups, mobile commuter store, Northern Virginia, telecommute, Telework, TELEWORK!VA, VDRPT