uw-parkside campus climate assessment results of report may 5, 2010

UW-Parkside

Campus Climate Assessment

Results of Report

May 5, 2010

Assessing Campus Climate

Rankin & Reason, 2008

What is it?

•Campus Climate is a construct

Definition?

•Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards and practices of employees and students of an institution

How is it measured?

•Personal Experiences

•Perceptions

•Institutional Efforts

Campus Climate & Students

How students experience their

campus environment influences both learning and

developmental outcomes.1

Discriminatory environments have a negative effect on student learning.2

Research supports the pedagogical value of a diverse student body

and faculty on enhancing learning

outcomes.3

1 Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 20052 Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991. 3 Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye , 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado, 2003.

The Climate Project & Inclusive Excellence

The Climate Study is foundational to Inclusive Excellence in that it is the first time in the UW System that we are collecting data on multiple and intersectional identities based on experiences and perceptions of campus life by all members of the community.

It is a population study that encouraged every campus community member to provide input on the campus climate.

The input, data, and final results will be used in tandem with other data as a starting point to build an action plan that speaks to Inclusive Excellence.

Process to Date Participating Institutions

Spring 2008UW Colleges

UW-La Crosse

UW-Milwaukee

UW-Oshkosh

UW-Stevens Point

Fall 2009UW-Eau Claire

UW- Parkside

UW-River Falls

UW-Whitewater

Results

Response Rates

Who are the respondents?

1,652 people responded to the call to participate (28% response rate overall).

Several respondents contributed remarks to the open-ended questions.

Who are the respondents?

77%

•Students

13%

•Staff

8%

•Faculty

Faculty Response Rates

Instructional Academic Staff (56%, n = 31)

Assistant Professor (66%, n = 23)

Adjunct Faculty (17%, n = 17)

Associate Professor (67%, n = 37)

Professor (79%, n = 23)

Faculty Response Rates by Selected Demographics

Faculty of Color

67% (n = 36)

White Faculty

40% (n = 87)

By RaceWomen Faculty

53% (n = 68)

Men faculty

43% (n = 63)

By Gender

Staff Response Rates

Administrators (n = 18)

Limited Term Employee (17%, n = 15)

Classified Staff Non-Exempt (48%, n = 74)

Classified Staff Exempt (100%, n = 33)

Non-Instructional Academic Staff (50%, n = 61)

Limited Academic Staff (24%, n = 6)

Staff Response Rates by Selected Demographics

Staff of Color

49% (n = 37)

White Staff

30% (n = 169)

By RaceWomen Staff

55% (n =131)

Men Staff

42% (n = 75)

By Gender

Student Response Rates

Associate Degree (n = 61)

Non-Degree Seeking (n = 42)

Transfer (n = 141)

Dual Enrollment (n = 1)

Bachelor Degree Student (20%, n = 966)

Professional Degree (n = 22)

Master Degree Student (33%, n = 40)

Student Response Rates by Selected Demographics

Students of Color

28% (n = 337)

White Students

24% (n = 908)

By RaceWomen Students

28% (n = 797)

Men Students 20% (n = 462)

By Gender

Results

Demographic Characteristics

Student Respondents by Class Standing (n)

Students

269 244296

232176

17 1 5

First year 2nd yr

3rd yr 4th yr

5th yr or more Master's degree

Doctoral degree Professional degree

Student Residence

22% of student respondents

lived in residence halls

30% of student respondents lived in off-

campus apartment or

house

35% of student respondents lived in with

parent(s)/ family/ relatives

Income by Student Status (n)

Below $29,999K

$30K - $59,999

$60K - $99,999

$100K-$149K

$150K or above

120

170 160

7432

294

10258

223

27 10 14 5 2

Undergraduate Dependent

Undergraduate Independent

Graduate students

Employee Respondents by Position Status (n)

Series1

17

3123

37

2315

74

33

61

6

18

39

Adjunt professorInstructional academic staffAssistant professorAssociate professorProfessorLimited term employeeClassified staff non-exemptClassified staff exemptNon-instructional academic staffLimited academic staffAdministratorOther

Collapsed Employee Status (n)

Series1

131

100 107

FacultyAcademic StaffClassified Staff

Respondents by Gender and Position Status (n)

There were 4 respondents who identified as transgender

Women Men

757

439

40 2368 6360 3971 36

Undergraduate Students

Graduate Students

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Respondents by Sexual Orientation and Position Status (n)

Respondents by Racial Identity(Duplicated Total)

25145

1 30 28 5 5

1256

15143

15 43 7 51

African

African American/Black

Alaskan

Asian

Asian American

Southeast Asian

Caribbean/West Indian

Caucasian/White

Indian subcontinent

Latino(a)/Hispanic

Middle Eastern

Native American Indian

Pacific Islander

Other

Respondents by Racial Identity (Unduplicated Total)

Se

164

2073

People of Color White People

Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)

Se

958

233387

52

ChristianOther than ChristianNo AffiliationOther

Respondents with Conditions that Substantially Affect Major Life Activities (n)

23

5057

70 12 0 34 2 4

Physical Disability Learning Disability Psychological Condition

Students

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Citizenship Status by Position

Students Employeesn % n %

US citizen 1192 94.0 298 88.4

US citizen – naturalized 23 1.8 15 4.5

Dual citizenship 6 0.5 * *

Permanent resident (immigrant) 26 2.1 11 3.3

Permanent resident (refugee) * * * *

International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa)19 1.5 7 2.1

* Data is missing due to n < 5

Findings

Overall Comfort Levels

Campus Climate (79%)

Department/Work Unit (79%)

Classroom (81%)

Least comfortable with Overall

Campus Climate

People of Color

LGBQ

Least Comfortable with Climate in

Department/Work Unit

People of Color

Heterosexual

Least Comfortable with Classroom

Climate

People of Color

LGBQ

Women

Overall Satisfaction

75%

•Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW-Parkside.

64%

•Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education UW-Parkside.

80%

•Employees who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Parkside.

67%

•Students who were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their academic careers have progressed at UW-Parkside.

Levels of Satisfaction by Demographic Groups

• Classified staff were least satisfiedSatisfaction with Job

• Women, White respondents, heterosexual, and classified staff were least satisfiedSatisfaction with

Career Progression

• Men students were least satisfiedSatisfaction with Education

• LGBQ students were least satisfiedSatisfaction with Academic Career

Progression

Employee Comments with Regard to Job and Career Progression Satisfaction

Employees who were satisfied with the way their jobs and/or the way their careers have progressed liked their jobs; disciplines; co-workers; departments; working with students; the balance of teaching, research, and service (for faculty); and felt challenged and as though they “made a difference .”

Dissatisfied employees were unhappy with the reclassification process, difficult relationships with co-workers or supervisors, lack of opportunities for advancement, low salaries, lack of significant pay increases, lack of respect (in terms of salary and authority) afforded some positions (particularly adjunct faculty), lack of opportunity for growth in their current positions, feeling overworked and/or underappreciated, feeling their skills were underutilized, and wanting more training.

Student Comments with Regard to Satisfaction with Academic Experiences

Students who were satisfied with the way their academic careers have progressed said they had caring and intelligent teachers, worked hard to earn good grades, were interested in the subjects taught, and took advantage of most opportunities presented.

Dissatisfied students said faculty do not have time to answer questions, advising needs improvement, required courses were not offered at opportune times, they did not work hard or study enough, they had personal issues which impeded success, were disappointed in some general education courses, too few credits transferred from a previous institution, felt their academic careers have not prepared them for employment, and felt courses were not sufficiently challenging.

Challenges and Opportunities

Experiences with Harassment

303 respondents indicated that they had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW-Parkside

18%

Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

Series1

2928

26

23

20

16 1513 12

9

Gender (n=87)

Age (n=86)

Status (n=80)

Race (n=69)

Ethnicity (n=61)

Educational Level (n=48)

Political Views (n=45)

Physical Characteristics (n=39)

Religion/Spiritual Status (n=35)

Sexual Orientation (n=27)

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to

Gender (by Gender) (%)

¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

(n=182)¹

(n=62)²

(n=115)¹

(n=22)²


Position Status by Position Status (%)


(n=184)¹

(n=30)²

(n=45)¹

(n=)12²

(n=34)¹

(n=21)²

(n=27)¹

(n=10)²


Race by Race (%)


(n=94)¹

(n=39)²(n=196)¹

(n=26)²

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Sexual

Orientation by Sexual Orientation (%)


LGB respondents Heterosexual respondents

26

17

61

2

Overall experienced conduct¹

Experienced conduct due to sexual orientation²

(n=31)¹

(n=19)²

(n=254)¹

(n=5)²

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct Due to Disability Status by Disability Status (%)

¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..

(n=244)¹ (n=20)¹

(n=4)²

(n=17)¹

(n=3)²

(n=24)¹

(n=10)²

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

n %

Deliberately ignored or excluded 149 49.2

Felt intimidated/bullied 93 30.7

Stares 74 24.4

Isolated or left out when working in groups 50 16.5

Derogatory remarks 47 15.5

Isolated or left out because of my identity 47 15.5

Received a low performance evaluation 42 13.9

Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 37 12.2

Target of racial/ethnic profiling 35 11.6

Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 303). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

n %

Derogatory written comments 31 10.2

Feared for my physical safety 26 8.6

Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity 18 5.9

Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails 17 5.6

Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity 17 5.6

Threats of physical violence 15 5.0

Derogatory phone calls 12 4.0

Target of physical violence 8 2.6

Graffiti 7 2.3


Respondents Who Believed They Were Deliberately Ignored or Excluded

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 45 percent (n = 67) - in a class 33 percent (n = 49) - in a meeting with a group of people


Respondents Who Believed They Were Intimidated or Bullied

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 36 percent (n = 33) - in a class 25 percent (n = 23) - in a meeting with a group of people


Respondents Who Believed They Received Stares

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 65 percent (n = 48) - in a class 61 percent (n = 45) - while walking on campus


Source of Perceived Conduct by Position Status (n)

What did you do?1

Personal responses: Was angry (55%) Felt embarrassed (35%) Ignored it (31%) Told a friend (31%) Avoided the harasser (22%)

Reporting responses: Didn’t know who to go to (22% ) Did not report the incident for fear of retaliation (21%) Didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously (15%) Made a complaint to a campus employee/official (13%) Did report it but my complaint was not taken seriously (11%)

1Respondents could mark more than one response

Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault

The survey defined sexual harassment as “A repeated course of conduct whereby one person engages in verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, that is unwelcome, serves no legitimate purpose, intimidates another person, and has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or classroom environment.”

The survey defined sexual assault as “Intentional physical contact, such as sexual intercourse or touching, of a person’s intimate body parts by someone who did not have permission to make such contact.”

Sexual Misconduct at UW-Parkside

Believed they had been touched in a sexual manner that made them feel uncomfortable or fearful

4%

Were fearful of being sexually harassed at UW-Parkside

3%

Respondents Who Experienced Sexual Assault

21 respondents were victims of sexual assault

1%

Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted

By Gender Identity

• Women (2%; n = 19)

• Men (<1%; n=1)

By Sexual Identity

• Heterosexual (1%; n = 17)

• LGBQQ (4%, n = 5)

By Racial Identity

• White People (1%; n = 16)

• People of Color (1%, n = 5)

By Position

• Students (2%, = 18)

• Classified Staff

• (3%, n = 2)

Respondents Who Believed They Were Sexually Assaulted

Where did it occur?On-campus (n = 13)

Who were the offenders against students?*Students (n = 8)

What did you do1?Told a friend (n = 13)

Did nothing (n = 7)

Told a family member (n = 6)

1Respondents could mark more than one response

Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Parkside

50% (n = 813) of all Respondents

Faculty (61%)

Academic Staff (63%)

Classified Staff (61%)

Students (46%)

Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Parkside

Employees

Men (62%)

Women (61%)

White (61%)

Employees of Color (61%)

LGBQ (67%)

Heterosexual (61%)

Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Parkside

Students

Men (48%)

Women (45%)

Students of Color (50%)

White (44%)

LGBQ (48%)

Heterosexual (46%)

Perceptions

Respondents Who Observed or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That Created an Exclusionary,

Intimidating, Offensive and/or Hostile Working or Learning Environment

% n

Yes 26.0 420

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Race (%)

2529

White People (n = 289)

People of Color (n = 121)

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Gender (%)

25 26

Women (n = 256)

Men (n = 158)

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Sexual Orientation (%)

41

24

LGB (n = 49)

Heterosexual (n = 351)

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%)

Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct

n %Derogatory remarks

142 33.8Deliberately ignored or excluded

134 31.9Racial/ethnic profiling

128 30.5Stares

122 29.0Intimidation/bullying

87 20.7Graffiti

75 17.9Someone isolated or left out because of their identity

72 17.1Derogatory written comments

66 15.7Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity

59 14.0

Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 420). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Form of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct

n %Someone receiving a low performance evaluation

46 11.0Someone fearing for their physical safety

44 10.5Someone receiving a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment

43 10.2Someone isolated or left out when working in groups

43 10.2Threats of physical violence

42 10.0Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity

29 6.9Someone isolated or left out because of their socioeconomic status

28 6.7Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails

21 5.0Victim of a crime

17 4.0


Source of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct (%)

Students (42%) Faculty Members (17%) Colleagues (16%) Staff Members (10%) Administrators (8%)


Respondents Who Observed People Making Derogatory Remarks

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 40 percent (n = 57) - in a public space on campus 36 percent (n = 51) - while walking on campus


Respondents Who Observed People Being Deliberately Ignored or Excluded

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 43 percent (n = 57) - in a class 32 percent (n = 43) - while walking on campus


Respondents Who Observed Someone Being Subjected to Racial Profiling

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur? 41 percent (n = 52) - in a class 37 percent (n = 47) - in a public space on campus


Perceived Discrimination

Hiring

(34%)

Due to Race (34%)

Due to Ethnicity (32%)

Due to Gender (21%)

Due to University Status (20%)

Employment Practices up to and including dismissal

(19%)

Due to Gender (34%)

Due to Race (31%)

Due to Age (29%)

Employment Practices Related to

Promotion (27%)

Due to Gender (34%)

Due to Race (28%)

Due to University Status (25%)

Work-Life Issues

The majority of respondents expressed positive attitudes about work-life issues.

Work-Life Issues

77% (n = 260) of employee respondents were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations.

32% (n = 105) believe there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units.

26% (n = 89) were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision.

66% (n =223) believed that they had colleagues or peers who gave them career advice or guidance when they need it.

Work-Life Issues

53% (n = 177) believed that they had support from decision makers/colleagues who supported their career advancement

38% (n = 50) of faculty thought their research interests were valued by their colleagues

19% (n = 63) constantly felt under the scrutiny by their colleagues

27% (n = 90) felt they had to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived as legitimate

33% (n = 111) thought their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience

Work-Life Issues

67% (n = 227) of employees are usually satisfied with the way in which they were able to balance their professional and personal lives

38% (n = 125) found UW-Parkside supportive of family leave

29% (n = 97) have had to miss out on important things in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities

13% (n = 45) felt that employees who have children were considered less committed to their careers

14% (n = 47) felt that employees who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities

Work-Life Issues

7% (n = 22) believed the institution was unfair in providing health benefits to unmarried, co-parenting partners

18% (n = 58) thought they had equitable access to domestic partner benefits

24% (n = 76) believed they had equitable access to tuition reimbursement

Welcoming Workplace Climate

More than half of all employees thought the workplace climate was welcoming of “difference.”

Respondents of Color and women were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on gender.

Respondents of Color were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on race.

Women and LGBQ respondents were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on sexual orientation.

Welcoming Classroom Climate

More than half of all student respondents felt that the classroom climate was welcoming for students based on “difference” across all dimensions.

59% of Students of Color and 73% of White students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race

52% of LGB students and 66% of heterosexual students thought the climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation

Institutional Actions

Visible Leadership

More than half of all respondents thought that the faculty, the LGBTQ Resource Center, Office of Multicultural Student Affairs (OMSA), Residence Life, staff, and Student Activities had visible leadership to foster diversity/inclusion on campus.

A substantial percentage of respondents were unaware of the degree to which all the offices/individuals had visible leadership to support diversity/inclusion.

Inclusive Curriculum

More than half of all students and faculty felt the courses they took or taught included materials, perspectives, and/or experiences of people based on “difference.”

The exceptions included disability issues, immigrant status, sexual orientation issues, and veteran/military status.

EmployeesCampus Initiatives That Would Positively

Affect the Climate

More than half of all employee respondents recommended: training mentors and leaders within departments to model positive

climate behavior offering diversity training/programs as community outreach would

positively affect the climate that faculty/staff/students learn a second language, participate in

service-learning projects with lower socioeconomic status populations, and work with underrepresented/underserved populations

providing on-campus child care services providing gender neutral/family friendly facilities


Affect the Climate

More than half of all employee respondents recommended: providing recognition and rewards for including diversity in course

objectives throughout the curriculum providing, improving, and promoting access to quality services for

those individuals who experience sexual abuse providing mentors for minority faculty/students/staff new to campus providing a clear protocol for responding to hate/hostile incidents at

the campus level and departmental level reallocating resources to support inclusive climate changes on

campus


Affect the Climate

Less than half of all employee respondents recommended: providing tenure clock options with more flexibility for promotion

and tenure for faculty/staff with families would positively affect the climate

rewarding research efforts that evaluate outcomes of diversity training

requiring diversity related activities as one of the criteria for hiring and/or evaluation of staff, faculty, and administrators

requiring the Affirmative Action Office to provide diversity and equity training to every search and screen committee

Summary

Strengths and Successes

Challenges and Opportunities

Summary of Findings Strengths and Successes

80% percent of students were satisfied with their education at UW-Parkside.

75% of employees were satisfied with their jobs at

UW-Parkside Over 75% of respondents reported that they were very

comfortable or comfortable with the overall climate, climate in their departments or work unit, and climate in their classes.

Summary of FindingsOpportunities and Challenges

Challenge

Differential Treatment Due to University Position

Challenge

Gender Inequity

Challenge

Homophobia and Heterosexism

Challenge

Racial Tension

Racial Tension at UW-Parkside

Respondents of Color (22%, n = 94) were more likely to report personally experiencing harassment than their White counterparts (17%, n = 196).

Forty-two percent (n = 39) of Respondents of Color said the harassment was based on their race.

People of Color were more likely than White people to observe offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct.

Of those who observed harassment, 34% (n = 143) believed it was based on race.

Racial Tension at UW-Parkside

People of Color were less comfortable than White respondents with the overall climate for diversity, the climate in their departments/work units, and the climate in their classes.

Employees of Color were more likely than White employees to report: colleagues expect them to represent “the point of view” of their identity that they have to work harder than their colleagues do in order to be perceived

as legitimate.

Respondents of Color were least likely to think their workplace climate was welcoming based on race when compared with other demographic groups.


LGBQ respondents were more likely than heterosexual respondents to believe that they had experienced harassment.

Of those who believed they had experienced this type of conduct, 61% (n = 19) of LGBQ respondents indicated that the conduct was based on sexual orientation.

A higher percentage of LGBQ respondents believed they had observed offensive, hostile, exclusionary, or intimidating conduct than did their heterosexual respondents.

The most common basis for observed harassment was sexual orientation (36%).


LGBQ respondents were less likely to feel “very comfortable” with the overall climate when compared to heterosexual respondents.

LGBQ students were less comfortable with the classroom climate than heterosexual students.

LGBQ employee respondents were less likely than heterosexual respondents to believe the workplace climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation.

67% of LGBQ employees have seriously thought of leaving the institution.

Gender Inequity

Gender was cited as the most common basis for experienced harassment, with women (34%) more likely than men (19%) to indicate such a basis.

Women were more likely than men to believe they had observed discriminatory hiring practices, discriminatory employment-related disciplinary up to and including dismissal, and promotion/tenure practices.

Gender was the most cited basis for observed discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions and discriminatory practices related to promotion and tenure.

Differential Treatment by University Status

For those who reported they experienced harassment, university status was the third most common basis.

Of those respondents who believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring, discriminatory employment-related disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion, UW-Parkside status was indicated as one of the top five bases for discrimination.

Differential Treatment by University Status – Classified Staff

Classified staff members were significantly less satisfied with their jobs and with the way their careers have progressed than academic staff and faculty.

Classified staff members were more likely than academic staff and faculty to observe harassment, discriminatory hiring, discriminatory disciplinary actions, and discriminatory practices related to promotion.

Next Steps

Process ForwardFall/Winter 2010

Share report results with community Community dialogue regarding the assessment results Community feedback on recommended actions Executive Summary available at UW-Parkside website Full Report will be available in June 2010

Recommended planning “advance” to begin a “call to action” regarding the challenges uncovered in the report

Tell Us What You Think…

Additional questions/comments on results?Thoughts on process?Suggested actions?

Questions..? Other Ideas..?

uw-parkside campus climate assessment results of report may 5, 2010

Documents

campus climate students

welcoming campus climate

particular campus climate

inclusive campus community

campus members

inclusive view of campus

welcoming campus environment

climate study