Pitt Community College Board of Trustees Personnel Committee Meeting Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) Climate Study May 5, 2016 Hello. My name is Brian Miller and I work in Planning & Research. Our office is responsible for survey and institutional research, IPEDS federal reporting, and assessment and planning. Today I want to spend about 10 minutes speaking with you about an organizational climate study conducted that is specifically designed and normed for community colleges. It is the Personal Assessment of the College Environment, or PACE climate study.

PACE 2015 Results Conducted Online in Fall, 2015. Results were received in December 2015. Cooperative effort between PittCC & the NCSU National Initiative for Leadership and Institutional Effectiveness (NILIE). These next three slides provide background. Read the slide.. Conducted online for 6 weeks between October and November, 2015. Results received in December, 2015. Coop effort between the College and NC States National Initiative for Leadership and Institutional Effectiveness (NILIE) Three survey reminders were sent to full time employees via email from three different individuals. 477 FT employees had opportunity to take the survey. 327 responded (68.6%) response rate is very good. 2006 rate was 56.7%. NILIE is guided by Dr. Audrey Jeager and formerly Dr. George Baker. Graduate students work with P&R to organize the study and NILIE manages online administration, report development. If you want further information about the NILIE research office please see https://nilie.ncsu.edu/ FULL DISCLOSURE: I was director of research for NILIE from 1999-2001. Worked for Dr. George Baker (developer). 477 FT employees were provided opportunity to take the survey. 327 properly completed the instrument for analysis. Yield: 68.6% Response Rate. 5.5.16

PACE Results PACE Measured “Domains” 1. Institutional Structure 2. Student Focus 3. Supervisory Relations Very quickly.. The PittCC PACE Study measures 4 domains: Institutional Structure Student Focus Supervisory Relationships, and Teamwork The test consisted of 46 normed questions. 4. Teamwork

PACE Results Three Normbases 1. NILIE National Normbase (87) 2. Large 2 Year Colleges (27) We are compared against three Norm Bases: NILIE Normbase (87 schools) Large 2 Year Colleges (27 schools. Such as College of Lake County, IL, Guilford Tech, College of Southern Maryland, Oklahoma City Community College, to name a few) South Atlantic Colleges (7 schools. Such as James SpruntCC, Hartford Community College, or Frederick Community College) 3. South Atlantic Schools (7)

PACE Results- Institutional Structure We want to look at our mean scores for the domains in comparison to the Normbases. Up first is Institutional Structure (15 items make up this domain). 2 sample questions in this domain were.. “teams use problem solving techniques,” or “the institution is appropriately organized.” The Pitt Mean at 3.41 is well within the limits of this norm. This is our lowest ranked domain (and its very good compared to our 2006 institutional score of 3.12). 1.15.1

PACE Results- Student Focus Student Focus is where we start to shine.. This domain has 12 items. We are above each of the three norms for this domain. One can say we are student focused. Questions in this domain were like.. “this institution prepares students for a career,” or “the institution prepares students for further learning.” The Pitt Mean at 4.00. This is our second highest ranked domain and compares well against our 2006 institutional score of 3.79.

PACE Results- Teamwork The Teamwork domain is our highest ranked domain. This domain has 7 items. We are above all norms for this domain. One can say we are team oriented. Questions in this domain were like.. “there is a spirit of cooperation within my work team,” or “my work team uses problem solving techniques.” The Pitt Mean at 4.08 is above each norm. It compares well against our 2006 institutional score of 3.79. This is our highest ranked domain.

PACE Results- Supervisory Relations The Supervisory Relations domain is our 3rd highest ranked domain. This domain has 13 items. We are above all norms for this domain. One can say we have positive relations at PittCC. Questions in this domain were like.. “positive work expectations are communicated to me,” or “my supervisor seriously considers my ideas.” The Pitt Mean at 3.98 is above each norm. It compares well against our 2006 institutional score of 3.68. 1.5.16

What does this mean? System Type Descriptors #1 Coercive Little or no confidence or trust in employees #2 Competitive Some involvement with decision making #3 Consultative Substantial confidence and trust in employees Systems approach System 1 – Coercive System 2 – Competitive System 3 – Consultative System 4 – Collaborative Based on the evidence, PittCC is living in the System 3 and 4 Range. I see collaboration at all institutional levels, attempts to push down decisions (not much “delegating up.”) Based on these results I see PittCC as a dynamic and progressive institution. On a local level, the Senate is doing it’s part as well. The monthly social’s are a great idea. #4 Collaborative Employees are involved in appropriate aspects of decision making

2015 / 2006 PACE Results Comparison Domain 2015 PittCC 2006 PittCC Teamwork 4.08 3.79 Student Focus 4.00 3.79 Supervisory Relations 3.98 3.68 The 2015 / 2006 comparison is also good news. This is our college. You can see the growth in all measured domains. Further details for the 2015 PACE are online via the college portal. Planning and Research site in folder “PACE 2015.” Institutional Structure 3.41 3.12

2015 / 2006 PACE Gains Last slide graphically shows the gains we have realized since the last PACE administration. Our highest gain was “Supervisory Relations.” (.30) Followed by Teamwork and Institutional Structure (.29 increase each). I’d be happy to answer your questions.