1. Final findings of climate survey
Summary Of Findings November 9, 2016
Catherine Trouth & HyeKyung, Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness

2. Findings of Quantitative Analysis Findings of Qualitative Analysis
IEC Climate Survey
Agenda
Findings of Quantitative Analysis
Findings of Qualitative Analysis
Further Research

3. A higher mean represents a positive response
IEC Climate Survey
Methods of Quantitative Analysis
34 survey items were categorized into six climate domains: welcoming culture, sense of belonging, emotional and physical safety, diversity, equity, and inclusive climate
The mean of each climate domain was calculated using a 5 point Likert scale.
5 is strongly agree
4 is agree
3 is neutral
2 is disagree
1 is strongly disagree
A higher mean represents a positive response

4. The student and faculty response rates were low.
Summary Of Findings
Response Rates
The student and faculty response rates were low.
Students N=968 (R=13.9%)
Faculty N=103 (R=25.6%)
Staff N=140 (R=78.7%)
On the following slides, items in bold and marked with an * are statistically significant.

5. IEC Climate Survey
Females and Hispanic students are overrepresented, and white and first generation students are underrepresented in the student response data

6. IEC Climate Survey
Male and Adjunct faculty are underrepresented in the faculty response data.

7. IEC Climate Survey

8. IEC Climate Survey
The Inclusive Climate domain received the highest rating from respondents while safety received the lowest overall rating.
Students rated all the domains higher than both faculty and staff. Faculty responded with the lowest rating across almost all domains.

9. IEC Climate Survey
Welcoming Climate
There was little difference across demographic variables in student response to the welcoming culture domain.
There was a statistically significant difference between first generation and not first generation students—first generation students rated this domain higher than non-first generation students.*
With faculty respondents, persons with a disability had a mean rating lower than persons without a reported disability.*
Staff of color had a mean rating lower than that of white staff.*

10. Staff of color had a mean rating lower than that of white staff.*
IEC Climate Survey
Sense of Belonging
Staff of color had a mean rating lower than that of white staff.*
The rating for new staff was higher than for staff that have been at CCA four years or longer.

11. IEC Climate Survey
Safety Climate
Overall items regarding safety were rated lower than the other domains.
Females tended to rate this domain lower than males. This difference was statistically significant with the student and staff groups.*

12. Students rated this domain considerably higher than that of faculty.
IEC Climate Survey
Diversity Climate
Students rated this domain considerably higher than that of faculty.
Adjunct faculty rated diversity on campus higher than regular faculty.*
Staff of color and staff working at CCA longer than four years rated this domain lower.*

13. IEC Climate Survey
Equity Climate
Faculty and staff of color rated equity lower than white faculty and staff.*
Staff members who have worked for 3 years or less rated equity higher than those who have worked at CCA for more than 4 years.*

14. IEC Climate Survey
Inclusive Climate
Although there were differences among staff, faculty and students across most domains, all three groups strongly agreed that CCA has an inclusive climate.
However, students who are not U.S. citizens did rate this domain lower than U.S. citizens.*

15. Overall Results--Qualitative
Common themes across surveys
Campus security is insufficient
Insufficient lighting in parking lot at night
Lack of visible security at all times of day, but particularly at night
While not overwhelming, response across groups occasionally cited disappointment between the rhetoric of inclusion at CCA and their lived experiences.
Staff/faculty responses noted discriminatory behavior targeted at ESL/non-native English speaking students
Staff/faculty reported problems with those in supervisory roles
Those who tried to address discrimination when they saw it addressed it most often directly with those involved or by reporting it to their supervisor

16. Overall Results--Qualitative
Common themes across surveys
Those who did not address incidents when they happened felt they had no authority (especially when they heard or witnessed it rather than being involved); felt confused about how to address it; or felt that if they addressed it no one would back them up or they might experience retaliation
Incidents of discrimination or harassment were most often in the following areas:
Gender identification, especially toward women and the LGBTQ community
Race/Ethnicity, especially towards people of color, but also a few comments addressing reverse discrimination
Religious identity (across many ideologies)
Physical or mental ability; students especially reported incidents addressed at their perceived mental ability
Age, addressed both at those younger and older
Being a non-native speaker, sometimes combined with religious identity (especially being Muslim), and sometimes with race/ethnicity (especially being Hispanic)
Faculty status, especially towards adjuncts

17. Qualitative Results Student Responses
There is widespread student interest in more programming and events related to diversity; also with better communication about these events
Students reported general satisfaction with their experience at CCA
Many students cited a lack of high-quality technology and library materials as a concern
Students reported feeling most comfortable in classrooms, the library, the grill; the top two answers to where they felt most comfortable were “everywhere” and “in class”
Students were most uncomfortable in the parking lot (primarily at night), walking between or behind buildings, the Lowry campus (particularly at night), and in the bathroom

18. Qualitative Results Faculty Responses
Among Female faculty, faculty of color, and younger faculty, there was a sense that both students and colleagues frequently failed to recognize them as faculty and/or respect them as the equals of male, white, and/or older faculty
Older adjuncts reported age-based discrimination by department chairs and other administrators
Faculty expressed concerns about discrimination and fear of exclusion by other faculty members based on religious beliefs--These fears spanned the whole of the religious and ideological spectrum
Adjunct faculty frequently reported feeling undervalued and excluded by department chairs, administrators, and full-time faculty
Faculty often reported hearing derogatory remarks made by third parties related to identities such as race/ethnicity or sexual orientation

19. Qualitative Results Staff Responses
Older staff members reported age-based discrimination, particularly with respect to growing campus conversations around diversity.
Younger staff members reported that they are not always valued or taken seriously
Staff members most often mentioned incidents of harassment or discrimination related to race/ethnicity, and especially against African American staff or faculty
A number of discriminatory incidents towards women were mentioned, especially toward women staff members
Some staff members mentioned that incidents were referred to Human Resources, but that there was a lack or ineffective response from that department
Several staff members reported a fear of retaliation if they tried to address issues or incidents