1. Syracuse University May 13, 2015

2. Why Assess? What is the Process? Where Do We Start?

3. 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, 2005 2 Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005 3 Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2009; Hurtado, 2003.

4. The personal and professional development of employees are impacted by campus climate. 1 Faculty members who judge their campus climate more positively are more likely to feel personally supported and perceive their work unit as more supportive. 2 Research underscores the relationships between (1) workplace discrimination and negative job and career attitudes and (2) workplace encounters with prejudice and lower health and well- being.. 3 1 Settles, Cortina, Malley, and Stewart (2006) 2 Sears, 2002 3 Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007; Waldo, 1999

5. 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBTQ People 2011 NCAA Student-Athlete Climate Study 2015 International Athlete Survey 2015 United States Transgender National Survey

6. This project is supported by a grant from the NCAA

7. Student-Athletes’ Identity Student-Athletes’ Academic Success Student-Athletes’ Athletic Success

9. p <.001 Women student-athletes have significantly greater levels of academic and athletic success and lower levels of athletic identity compared to men student-athletes

10. p <.001

11. Gender significantly predicts academic success and athletic success. Women student-athletes report greater levels of academic success than men student-athletes Women student-athletes report greater levels of athletic success than men student-athletes Gender Matters The following climate factors significantly influenced academic success for women student- athletes Perceptions of climate Faculty-student interaction Personal comfort with teammate diversity Perceptions of respect Climate Matters

12. Academic & Intellectual Development Athletic Success Athletic Success Athletic Identity Athletic Identity LGBQ

13. p <.001

14. LGBQ Student-Athletes do not significantly differ from Heterosexual Student-Athletes on measures of academic success, athletic success, or athletic identity BUT…. Sexual Identity LGBQ student-athletes generally experience a more negative climate than their heterosexual peers The way LGBQ student-athletes experience the climate significantly influences their academic success. The way LGBQ student-athletes experience the climate significantly influences their athletic identity. Climate Matters Rankin, S. and Merson, D. (October 2012). Campus Pride 2012 LGB College Athlete National Report

15. 2003 2010

16. 2 2 46396 Sorgen, 2010

17. 2003 1669 participants LGBQ (n =1600) Transgender (n = 69) 10 states 13 institutions Paper/Pencil 2010 5149 participants Queer spectrum (n = 4187) Trans spectrum (n = 695) All 50 states All Carnegie Basic Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education On-line

18. Intersex Gay Bisexual Transgender Lesbian Pansexual Man who loves men Questioning Woman loving women Two -spirit Asexual Tranny boy Butch Bigender Bigender Androgynous Boi “Troubling Terminology ” Queer Cross dresser Same gender loving Man loving men Pre-op Gender Queer

19. 2003 Feared for their physical safety LGBQ - 20% Concealed their identity to avoid intimidation LGBQ - 51% 2010 Feared for physical safety Queer spectrum - 13% Trans spectrum – 43% Concealed their identity to avoid intimidation Queer spectrum - 43% Trans spectrum - 63%

20. 2003 43% 2010 31%

21. 2003 36% 2010 21%

22. People of Color and White people experienced harassment at similar rates (21%, respectively). Black/African American/African/Caribbean respondents attributed the harassment to race more than sexual identity or gender identity. This theme does not apply to other racial identities.

24. Respondents who have seriously considered leaving their institution due to the challenging climate : One-third of Queer spectrum (33%) One-third of Trans-spectrum (38%)

25. Weber, 2008 Having at least one alcohol or drug abuse disorder ( DSM IV TR ) Internalized homophobia Heterosexist events F(1,757) = 10.18 F(1,757) = 4.40 p <.01

26. Being accepted on campus -.29**.32** Hearing “that’s so gay” Frequency of headaches Frequency of trouble eating.31** ** p <.01 Woodford, Howell, Silverschanz, & Yu (2012)

27. Experienced Victimization Lack of Social Support Feelings of hopelessness Suicidal Ideation or Self-Harm Liu, R. T., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Suicidal Ideation and Self-Harm in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(3), 221-228.

29. Campus Climate and Inter-group Relations DIMENSIONS OF CAMPUS DIVERSITY Education & Scholarship (Curriculum, Teaching, & Learning) Representation (Access & Success) Institutional Transformation (Viability & Vitality) Smith, 1999; 2009

30. Historical Legacy of Inclusion/Exclusion Psychological Climate s) Behavioral Dimension ( Behavioral Dimension ( Compositional Diversity (The Numbers) Compositional Diversity (The Numbers) Government/Policy Context Sociohistorical Context Milem, Chang, & Antonio (2005) adapted from Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen (1999) Organizational/ Structural (Campus Policy) Organizational/ Structural (Campus Policy)

31. Survey Instr ument Meta-analysis of diversity assessment tools from 35 institutions Paper/Pencil only NASPA/NGLTF Grants Underrepresented/underserved faculty/staff/students 30 Campuses

32. Current Campus Climate Access Retention Research Scholarship Curriculum Pedagogy University Policies/Service Intergroup & Intragroup Relations Transformational Tapestry Model © Baseline Organizational Challenges Systems Analysis Local / Sate / Regional Environments Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment Advanced Organizational Challenges Consultant Recommendations Assessment Transformation via Intervention Fiscal Actions Symbolic Actions Administrative Actions Educational Actions Transformed Campus Climate Access Retention Research Scholarship Curriculum Pedagogy University Policies/Service Intergroup & Intragroup Relations © 2001 External Relations External Relations

33. Climate (Living, Working, Learning ) Creation and Distribution of Knowledge Community Members Barcelo, 2004; Bauer, 1998, Kuh & Whitt, 1998; Hurtado, 1998, 2005; Ingle, 2005; Milhem, 2005; Peterson, 1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Smith, 2009; Tierney, 1990; Worthington, 2008

34. 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

35. Positive Experiences with Campus Climate Positive Perceptions of Campus Climate Success For Students:  Positive educational experiences  Healthy identity development  Overall well-being For Faculty & Staff:  Productivity  Sense of value & community  Overall well-being Persistence & Retention

36. R&A Campus Climate Assessments 1999-2015

38. In addition to a survey... Comprehensive and extensive approach Multiple methods of obtaining data focus groups, historical document analysis (statements, media, etc.) Interviews with University administrators and leaders Previous survey data (NSSE, CIRP) Structure to guide study Advantages Data accuracy & fuller picture Hear from under-served groups Engages community Alternatives Start more minimal and expand for significant findings or areas of interest Any information is better than no information

39. Include all groups, all constituencies Undergraduates, Graduates, Faculty, Staff (census survey) Consider efforts for inclusion of non-traditional groups within groups Avoid sampling Use common indications with group-specific modules Advantages More reliable measure Allows for comparisons Accounts for marginalized and underrepresented groups Alternatives Purposeful or Snowball sampling (not random) Administer modules over time

40. Need for longitudinal analysis Administered every 3-5 years Advantages Measure progress Assess impact of actions Indicates long-term commitment of institution (increases participation) Refine tool based on experience Expand tool based on experience Alternatives Targeted, minimal subsequent assessments (targeted content or sample OK)

41. Using an external administrator or consultant Fear of retaliation (staff) Fear for confidentiality Advantages Increase response rates Reduces concerns for confidentiality Responds to concerns for retaliation Alternatives Internal faculty better than administrator New office/person honeymoon period Partnership with another institution

42. Need for context and relevance (reliability) – why ready-made tools are less effective Need for active engagement and community buy-in Steering committee Work teams Tie to focus groups Advantages Reliability Community buy-in Increase response rate Alternatives Build on previous efforts (to refine tool) Engage groups already formed

43. Knowing how results will be used before starting Clear goals Clear outcomes Clear plan for “action” Commit to action with results – in writing & statements Engage the community throughout the process Increase response rate Develop common language (around metrics and inclusion)

44. Tied to early communications What do we already know? What might we find? How might we respond? Who will be tasked with responding? Increased engagement, more communication, more involvement  more likely to act Increased engagement, more communication, more involvement  more likely to act Establish accountability by including many in the planning and development phases Commit to one or two annual actions Based on data findings Ability to measure progress (impact of actions taken) Assigned to specific individuals/offices Widely communicate findings and action steps

45. Recommended Process

46. Initial Proposal Meeting Focus Groups

47. Identify the focus groups Develop the protocol for the focus groups Populate the focus groups Focus group facilitators are selected and trained by the consultant

48. Assessment Tool Development Communication/Marketing Plan IRB proposal

49. Final instrument Quantitative questions and additional space for respondents to provide commentary Web-based survey Sample = Population All members of the university community are invited to participate via an invitation from the Chancellor

50. Position Status Racial Identity Gender Identity Sexual Identity disAbility Status SES status Spiritual identity Experiences Perceptions Institutional Actions Professional Success Intent to Persist IDENTITY EXAMPLES CLIMATEOUTCOMES

51. Preparing the University Community  Talking points  Incentives  Invitation letter  Subsequent invitations to participate

52.  Proposal application  Primary Investigator from Syracuse

53. Survey Implementation Data Analysis

54. Syracuse University Spring 2016 Faculty ManWoman African American Native American Asian American Latino(a) American European AmericanUnknown Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor Adjunct Faculty

55. Final Report Presentation of Results

56. Development of Action Initiatives Support Successes Address Challenges