assessment of campus climate - greeley colorado · final report and presentation. phase iv. 17...

Assessment of Campus Climate

1

March 20, 2017

Climate In Higher Education

Climate (Living, Working, Learning)

Create and Distribute

Knowledge

Community Members

2Barcelo, 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

Assessing Campus Climate

3Rankin & 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

4

1 Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Harper & Hurtado, 2009, Maramba. & Museus, 2011, Patton, 2011, Strayhorn, 20122 Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005 3 Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye , 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2009; Hurtado, 2003, Nelson & Niskodé-Dossett, 2010; Strayhorn, 2013

Campus Climate & Faculty/Staff

The personal and professional

development of employees including

faculty members, administrators, and staff members 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/career attitudes and (2)

workplace encounters with prejudice and lower health/well-being..3

5

1Settles, Cortina, Malley, and Stewart , 2006, Gardner, S. 2013; Jayakumar, Howard, Allen, & Han, J. 2009 2Costello, 2012; Sears, 2002; Kaminski, & Geisler, 2012; Griffin, Pérez , Holmes, & Mayo 20103Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007; Waldo, 1999

Climate MattersStudent Activism in 2016

6

Climate MattersStudent Activism in 2016

7

While the demands vary by institutional context, a qualitative analysis reveals

similar themes across the 76 institutions and organizations (representing 73 U.S. colleges and universities, three Canadian universities, one coalition of universities and one consortium of Atlanta HBCUs.)

Chessman & Wayt explore these overarching themes in an effort to provide collective insight into what is important to today’s students in the heated context of racial or other bias-related incidents on

college and university campuses.

What Are Students Demanding?

Source: Chessman & Wayt, 2016 ; http://www.thedemands.org/ 8

Policy (91%)

Leadership (89%)Resources (88%)

Increased Diversity (86%)

Training (71%)Curriculum (68%)

Support (61%)

Seven Major Themes

Source: Chessman & Wayt, 2016 ; http://www.thedemands.org/ 9

What are students’ behavioral responses?

Responses to Unwelcoming Campus Climates

10

30% of respondents have seriously

considered leaving their institution due to

the challenging climate

Similarly, 33% of Queer spectrum and 38% of Transspectrumrespondents have seriously

considered leaving their institution due to the challenging climate

What do students offer as the main reason for their

departure?

Lack of Persistence

Source: R&A, 2015; Rankin, et al., 2010; Strayhorn, 2012 11

Suicidal Ideation/Self-Harm

Experienced Victimization

Lack of Social Support

Feelings of hopelessness

Suicidal Ideation or Self-Harm

Source: Liu & Mustanski 2012 12

Projected Outcomes

13

UNC will add to their knowledge base with regard to how constituent groups currently feel about their particular campus climate and how the community responds to them (e.g., work-life issues, curricular integration, inter-group/intra-group relations, respect issues).

UNC will use the results of the assessment t to inform current/on-going work.

Setting the Context for Beginning the Work

Examine the Research• Review work

already completed

Preparation• Readiness of

each campus

Assessment• Examine the

climate

Follow-up• Building on

the successes and addressing the challenges

14

Current Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy

UniversityPolicies/Service

Intergroup &IntragroupRelations

Transformational Tapestry Model©

Baseline Organizational

Challenges

SystemsAnalysis

Local / Sate /Regional

Environments

Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment

AdvancedOrganizational

Challenges

ConsultantRecommendations

Assessment

Transformationvia

Intervention

FiscalActions

Symbolic Actions

AdministrativeActions

EducationalActions

Transformed Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy

UniversityPolicies/Service

Intergroup &IntragroupRelations

© 2001

External Relations

External Relations

15

16

Project Overview

• R&A Pre-Work/Focus Groups

Phase I

• Assessment Tool Development and Implementation

Phase II

• Data Analysis

Phase III

• Final Report and Presentation

Phase IV

17

Process to DatePhase I

Spring 2016

In collaboration with R&A, the Climate Working Group (CWG; comprised of students, faculty, staff, and administrators) was created.

18 focus groups were conducted at UNC’s campus by R&A (123 participants in total – 61 students and 62 faculty and staff)

Data from the focus groups informed the CWG and R&A in constructing questions for the campus-wide survey.

18

Process to DatePhase II

Spring/Fall 2016

Meetings with the CWG to develop the survey instrument

The CWG reviewed multiple drafts of the survey and approved the final survey instrument.

The final survey was distributed to the entire UNC community (students, faculty, staff, and administrators) via an invitation from President Norton.

Instrument/Sample

19

Final instrument • 111 questions and additional space for

respondents to provide commentary (22 qualitative, 89 quantitative)

• On-line or paper & pencil options

Sample = Population• All community members were invited to

take the survey.• The survey was available from September

20 to October 19• Extended to increase response rates to

October 26

Survey Limitations

Self-selection

biasResponse

ratesSocial

desirability

Caution in generalizing results

for constituent groups with low response rates

20

Method Limitation

Data were not reported for groups of fewer than 5

individuals where identity could be compromised

Instead, small groups were combined to eliminate possibility

of identifying individuals

21

22

Process to DatePhase IIIFall/Winter 2016

Quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.k-state.edu/advising/transfer.html&ei=asUlVbW2H4TTsAWL84GwBA&psig=AFQjCNHVz6-h2tk0rzx1TUvBK5UHDJzrfw&ust=1428625094898274

23

Phase IV Winter 2016/Spring 2017

Report draft reviewed by the CWG

Final report submitted to UNC

Presentation to UNC campus community

Results: Response Rates

24

Who are the respondents?

2,574 people responded to the call to participate

18% overall response rate

25

Response Rates by Student Position

26

12%• Undergraduate (n = 1,159)

23%• Graduate/Professional (n = 626)

Response Rates by Faculty Position

27

72%• Non-Tenure Track Academic Appointment

(n = 47)

44% • Faculty Tenure-Track (n = 192)

15% • Adjunct (n = 37)

N/A • Post-Doc/Research Associate (n = 6)

Response Rates by Staff Position

28

51%• Staff (n = 507)

Response Rates by Gender Identity

29

20% • Woman (n = 1,806)

15% • Man (n = 704)

N/A • Transspectrum (n = 51)

Response Rates by Racial Identity

30

61% • Multiracial (n = 300)

27% • Asian/Asian American (n = 76)

22% • American Indian/Alaska Native (n = 11)

21% • White/European American (n = 1,799)

Response Rates by Racial Identity

31

16% • Black/African American (n = 73)

12% • Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n < 5)

10% • Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ (n = 228)

N/A • Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian (n = 19)

Response Rates by Citizenship Status

32

19% • U.S. Citizen (n = 2,432)

18% • Non-U.S. Citizen (n = 131)

7% • Not Reported (n = 11)

Additional Demographic Characteristics

33

Respondents by Position (%)

3489% (n = 2,280) were full-time in that primary position

Chart1

Graduate Student

Undergraduate

Staff

Faculty

0.24

0.45

0.2

0.11

Sheet1

Graduate Student24%

Undergraduate45%

Staff20%

Faculty11%

Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%)(Duplicated Total)

35

Chart1

White/Eurpoean American

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@

Multracial

Black/African American

Asian/Asian American

Native American/Indigenous

Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian

Pacific Islander

A racial identity not listed here

Native Hawaiian

Alaska Native

Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%) (Unduplicated Total)

36

Chart1

Other People of Color

Black/African American

Asian/Asian American


Multiracial

White

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.09

0.12

0.7

Sheet1

Race%

Other People of Color1%

Black/African American3%

Asian/Asian American3%

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@9%

Multiracial12%

White70%


Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (%)

37Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.

Chart1

WomenUndergrad

Men

Transspectrum

WomenGrad Stud.

Men

Transspectrum

WomenFaculty

Men

Transspectrum

WomenStaff

Men

Transspectrum

%

0.73

0.24

0.03

0.74

0.25

0.01

0.65

0.34

0.64

0.35

0.01

Sheet1

GroupGender%

UndergradWomen73%

Men24%

Transspectrum3%

Grad Stud.Women74%

Men25%

Transspectrum1%

FacultyWomen65%

Men34%

Transspectrum

StaffWomen64%

Men35%

Transspectrum1%

Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n)

38

Chart1

LGBQLGBQLGBQLGBQ

HeterosexualHeterosexualHeterosexualHeterosexual

Asexual/OtherAsexual/OtherAsexual/OtherAsexual/Other

Undergraduate

Graduate Student

Faculty

Staff

183

75

35

35

907

528

227

450

13

8

Sheet1

LGBQHeterosexualAsexual/Other

Undergraduate18390713

Graduate Student755288

Staff35450

Faculty35227

15% (n = 394) of Respondents Had Conditions that Influenced Their Learning, Working, or Living

Activities

39

Condition n %

Mental health/psychological condition 189 48.0Learning difference/disability 128 32.5Chronic diagnosis or medical condition 96 24.4Hard of hearing or deaf 28 7.1

Physical/mobility condition that affects walking 26 6.6Physical/mobility condition that does not affect walking 17 4.3Low vision or blind 12 3.0Acquired/traumatic brain injury 11 2.8Speech/communication condition 7 1.8A disability/condition not listed here 15 3.8

Respondents byFaith-Based Affiliation (%)

40

Chart1

Christian Affiliation

No Affiliations

Other Faith-Based Affiliation

Multiple Affiliations

0.5

0.38

0.05

0.04

Sheet1

%

Christian Affiliation50%

No Affiliations38%

Other Faith-Based Affiliation5%

Multiple Affiliations4%

Citizenship/Immigration Status

41

Citizenship n %

U.S. citizen, birth 2,351 91.3

Permanent resident 124 4.8

U.S. citizen, naturalized 90 3.5

A visa holder (such as J-1, H1-B, and U) 61 2.4

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) 9 0.3

Other legally documented status 7 0.3

Undocumented resident < 5 ---

Refugee status < 5 ---

Currently under a withholding of removal status 0 0.0

Military Status

42

Military n %

Never served in the military 2,476 96.2

On active duty in the past, but not now 57 2.2

ROTC 19 0.7

On active duty (including Reserves or National Guard) 8 0.3

Employee Respondents by Age (n)

43

Chart1

22-2422-24

25-3425-34

35-4435-44

45-5445-54

55-6455-64

65 and older65 and older

Staff

Faculty

22

0

133

30

95

76

95

66

97

64

21

20

Sheet1

22-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and older

Staff2213395959721

Faculty03076666420

Student Respondents by Age (n)


Chart1

18-2118-21

22-2422-24

25-3425-34

35-4435-44

45-5445-54

55-6455-64

65 and older65 and older

Undergraduate

Graduate Student

889

159

132

66

289

13

115

12

46

3

18

0

Sheet1

18-2122-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465 and older

Undergraduate88915966131230

Graduate Student1322891154618

Student Respondents by Caregiving Responsibilities (%)


Chart1

No dependent careNo dependent care

Children under 5 yrsChildren under 5 yrs

Children 6-18 yrsChildren 6-18 yrs

Dependent child 18 yrs or olderDependent child 18 yrs or older

Independent child 18 yrs or olderIndependent child 18 yrs or older

Sick/disabled partnerSick/disabled partner

Senior/otherSenior/other

Undergraduates

Graduate Students

0.9549393414

0.7184

0.0164644714

0.128

0.0251299827

0.16

0.05

0

0.0112

0.0121317158

0.03

Sheet1

No dependent careChildren under 5 yrsChildren 6-18 yrsDependent child 18 yrs or olderIndependent child 18 yrs or olderSick/disabled partnerSenior/other

Undergraduates95%2%3%< 1%1%

Graduate Students72%13%16%5%1%3%

Employee Respondents by Caregiving Responsibilities (%)


Chart1

No dependent careNo dependent care

Children under 5 yrsChildren under 5 yrs

Children 6-18 yrsChildren 6-18 yrs

Dependent child 18 yrs or olderDependent child 18 yrs or older

Independent child 18 yrs or olderIndependent child 18 yrs or older

Sick/disabled partnerSick/disabled partner

Senior/otherSenior/other

Staff

Faculty

7%

0.59

0.57

0.14

0.14

0.22

0.26

0.07

0.07

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.1

0.11

Sheet1

No dependent careChildren under 5 yrsChildren 6-18 yrsDependent child 18 yrs or olderIndependent child 18 yrs or olderSick/disabled partnerSenior/other

Staff59%14%22%7%2%1%10%

Faculty57%14%26%7%2%11%

Student Respondents’ Employment

47

Employment Undergraduate

n %Graduate n %

No 443 38.2 136 21.7Yes, I work on-campus 388 33.5 196 31.3

1-10 hours/week 128 11.2 52 8.411-20 hours/week 189 16.5 108 17.421-30 hours/week 42 3.7 20 3.231-40 hours/week 12 1.0 6 1.0More than 40 hours/week 5 0.4 5 0.8

Yes, I work off-campus 373 32.2 318 50.81-10 hours/week 86 7.5 41 6.611-20 hours/week 116 10.1 52 8.421-30 hours/week 94 8.3 36 6.331-40 hours/week 48 4.2 80 12.9More than 40 hours/week 16 1.4 99 16.0

Student Respondents’ Residence

48

Campus Housing (35%, n = 626)

Non-Campus Housing

(64%, n = 1,135)

5 respondents indicated that they were housing insecure (e.g., couch surfing, sleeping in car, sleeping in campus office/lab)

Student RespondentsCampus Housing

49

n %

Campus housing 626 35.1

Residence halls – West Campus 272 53.3

Residence halls – Central Campus 151 29.6

University-Owned Apartments (i.e., Arlington Park and University Apartments) 80 15.7

University-Owned Houses (i.e., Martin, Warren, Lutz, Kiel, and Florio Houses) 7 1.4

Student RespondentsNon-Campus Housing

50

n %

Non-campus housing 1,135 63.6

In an apartment/house 796 84.5

Living with family member/guardian 134 14.2

Fraternity/sorority 12 1.3

Student Respondents’ Income by Dependency Status (%)


14%

41%

17%

17%

18%

15%

19%

12%

18%

10%

6%

3%

4%

1%

3%1%

DependentStudents

IndependentStudents

Below $29,999$30,000 - 49,999$50,000 - $69,999$70,000 - $99,999$100,000 - $149,999$150,000 - $199,999$200,00 - $249,999$250,000 - $449,999$500,000 or more

Chart1

Dependent StudentsDependent StudentsDependent StudentsDependent StudentsDependent StudentsDependent StudentsDependent StudentsDependent StudentsDependent Students

Independent StudentsIndependent StudentsIndependent StudentsIndependent StudentsIndependent StudentsIndependent StudentsIndependent StudentsIndependent StudentsIndependent Students

Below $29,999

$30,000 - 49,999

$50,000 - $69,999

$70,000 - $99,999

$100,000 - $149,999

$150,000 - $199,999

$200,00 - $249,999

$250,000 - $449,999

$500,000 or more

0.14

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.18

0.06

0.04

0.03

0.01

0.41

0.17

0.15

0.12

0.1

0.03

0.01

Sheet1

Below $29,999$30,000 - 49,999$50,000 - $69,999$70,000 - $99,999$100,000 - $149,999$150,000 - $199,999$200,00 - $249,999$250,000 - $449,999$500,000 or more

Dependent Students14%17%18%19%18%6%4%3%1%

Independent Students41%17%15%12%10%3%1%

Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your living/educational expens * Students only: What is your best estimate of your family's yearly income (if dependent student, partnered, or marr Crosstabulation

Students only: What is your best estimate of your family's yearly income (if dependent student, partnered, or marrTotal

Below $29,999$30,000 - $49,999$50,000 - $69,999$70,000 - $99,999$100,000 - $149,999$150,000 - $199,999$200,000 - $249,999$250,000 - $499,999$500,000 or moreNot Asked

Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your living/educational expensDependentCount2553785694150155816314495451400667

% within Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your living/educational expens3.7%7.9%11.7%8.4%14.1%22.5%23.2%12.1%9.4%21.6%14.2%6.7%21.0%0.0%100.0%

IndependentCount143172132000000022

% within Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your living/educational expens63.6%13.6%77.3%9.1%4.5%13.6%9.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%

Not AskedCount000000000360360

% within Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your living/educational expens0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%100.0%100.0%

TotalCount39565895157816395453601049

% within Students only: Are you currently financially dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your living/educational expens3.7%5.3%5.5%9.1%15.0%7.7%6.0%9.1%4.3%34.3%100.0%

50% (n = 896) of Student Respondents Reported Experiencing Financial

Hardship…

52

Financial hardship n %Purchasing my books/course materials 602 67.2Affording tuition 589 65.7Affording housing 428 47.8Affording food 362 40.4Participating in social events 313 34.9Affording other campus fees 242 27.0Affording health care 226 25.2Affording study abroad 215 24.0Affording co-curricular events or activities 198 22.1Affording travel to and from UNC 189 21.1Affording unpaid internships/research opportunities 178 19.9Affording alternative spring breaks 171 19.1Affording daily commute to campus 123 13.7Affording child care 54 6.0Other 54 6.0

Note: Table includes Student respondents who reported having experienced financial hardship (n = 896) only.

How Student Respondents Were Paying For College

53

Form n %Loans 944 52.9Personal contribution/job 637 35.7Family contribution 574 32.2Grant (e.g., Pell) 508 28.5Need-based scholarship (e.g., Gates) 397 22.2Non-need based scholarship (e.g., Merit, ROTC, Grad Deans) 374 21.0Campus employment 316 17.7Credit card 225 12.6Graduate/Teaching/Research assistantship 211 11.8GI Bill 47 2.6Money from home country 37 2.1Resident assistant/Community assistant 36 2.0A method of payment not listed here 102 5.7

Student Respondents’ Participation in Clubs or Organizations at UNC

54

Clubs/Organizations n %

I do not participate in any clubs or organizations at UNC 702 39.3

Club, Intramural, or Recreational sport 370 20.7

Academic and Honorary Organizations 349 19.6

Faith or Spirituality Based Organization 239 13.4

Cultural/Race/Ethnicity Based Organization 140 7.8

Pre-professional or Departmental club 139 7.8

Social and/or Cultural Fraternity or Sorority 132 7.4

Governance Organization 122 6.8

Student Respondents’ Participation in Clubs or Organizations at UNC Cont’d

55

Clubs/Organizations n %

Performance and/or Visual Arts Organization 103 5.8

LGBTQ Student Organization 80 4.5

Service or Philanthropic Organization 69 3.9

Health and Wellness Organization 44 2.5

Intercollegiate athletics (NCAA) 37 2.1

Political or Issue Based Organization 36 2.0

Publication/Media Organization 35 2.0

Student Respondents’ Cumulative G.P.A.

56

G.P.A.Undergraduate

n %Graduate n %

3.75 – 4.00 353 31.0 441 73.6

3.25 – 3.74 355 31.2 124 20.7

3.00 – 3.24 163 14.3 22 3.7

2.50 – 2.99 195 17.2 11 1.8

2.00 – 2.49 54 4.7 0 0.0

Below 2.00 17 1.5 < 5 ---

Findings

57

Comfort Levels“Very Comfortable”/“Comfortable”

• White people greater than Respondents of Color• Men/Women greater than transpectrum• Heterosexual greater than LGBQ• First generation greater than non-first generation

Overall Campus Climate (74%)

• Exempt Staff respondents more comfortable than were Classified Staff respondents

Department/Work Unit Climate

(74%)

• White faculty/students greater than Respondents of Color

• Men faculty/students greater than women• Faculty/students with no disability greater than

those with a disability

Classroom Climate (83%)

58

Comfort With Overall Climate

59

Undergraduate and Graduate Student respondents more comfortable than

were Staff respondents

White respondents more comfortable

than were Respondents of

Color

Men and Women respondents more comfortable than

were Transspectrum respondents

Comfort With Overall Climate

60

Heterosexual respondents more comfortable than

were LGBQ Respondents

Not-First-Generation Student respondents more comfortable than

were First-Generation Student

respondents

Campus Housing Student respondents more comfortable

than were Off-Campus Housing

Student respondents

Comfort With Department/Work Unit Climate

61

Exempt Staff respondents more comfortable than

were Classified Staff respondents

Comfort With Classroom Climate

62

Graduate Student and Faculty

respondents more comfortable than

were Undergraduate Student respondents

White Faculty and Student respondents more comfortable than were Faculty

and Student Respondents of

Color

Men Faculty and Student respondents more comfortable than were Women

Faculty and Student respondents


63

Heterosexual Faculty and Student

respondents more comfortable than

were LGBQ Faculty and Student Respondents

Not-First-Generation Student respondents more comfortable than were First-

Generation Student respondents

Faculty and Student Respondents with

No Disability more comfortable than were Faculty and

Student Respondents with a Single

Disability


64

Not Employed Student respondents more comfortable

than were Employed Student respondents

Off-Campus Housing Student respondents more comfortable than

were Campus Housing Student

respondents

Challenges and Opportunities

65

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct

66

• 515 respondents indicated that they had personally experienced exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile (bullying, harassing) conduct at UNC within the past year

20%

Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

67Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 515). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

2624

2117

Gender/Gender identity (n=135)Position (n=121)Age (n=106)Ethnicity (n=88)

Chart1

26.223.520.617.1

Gender/Gender identity (n=135)

Position (n=121)

Age (n=106)

Ethnicity (n=88)

Sheet1

Gender/Gender identity (n=135)26

Position (n=121)24

Age (n=106)21

Ethnicity (n=88)17

Forms of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct

68

Form n %

Disrespected 317 61.6

Ignored or excluded 254 49.3

Isolated or left out 222 43.1

Intimidated/bullied 170 33.0

Target of derogatory or inappropriate verbal remarks 100 19.4

Others stared at me 85 16.5

Target of workplace incivility 84 16.3

Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 515). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct as

a Result of Gender Identity (%)

69¹ 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 = 112)¹

(n = 26)²(n = 375)¹

(n = 94)²

(n = 20)¹

(n = 14)²

Chart1

MenMen

WomenWomen

TransspectrumTransspectrum

Overall experienced conduct¹

Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of their gender identity²

0.16

0.23

0.21

0.25

0.39

0.7

Sheet1

MenWomenTransspectrum

Overall experienced conduct¹16%21%39%

Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of their gender identity²23%25%70%


a Result of Position Status (%)


(n = 194)¹

(n = 18)²(n = 108)¹

(n = 29)²

(n = 139)¹

(n = 52)²

(n = 74)¹

(n = 22)²

Chart1

UndergradsUndergrads

Grad. StudentsGrad. Students

FacultyFaculty

StaffStaff


Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of position status²

0.17

0.09

0.17

0.27

0.26

0.3

0.27

0.37

Sheet1

UndergradsGrad. StudentsFacultyStaff

Overall experienced conduct¹17%17%26%27%

Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of position status²9%27%30%37%


a Result of Age (%)


(n = 70)¹

(n = 14)²

(n = 7)¹

(n < 5)²

(n = 99)¹

(n = 21)²

(n = 63)¹

(n = 18)²

(n = 61)¹

(n = 11)²

(n = 69)¹

(n = 7)²

(n = 61)¹

(n = 15)²

(n = 45)¹

(n = 12)²

Chart1

19 or younger19 or younger

20-2120-21

22-2422-24

25-3425-34

35-4435-44

45-5445-54

55-6455-64

65-7465-74


Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of ethnicity²

0.14

0.2

0.18

0.1

0.2

0.29

0.19

0.21

0.2

0.18

0.28

0.25

0.25

0.27

0.19

Sheet1

19 or younger20-2122-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-74

Overall experienced conduct¹14%18%20%19%20%28%25%19%

Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of ethnicity²20%10%29%21%18%25%27%


a Result of Ethnicity (%)


(n = 53)¹

(n = 28)²

(n = 333)¹

(n = 16)²(n = 56)¹

(n = 12)²

(n = 15)¹

(n = 9)²

(n = 9)¹

(n = 5)²

(n = 30)¹

(n = 15)²

Chart1

Hispanic/Latin@/ Chican@Hispanic/Latin@/ Chican@

Black/African AmericanBlack/African American

Asian/Asian AmericanAsian/Asian American

MultiracialMultiracial

Other People of ColorOther People of Color

WhiteWhite


Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of ethnicity²

0.23

0.53

0.41

0.5

0.2

0.6

0.19

0.21

0.27

0.56

0.19

0.05

Sheet1

Hispanic/Latin@/ Chican@Black/African AmericanAsian/Asian AmericanMultiracialOther People of ColorWhite

Overall experienced conduct¹23%41%20%19%27%19%

Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct as a result of ethnicity²53%50%60%21%56%5%

Hispanic/Latin@/ Chican@

Location of Experienced Conduct

73

n %

In a class/lab/clinical setting 161 31.3

While working at a UNC job 143 27.8

In a meeting with a group of people 129 25.0

In a public space at UNC 99 19.2

In a UNC administrative office 70 13.6


Source of Experienced Conduct byStudent Position (%)


Chart1

StudentUndergrad respondents

Friend

Faculty

StudentGrad Std. respondents

Academic adviser

Staff member

Faculty

0.64

0.19

0.25

0.5

0.18

0.11

0.55

Sheet1

GroupSource%

Undergrad respondentsStudent64%

Friend19%

Faculty25%

Grad Std. respondentsStudent50%

Academic adviser18%

Staff member11%

Faculty55%

Source of Experienced Conduct byEmployee Status (%)


Chart1

FacultyFaculty respondents

Sr admin

Coworker

Supervisor

FacultyStaff respondents

Sr admin

Staff member

Coworker

0.49

0.12

0.35

0.38

0.12

0.14

0.28

0.34

Sheet1

GroupSource%

Faculty respondentsFaculty49%

Sr admin12%

Coworker35%

Supervisor38%

Staff respondentsFaculty12%

Sr admin14%

Staff member28%

Coworker34%

Source of Experienced Conduct byFaculty Position (%)


Chart1

StudentTenure-Track

Faculty

Sr Admin

Department Chair

StudentNon-Tenure-Track

Faculty

Sr Admin

Department Chair

0.17

0.49

0.14

0.36

0.47

0.4

Sheet1

GroupSource%n

Tenure-TrackStudent17%10

Faculty49%29

Sr Admin14%8

Department Chair36%21

Non-Tenure-TrackStudent

Faculty47%7

Sr Admin

Department Chair40%6

Source of Experienced Conduct byStaff Position (%)


Chart1

CoworkerClassified Staff

Staff

Supervisor

CoworkerExempt Staff

Staff

Supervisor

0.35

0.24

0.54

0.33

0.33

0.21

Sheet1

GroupSource%n

Classified StaffCoworker35%

Staff24%

Supervisor54%

Exempt StaffCoworker33%

Staff33%

Supervisor21%

What did you do?Emotional Responses

Felt angry (68%) Felt embarrassed (42%) Felt somehow responsible (22%) Ignored it (22%) Felt afraid (21%)


What did you do?Actions

Told a friend (42%) Didn’t do anything (40%) Avoided the person/venue (38%) Told a family member (33%) Didn’t know to whom to go (18%) Contacted a UNC resource (18%)

Faculty member (36%) Staff member (30%) Senior administrator (23%) Student staff (17%)


20% of Respondents who Experienced

Conduct Reported It

80

Felt that it was not responded to appropriately

(49%)

While the outcome was not what I had hoped for, I felt as though my

complaint was responded to appropriately

(33%)

Felt satisfied with the outcome. (17%)


Qualitative Themes Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

Hostility and fear of retaliation

81

Inclusion concerns

Unwanted Sexual Conductat UNC

82

9% of all respondents experienced unwanted sexual

conduct (n = 230)

Respondents’ Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Conduct (n)

83

35 34

6

102

14

33

Students Employees

Relationship violenceStalkingUnwanted sexual interactionUnwanted sexual contact

Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.

Chart1

StudentsStudentsStudentsStudents

EmployeesEmployeesEmployeesEmployees

Relationship violence

Stalking

Unwanted sexual interaction

Unwanted sexual contact

35

34

102

33

6

14

Sheet1

StudentsEmployees

Relationship violence35

Stalking346

Unwanted sexual interaction10214

Unwanted sexual contact33

nn

Respondents who Experienced Relationship Violence at UNC (n)

84

Chart1

Undergraduate Students

Graduate Students

Men

Women

Employed

Not Employed

Single Disability

No Disability

Multiple Disabilities

Student Respondents

28

7

5

32

5

30

7

25

7

Sheet1

Undergraduate StudentsGraduate StudentsMenWomenEmployedNot EmployedSingle DisabilityNo DisabilityMultiple Disabilities

Student Respondents2875325307257

When Relationship Violence Occurred

85

n %

Within the last year 19 48.7

2-4 years ago 17 43.6

5-10 years ago 2 5.1

11-20 years 1 2.6

More than 20 years ago 0 0.0

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 39).

Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Relationship Violence

86

n %First year 22 62.9

Fall semester 21 95.5Spring semester 12 54.5Summer semester 5 22.7

Second year 16 45.7

Fall semester 14 87.5Spring semester 11 68.8Summer semester < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 35).

Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Relationship Violence

87

n %Third year 7 20.0


Fourth year < 5 ---Fall semester < 5 ---Spring semester < 5 ---Summer semester < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 35).

Location of Relationship Violence

On Campus (49%, n = 19)

88

Off Campus (69%, n = 27)


Perpetrator of Relationship Violence

89

n %

Current or former dating/intimate partner 30 76.9

UNC student 7 17.9

Acquaintance/friend 5 12.8


Emotional Response toRelationship Violence

90

Felt somehow responsible

59%

Felt embarrassed

49%

Felt afraid49%

Felt angry 49%

Ignored it 28%


Actions in Response toRelationship Violence

91

Told a friend 69%

Avoided the person/venue

41%

Told a family member

36%

Confronted person(s) at

the time 31%

Didn’t do anything 26%

Confronted person(s) later

21%


Qualitative Themes for Respondents:Relationship Violence

92

Why they did not report: Preference to handle situations

independently

Feedback on reporting: Dissatisfactory follow through

Respondents who Experienced Stalking at UNC (n)

93

27

7

37

26

14

Chart1

Undergrad. Students

Grad. Students

Women

No Disability

Single or Multiple Disabilities

Student Respondents

27

7

37

26

14

Sheet1

Undergrad. StudentsGrad. StudentsWomenNo DisabilitySingle or Multiple Disabilities


When Stalking Occurred

94

n %


2-4 years ago 11 27.5

5-10 years ago < 5 ---

11-20 years < 5 ---


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 40).

Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Stalking

95



Second year 11 32.4


Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 35).

Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Stalking

96



Fourth year 1 2.9

Fall semester < 5 ---Spring semester 0 0.0Summer semester 0 0.0

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 35).

Location of Stalking

On Campus (75%, n = 30)

97



Perpetrator of Stalking

98

n %

UNC student 22 55.0

Stranger 11 27.5




Emotional Response toStalking

99

Felt afraid 70%

Felt angry 58%

Ignored it33%

Felt embarrassed

23%


20%


Actions in Response toStalking

100

Told a friend 68%


63%

Told a family member

35%

Contacted a UNC resource

30%

Contacted a local law enforcement

official 28%


Respondents who Experienced Unwanted Sexual Interaction at UNC (n)

101

Chart1

Undergrad. Students

Grad. Students

Faculty

Staff

Wom3n

LGBQ

Heterosexual

Christian

Other Faith-Based

No Affiliation

Multiple Affiliations

Multiple Disabilities

No Disability

Single Disability

Student Respondents

86

16

5

9

111

36

74

32

7

66

9

12

80

24

Sheet1

Undergrad. StudentsGrad. StudentsFacultyStaffWom3nLGBQHeterosexualChristianOther Faith-BasedNo AffiliationMultiple AffiliationsMultiple DisabilitiesNo DisabilitySingle Disability


Respondents’ Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Interaction at UNC by Age (n)

102

29

42

21

116

Chart1

19 or younger

20-21

22-24

25-34

35-44

Student Respondents

29

42

21

11

6

Sheet1

19 or younger20-2122-2425-3435-44


When Unwanted Sexual Interaction Occurred

103

n %


2-4 years ago 24 20.7

5-10 years ago < 5 ---

11-20 years < 5 ---

More than 20 years ago < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n = 116).

Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted Sexual

Interaction

104



Second year 51 50.0


Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n= 102).

Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted Sexual

Interaction

105



Fourth year 17 16.7

Fall semester 17 100.0Spring semester < 5 ---Summer semester 1 5.9

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n= 102).

Location of Unwanted Sexual Interaction

On Campus (72%, n = 83)

106



Perpetrator of Unwanted Sexual Interaction

107

n %

Stranger 70 60.3

UNC student 55 47.4


UNC faculty member 6 5.2


UNC staff member 5 4.3


Emotional Response toUnwanted Sexual Interaction

108

Felt angry 51%

Felt embarrassed

47%

Ignored it43%

Felt afraid 30%


15%


Actions in Response toUnwanted Sexual Interaction

109


Told a friend 39%


31%

Confronted the person(s) at the

time 11%

Told a family member 9%


Qualitative Themes for Respondents:Unwanted Sexual Interaction

110

Why they did not report: Uncertainty regarding reportable

incidentsLack of knowledge of and faith in the

reporting process

2% of Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted Sexual Contact at UNC (n = 32)

111

25

8

29

15

When Unwanted Sexual Contact Occurred

112

n %


2-4 years ago 17 48.6

5-10 years ago < 5 ---

11-20 years 0 0.0


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 35).

Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted Sexual Contact

113



Second year 9 27.3

Fall semester 6 66.7Spring semester < 5 ---Summer semester < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 33).

Location of Unwanted Sexual Contact

On Campus (40%, n = 14)

114



Perpetrator of Unwanted Sexual Contact

115

n %

UNC student 15 42.9



Stranger 6 17.1


Emotional Response toUnwanted Sexual Contact

116

Felt angry 63%


60%

Felt embarrassed

54% Felt afraid 49%

Ignored it 40%


Actions in Response toUnwanted Sexual Contact

117


51%


Told a friend

46%

Told a family member 26%

Confronted the person(s)

later 14%


Qualitative Themes for Respondents:Unwanted Sexual Contact

118

Why they did not report: Lack of faith in the reporting process

Facilities Barriers for Respondents with Disabilities

Facilities n %Snow removal, icy sidewalks or entrances 50 16.3Parking 43 14.1Classrooms, labs (including computer labs) 44 14.0Campus transportation/parking 43 13.7Classroom buildings 41 13.0College housing 32 10.3Temporary barriers due to construction or maintenance 31 10.2Health center 31 10.1Dining facilities 27 8.7Athletic/recreational facilities 26 8.2

119Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had a disability (n = 394).

Technology/Online Environment Barriers for Respondents with

DisabilitiesTechnology/Online n %

Accessible electronic format 36 11.9Moodle/Blackboard/Canvas 31 10.5Computer equipment (e.g., screens, mouse, keyboard) 27 8.9Online captioning, video remote interpreting, voice threads 22 7.5Website 22 7.5Extended testing time through Blackboard 21 7.1Video/video audio description 19 6.4Electronic forms 19 6.4


Identity Accuracy Barriers for Respondents with Disabilities

Identity Accuracy n %

Email account 23 7.8Learning technology 20 6.8Surveys 16 5.5Electronic databases (e.g., Banner) 14 4.8Intake forms (e.g., Health Center) 13 4.4


Instructional/Campus Materials Barriers for Respondents with

Disabilities

Instructional/Campus Materials n %

Textbooks 36 12.4Testing accommodation – extended time 28 9.7Course materials/handouts 22 7.6Classrooms/campus captioning and transcription 20 6.9Food menus 19 6.6Journal articles 19 6.6Video-closed captioning and text description 19 6.6Testing environment in the DSS office 17 5.9


Qualitative Themes for Respondents with Disabilities:

Accessibility of UNC Campus

123

Challenges receiving and utilizing accommodations at UNC

Facilities Barriers for Transgender Respondents

Facilities n %College housing 10 71.4Restrooms 10 71.4Residence hall room/building accommodations 10 71.4Signage 7 53.8Athletic and recreational facilities 6 42.9Changing rooms/locker rooms 6 42.9Dining halls 5 35.7

124Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they were transgender in Question 45 and did not indicate that they had a disability (n = 15).

Identity Accuracy Barriers for Transgender Respondents

Identity Accuracy n %

UNC College ID card 9 64.3Electronic databases (e.g., Banner) 9 64.3Email account 8 57.1Intake forms (e.g., Health Center) 8 57.1Surveys 8 57.1Public Affairs 7 50.0Learning technology 5 35.7

125Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they were transgender in Question 45 and did not indicate that they had a disability (n = 15).

Qualitative Themes for Transgender Respondents:

Accessibility of UNC Campus

126

Lack of representation, support, and proper facilities for

transgender/genderqueer respondents

Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UNC

127

21%

27%

55%

52%

34%

Grad Stds (n = 133)

Undergrads (n = 318)

Staff (n = 281)

Faculty (n = 146)

All (n = 878)

Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UNC

55% of Staff respondents (n = 281)

52% of Faculty respondents (n = 146)

128

Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UNC by Faculty Status

and Citizenship Status (%)

129

59

36

55 54

Tenure-Track Faculty Non-Tenure-Track Faculty U.S. Citizens Not-U.S.-Citizen

Chart1

Tenure-Track Faculty

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty

U.S. Citizens

Not-U.S.-Citizen

59

36

55

54

Sheet1

Tenure-Track FacultyNon-Tenure-Track FacultyU.S. CitizensNot-U.S.-Citizen

59365554

Reasons Employee Respondents Seriously Considered Leaving UNC

130

n %

Financial reasons (e.g., salary, resources) 226 52.9

Limited opportunities for advancement 164 38.4

Tension with supervisor/manager 147 34.4

Interested in a position at another institution 125 29.3

Unmanageable workload 121 28.3

Tension with co-workers 116 27.2

Increased workload 105 24.6

Note: Table includes answers from only those Employee respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 427).

Qualitative Themes for Employee Respondents Why Considered leaving…

131

Dissatisfaction with salary

Concerns regarding leadership

Student Respondents WhoSeriously Considered Leaving UNC

• U.S. Citizen greater than International• Students with Disabilities greater than

those without disabilities

27% of Undergraduate

Student respondents

(n = 318)

• Transpectrum greater than Men/Women• LGBQ greater than heterosexual• First generation greater than non-first

generation• Students with Disabilities greater than those

without disabilities

21% of Graduate Student

respondents (n = 133)

132

Undergraduate Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UNC by Citizenship Status and

Disability Status (%)

133

29

19 19

3326

U.S. Citizen Not-U.S.-Citizen MultipleCitizenships

At Least OneDisability

No Disability

Note: Table includes answers from only Undergraduate Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 318).

Chart1

U.S. Citizen

Not-U.S.-Citizen

Multiple Citizenships

At Least One Disability

No Disability

Students

29

19

19

33

26

Sheet1

U.S. CitizenNot-U.S.-CitizenMultiple CitizenshipsAt Least One DisabilityNo Disability

Students2919193326

Graduate Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UNC by Gender Identity,

Sexual Identity and Income Status (%)

134

71

2217

36

1927

18

Transpectrum Women Men LGBQ Heterosexual Low-Income Not-Low-Income

Note: Table includes answers from only Graduate Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 133).

Chart1

Transpectrum

Women

Men

LGBQ

Heterosexual

Low-Income

Not-Low-Income

Students

71

22

17

36

19

27

18

Sheet1

TranspectrumWomenMenLGBQHeterosexualLow-IncomeNot-Low-Income

Students71221736192718

Graduate Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UNC by Disability Status and

Income Status (%)

135

46

31

2024

19

Sing Dis Mult Dis No Dis Low-Inc Not-Low-Inc


Chart1

Sing Dis

Mult Dis

No Dis

Low-Inc

Not-Low-Inc

Students

46

31

20

24

19

Sheet1

Sing DisMult DisNo DisLow-IncNot-Low-Inc

Students4631202419

When Student RespondentsSeriously Considered Leaving UNC

69% in their first year

39% in their second year

16% in their third year

7% in their fourth year

136Note: Table includes answers from only Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 451).

Top Reasons Why Undergraduate Student Respondents Seriously

Considered Leaving UNC

137

Reason n %

Lack of a sense of belonging 157 49.4

Lack of support group 89 28.0

Homesick 88 27.7

Financial reasons 87 27.4

Campus climate was not welcoming 74 23.3Personal reasons (e.g., medical, mental health, family emergencies) 79 24.8

Note: Table includes answers from only Undergraduate Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 318).

Top Reasons Why Graduate Student Respondents Seriously Considered

Leaving UNC

138

Reason n %

Lack of a sense of belonging 62 46.6

Lack of support group 47 35.3

Campus climate was not welcoming 47 35.3

Financial reasons 37 27.8Personal reasons (e.g., medical, mental health, family emergencies) 22 16.5

Coursework was not challenging enough 20 15.0


Qualitative Themes for Undergraduate Student Respondents

Why Considered leaving…

139

Low sense of belonging

Seeking academic rigor and higher quality instruction

Qualitative Themes for Graduate Student Respondents

Why Considered leaving…

140

Unmet academic expectations

Equity and inclusion concerns

Undergraduate Student Respondents Who Agreed It Was Likely They Would Leave UNC by Select

Demographics (%)

141

Chart1

Women (n = 838)

Men (n = 274)

Transspectrum (n = 35)

People of Color (n = 238)

White (n = 692)

Multiracial (n = 195)

Single/Multiple Disabilities (n = 210)

No Disability (n = 930)

Low-Income (n = 264)

Not-Low-Income (n = 499)

First-Generation (n = 648)

Not-First-Generation (n = 499)

0.08

0.12

0.17

0.13

0.08

0.07

0.07

0.1

0.11

0.09

0.11

0.08

Sheet1

%

Women (n = 838)8%

Men (n = 274)12%

Transspectrum (n = 35)17%

People of Color (n = 238)13%

White (n = 692)8%

Multiracial (n = 195)7%

Single/Multiple Disabilities (n = 210)7%

No Disability (n = 930)10%

Low-Income (n = 264)11%

Not-Low-Income (n = 499)9%

First-Generation (n = 648)11%

Not-First-Generation (n = 499)8%

Undergraduate Student Respondents Who Agreed It Was Likely They Would Leave UNC by Select

Demographics (%)

142

12%

9%

8%

9%

7%

13%

11%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

First-Generation/Low Income (n = 179)

Not-First-Gen/Low-Income (n = 970)

LGBQ (n = 187)

Heterosexual (n = 899)

Employed (n = 701)

Not Employed (n = 440)

Campus Housing (n = 596)

Off-Campus Housing (n = 539)

Chart1

First-Generation/Low Income (n = 179)

Not-First-Gen/Low-Income (n = 970)

LGBQ (n = 187)


Employed (n = 701)




%

0.12

0.09

0.08

0.09

0.07

0.13

0.11

0.08

Sheet1

%

First-Generation/Low Income (n = 179)12%

Not-First-Gen/Low-Income (n = 970)9%

LGBQ (n = 187)8%

Heterosexual (n = 899)9%

Employed (n = 701)7%

Not Employed (n = 440)13%

Campus Housing (n = 596)11%

Off-Campus Housing (n = 539)8%

Graduate Student Respondents Who Agreed It Was Likely They Would Leave UNC by Select

Demographics (%)

143

Chart1

Women (n = 461)

Men (n = 154)

People of Color (n = 90)

White (n = 456)

LGBQ (n = 76)


First-Generation (n = 150)

Not-First-Generation (n = 253)

Low-Income (n = 211)

Not-Low-Income (n = 398)

First-Generation/Low-Income (n = 79)

Not-First-Gen/Not-Low-Income (n = 543)

0.04

0.09

0.07

0.05

0.11

0.05

0.07

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.1

0.05

Sheet1

%

Women (n = 461)4%

Men (n = 154)9%

People of Color (n = 90)7%

White (n = 456)5%

LGBQ (n = 76)11%

Heterosexual (n = 524)5%

First-Generation (n = 150)7%

Not-First-Generation (n = 253)5%

Low-Income (n = 211)6%

Not-Low-Income (n = 398)6%

First-Generation/Low-Income (n = 79)10%

Not-First-Gen/Not-Low-Income (n = 543)5%

LGBQ (n = 76)

Graduate Student Respondents Who Agreed It Was Likely They Would Leave UNC by Select

Demographics (%)

144

6%

6%

4%

15%

5%

7%

24%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Christian (n = 285)

No Affiliation (n = 245)


Single/Multiple Disability (n = 89)

Employed (n = 484)




Chart1

Christian (n = 285)



Single/Multiple Disability (n = 89)

Employed (n = 484)




0.06

0.06

0.04

0.15

0.05

0.07

0.24

0.05

Sheet1

%

Christian (n = 285)6%

No Affiliation (n = 245)6%

No Disability (n = 528)4%

Single/Multiple Disability (n = 89)15%

Employed (n = 484)5%


Campus Housing (n = 25)24%

Off-Campus Housing (n = 592)5%

Employed (n = 484)

Perceptions

145

Respondents who observed conduct or communications directed towards a person/group of people that created an

exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile working or learning environment…

146

26% (n = 679)

Top Forms of Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct

147

n %

Person was disrespected 373 54.9Derogatory or inappropriate verbal remarks. 333 49.0Person ignored or excluded 262 38.6Person isolated or left out 223 32.8Person intimidated/bullied 196 28.9Racial/ethnic profiling 135 19.9Person experienced a hostile classroom environment 134 19.7

Note: Only answered by respondents who observed exclusionary conduct (n = 679). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct Based

on…(%)

148

3027

2421

16 15

Gender/gender identity (n=202)Ethnicity (n=183)Racial identity (n=162)Sexual identity/orientation (n=139)Gender expression (n=110)Religious/spiritual views (n=102)


Chart1

Sheet1

Chart1

29.72723.920.516.215

Gender/gender identity (n=202)

Ethnicity (n=183)

Racial identity (n=162)

Sexual identity/orientation (n=139)

Gender expression (n=110)

Religious/spiritual views (n=102)

Sheet1

Gender/gender identity (n=202)30

Ethnicity (n=183)27

Racial identity (n=162)24

Sexual identity/orientation (n=139)21

Gender expression (n=110)16

Religious/spiritual views (n=102)15

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

149

• Students (50%)• Faculty members (28%)• Strangers (15%)• Staff members (12%)• Coworker (10%)

Source


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

150

• Students (64%)• Friends (22%)• Coworkers (17%)• Faculty members (14%)• Staff members (12%)• Strangers (11%)

Target


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

151

In a public space at UNC26% n = 174

In a class/lab/clinical setting32% n = 216


Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive, or Hostile Conduct by

Select Demographics (%)

152

Chart1

Asexual/Other (n = 23)

Heterosexual (n = 2,109)

LGBQ (n = 333)

White (n = 1,796)

Other People of Color (n = 33)

Multiracial (n = 300)

Black/African American (n = 73)

Asian/Asian American (n = 75)

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ (n = 226)

Men (n = 703)

Women (n = 1,800)

Transspectrum (n = 51)

0.52

0.24

0.38

0.26

0.33

0.26

0.43

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.26

0.49

Sheet1

Group%

Asexual/Other (n = 23)52%

Heterosexual (n = 2,109)24%

LGBQ (n = 333)38%

White (n = 1,796)26%

Other People of Color (n = 33)33%

Multiracial (n = 300)26%

Black/African American (n = 73)43%

Asian/Asian American (n = 75)25%

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ (n = 226)25%

Men (n = 703)25%

Women (n = 1,800)26%

Transspectrum (n = 51)49%

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ (n = 226)


Select Demographics (%)

153

Chart1

Christian Affiliation (n = 1,271)

Other Faith-Based Affiliation (n = 138)


Multiple Affiliations (n = 110)

No Disability (n = 2,170)

Single Disability (n = 258)

Multiple Disabilities (n = 119)


Employed (n = 1,198)

0.23

0.3

0.29

0.33

0.25

0.34

0.39

0.17

0.27

Sheet1

Group%

Christian Affiliation (n = 1,271)23%

Other Faith-Based Affiliation (n = 138)30%

No Affiliation (n = 982)29%

Multiple Affiliations (n = 110)33%

No Disability (n = 2,170)25%

Single Disability (n = 258)34%

Multiple Disabilities (n = 119)39%


Employed (n = 1,198)27%


Position Status (%)

154

Chart1

Staff (n = 504)

Faculty (n = 280)

Graduate Students (n = 626)

Undergraduate Students (n = 1,157)

0.35

0.28

0.19

0.27

Sheet1

Group%

Staff (n = 504)35%

Faculty (n = 280)28%

Graduate Students (n = 626)19%

Undergraduate Students (n = 1,157)27%

Emotional Response to Observed Conduct

155

Felt angry

73%

Felt embarrassed

31%

Felt afraid

14%

Ignored it 14%


Actions in Response to Observed Conduct

156

Told a friend

32%

Avoided person/ venue18%

Did nothing

30%

Didn’t know to whom to

go18%

Told a family

member22%

Confronted person(s)

at the time 15%


Qualitative Themes Observed Conduct

157

Students: Inclusion concerns for a wide range of perceived minorities

Faculty: Inclusion concerns for gender and sexual minorities

Staff and Faculty: Intimidation and fear of retaliation

Employee Perceptions

158

159

Employee Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Hiring Practices

24% (n = 65) of Faculty respondents

28% (n = 143) of Staff respondents

Qualitative Themes Discriminatory Hiring Process

Cronyism and nepotism

Equity concerns and need for greater commitment to diversity

160

161

Employee Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Employment-Related Disciplinary Actions



Qualitative Themes Discriminatory Employment-Related

Disciplinary Actions

162

Perceived lack of due process

163

Employee Perceptions of Unfair/Unjust Practices Related to Promotion



Qualitative Themes Discriminatory Practices Related to

Promotion

Need for guidelines and transparency in hiring and promotion

164

Cronyism and nepotism

Most Common Bases for Discriminatory Employment Practices

Ethnicity

Gender identity

Nepotism

Position

Age

Philosophical views

165

Work-Life IssuesSUCCESSES & CHALLENGES

The majority of employee respondents expressed positive views of campus climate.

166

Staff RespondentsExamples of Successes

A majority felt valued by coworkers in their department (84%) and

their supervisors/ managers (74%)

74% felt that their supervisors provided adequate support for

them to manage work-life balance

81% believed that their supervisors

were supportive of their taking leave

167

Staff RespondentsExamples of Successes

74% felt that their supervisors provided adequate support for

them to manage work-life balance

71% felt that their skills were valued

70% indicated that they had job

security

168

Staff RespondentsExamples of Challenges

169

58%• Hierarchy existed within staff positions that

allowed some voices to be valued more than others

36%• Workload increased without additional

compensation as a result of other staff departures

32%• Performed more work than did colleagues with

similar performance expectations


170

27%• Were “required” to do work that was

uncompensated

24%• UNC provided adequate resources to help them

manage work-life balance

24%• Pressured by departmental/program work

requirements that occurred outside of normally scheduled hours


171

32%• UNC policies were fairly applied across UNC

29%• Performance evaluation process was productive

20%• Clear procedures existed on how they could

advance at UNC

Qualitative Themes Staff Respondents

Work-Life Attitudes

172

Insufficient opportunities for advancement

Flextime applied inconsistently

Discontentment with salary

Tenure-Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

173

A majority felt that teaching (82%) was valued by UNC.

Tenure-Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

174

51%• Were “required” to do work that was

uncompensated

45%• Performed more work to help students than

did colleagues

42%• Burdened by service responsibilities

beyond those of colleagues with similar performance expectations

Tenure-Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

175

33%• Faculty opinions were taken seriously by senior

administrators

41%• Faculty opinions were valued within UNC

committees

Qualitative Themes Tenure-Track Faculty Work-Life

Attitudes

Inconsistencies regarding service and teaching expectations

176

Low sense of value and agency with leadership

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

177

A majority felt that teaching (80%) and research (72%) were valued by

UNC.

72% believed that expectations of their responsibilities were clear

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

178

40%• Were “required” to do work that that was

uncompensated

27%• Performed more work to help students than did

their colleagues

24%• Burdened by service responsibilities beyond

those of their colleagues with similar performance expectations

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

179

31%• Criteria used for contract renewal was applied

equally to all Contract Renewable and Term Faculty

34%• Had job security

37%• Contract renewable and term faculty opinions

were taken seriously by senior administrators

Qualitative Themes Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Work-Life

Attitudes

Low sense of belonging

180

All Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

181

90% felt valued by students in the

classroom

73% felt valued by other faculty at UNC

79% felt valued by faculty in their

department/program and department/ program chairs

All Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

70% indicated that they had job security

62% would recommend UNC as a good place to work

182

All Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

183

35%• People who have children/elder care were

burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities

18%• Faculty in their department/program prejudged

their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background

15%• Department/program chairs prejudged their

abilities based on their perception of their identity/background


184

10%• Salaries for tenure-track faculty positions were

competitive

12%• Salaries for contract renewable and term faculty

were competitive

14%• UNC provided adequate resources to help them

manage work-life balance


185

15%• start up and relocation practices were competitive

Qualitative Themes All Faculty Work-Life Attitudes

Discontentment with salary

186

Discontentment with benefits, particularly the lack of child care

Student Respondents’ Perceptions

187

Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Campus Climate

188

43% felt valued by UNC senior administrators

Majority felt valued by UNC faculty in the classroom (80%) and UNC faculty out of the classroom (69%)

Majority felt valued by UNC faculty (76%) and staff (74%)


189

61% felt that the campus climate encouraged free and open discussion of difficult topics

31% felt faculty pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their identities/backgrounds

Many had faculty (73%) and less had staff (59%) whom they perceived as role models


190

63% had other students whom they perceived as mentors

Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success

191

Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success

192

Black/African American and Multiracial students perceived that their academic success was less than

White Students

Graduate Student Respondents’ Perceived Academic Success

193

Low income students less than not-Low-Income students

Transspectrum and women students less than men students

Students with disabilities less than students with no disability

LGBQ students had greater than did Heterosexual students

Multi-racial less than White students

Institutional Actions

194

Top Five Available Campus Initiatives that Positively Influenced Climate for Faculty Respondents

195

Mentorship for new faculty

Access to counseling for people who have

experienced harassment

Fair process to resolve conflictsAffordable childcare

Clear process to resolve conflicts

Top Five Unavailable Campus Initiatives that Would Positively Influence Climate for Faculty Respondents

196

Fair process to resolve conflicts

Affordable childcare

Mentorship for new faculty


Career span development

opportunities for faculty at all ranks

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Faculty Respondents

Faculty Tenure-Track Respondents -Perceived need for child care

197

Faculty Respondents - Unaware of supportive programs at UNC

Top Five Available Campus Initiatives that Positively Influenced Climate for Staff Respondents

198

Access to counseling for people who have

experienced harassment

Career development opportunities for staff


Supervisory training for supervisors/managers


Top Five Unavailable Campus Initiatives that Would Positively Influence Climate for Staff Respondents

199



Mentorship for new staff

Supervisory training for faculty supervisors

Supervisory training for supervisors/

managers

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Staff Respondents

200

Less diversity training and inclusion efforts

More diversity training and inclusion efforts

201

Effective academic advising

Adequate social opportunities

Effective faculty mentorship of

studentsDiversity and equity

training for staff

Diversity and equity training for faculty

Top Five Campus Initiatives that Positively Influenced Climate for Student Respondents

202

Top Five Unavailable Campus Initiatives that Would Positively Influence Climate for Student Respondents

Adequate childcare resources

Affordable childcare

Opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue among

studentsEffective academic

advising

Opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue between faculty, staff, and students

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Student Respondents

Enhancing programming for and commitment to diversity

203

Perceived reverse discrimination and overemphasis on diversity

Summary

Strengths and SuccessesOpportunities for Improvement

204

Context Interpreting the Summary

Although colleges and universities attempt to foster

welcoming and inclusive environments, they are not

immune to negative societal attitudes and discriminatory

behaviors.

As a microcosm of the larger social environment,

college and university campuses reflect the

pervasive prejudices of society.

Classism, Racism, Sexism, Genderism, Heterosexism, etc.

205

(Eliason, 1996; Hall & Sandler, 1984; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Hart & Fellabaum, 2008; Malaney, Williams, & Gellar, 1997; Rankin, 2003; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, & Frazer, 2010; Smith, 2009; Worthington, Navarro, Loewy & Hart, 2008)

206

Overall Strengths and

Successes 74% of respondents were comfortable with the overall climate and department/ work unit climate

74% of Staff respondents felt valued by their

supervisor/ manager

85% of Student respondents felt that

their academic experience has had a positive influence on

their intellectual growth and

interest in ideas

83% of Student and Faculty

respondents were comfortable with

their classroom climate

207

Overall Challenges and Opportunities for

Improvement26% observedexclusionary

conduct within the last year at

UNC

2% experienced unwanted

sexual contact while at UNC

20% personally

experiencedexclusionary

conduct within the last year at

UNC 34% of respondents seriously

considered leaving UNC

Next Steps

208

Access to DataProcess to Protect Confidentiality

Data set will be delivered to Office of Institutional Reporting and Analysis Services (Matthew Goetzel and Karen Raymond)UNC requestors will submit a proposal using form provided

OIRAS will review proposal for ability to protect confidentiality

If approved, requestor will submit IRB application

If approved by IRB, data will be provided only to answer research question, and only in aggregated form3-month moratorium on distribution of data

209

Sharing the Report with the Community

Hard copies available for review:Campus Community & Climate Office

and the University Library

Executive Summary, Full Report and Power Point available at http://www.unco.edu/campus-climate/

210

• To solicit community input• To offer “next steps” based

on climate report results that will be used to inform actions

April 10-April 18

Community Fora

211

Calendar for Community Fora

Requested Group Monday April 10

• 12:00 -1:30• UC Aspen C

Undergraduate Students

Monday April 10• 4-30-6:00• UC Spruce C

212


FacultyThursday April 13

• 3:30-5:00• UC Aspen C

StaffMonday April 17

• 12:00-1:30• UC Aspen C

213


Requested Group Forum

Monday April 17 • 4:00-5:30• UC Aspen A

Graduate Student Forum

Tuesday April 18• 1:00-2:30• UC Council Room

214

Can’t Attend a Forum OR To Sign-up for a Forum

To provide your suggestions for actions on the Climate Project Feedback site OR

To sign-up for a forum

http://www.unco.edu/campus-climate

215

http://www.unco.edu/campus-climate

Development of ActionsProcess Forward

CWG processes community feedback

CWG will also review the

recommended actions

CWG recommends 2-3 specific actions

that can be accomplished within

the next year

216

Reporting Back to the Community

June 2017 – June 2018Monthly updates given to the community regarding

progress on website

June 15, 2017

Actions are distributed to the community via website

217

Questions and Discussion

218

Assessment of Campus ClimateClimate In Higher EducationAssessing Campus ClimateCampus Climate & StudentsCampus Climate & Faculty/StaffClimate MattersSlide Number 7What Are Students Demanding?Seven Major ThemesResponses to Unwelcoming Campus ClimatesLack of PersistenceSuicidal Ideation/Self-HarmProjected OutcomesSetting the Context for �Beginning the Work Slide Number 15Project Overview Process to DateProcess to DateInstrument/SampleSurvey LimitationsMethod LimitationProcess to DateSlide Number 23�Results: Response Rates�Who are the respondents? Response Rates by �Student PositionResponse Rates by �Faculty PositionResponse Rates by �Staff PositionResponse Rates by �Gender Identity Response Rates by �Racial Identity Response Rates by �Racial Identity Response Rates by �Citizenship Status�Additional Demographic Characteristics�Respondents by Position (%)Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%)�(Duplicated Total)Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (%) (Unduplicated Total)Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (%)Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n)15% (n = 394) of Respondents Had Conditions that Influenced Their Learning, Working, or Living Activities Respondents by� Faith-Based Affiliation (%)Citizenship/Immigration StatusMilitary StatusEmployee Respondent

assessment of campus climate - greeley colorado · final report and presentation. phase iv. 17...

Documents