assessment of climate for learning, living, and working...campus climate & faculty/staff the...

1

May 8-9, 2018

Assessment of Climate for Learning, Living, and Working

Climate In Higher Education

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

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 influenced

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, 2013; Jayakumar, Howard, Allen, & Han, 2009 2Costello, 2012; Sears, 2002; Kaminski & Geisler, 2012; Griffin, Pérez, Holmes, & Mayo, 20103Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007; Waldo, 1999

Climate Matters

6

Climate Matters

7

Academic Freedom

Hate Speech

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’sstudents in theheated context ofracial or other bias-related incidents on

college and university campuses.

What Are Students Demanding?

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

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/ 10

What are students’ behavioralresponses?

Responses to Unwelcoming Campus Climates

11

Lack of Persistence

Source: R&A, 2015; Rankin et al., 2010; Strayhorn, 201212

30% of respondents have seriously considered leaving

their institution

What do students offer as the main reason for their departure?

Student Departure

Experienced Victimization

Lack of Social Support

Feelings of hopelessness

Suicidal Ideation or Self-Harm

Source: Liu & Mustanski, 2012 13

Projected Outcomes

14

Iowa State University 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).

Iowa State University will use the results of the assessment to inform current/on-going work.

Setting the Context for Beginning the Work

• Review work already completed

• Readiness of each campus

• Examine the climate

• Building on the successes and addressing the challenges

15

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

16

17

Project Overview

• Initial Proposal Meetings• Reviews of Relevant Iowa State Literature

Phase I

• Survey Tool Development• Survey Implementation • Outreach Plan

Phase II

18

Project Summary

• Quantitative Data Analysis (data cleaning, missing data analyses, item analyses, means testing)

• Qualitative Data Analysis – Content analysis

Phase III – Data Analyses

• Final Report• Presentation

Phase IV - Results

19

Process to DatePhase I

Spring 2017

In collaboration with R&A, the Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) was created.

The final survey instrument was constructed based on work of Rankin (2003) and reviews of relevant Iowa State University literature.

20

Process to DatePhase II

Summer – Fall 2017

The CSWG met to develop the survey, and then reviewed multiple drafts of the survey.

The final survey was distributed to Iowa State University students, faculty, staff, and administrators via an invitation from interim President Benjamin Allen.

The survey was available from October 3 through November 7, 2017.

Instrument/Sample

21

Structure of the Survey

22

Section 1: Personal Experiences of Campus Climate

2: Workplace Climate for Employees

3. Demographic Information

4. Perceptions of Campus Climate

5. Institutional Actions

Survey Limitations

Self-selection bias

Response rates

Social desirability

Caution in generalizing results for constituent

groups with low response rates

23

24

Process to DatePhase III

Fall/Winter 2018

Quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted

Method Limitation

25

26

Phase IVSpring 2018

Report draft reviewed by the CSWG

Final report submitted to Iowa State University

Presentation to Iowa State University campus community

Results: Response Rates

27

Who are the respondents?

7,326 surveys were returned for a

17% overall response rate

28

Response Rates by Employee Position

29

Response Rates by Student Position

30

Response Rates by Gender Identity

31

Response Rates by Racial Identity

32

Response Rates by Racial Identity

33

Additional Demographic Characteristics

34

Respondents by Position (%)

35

Full-Time Status in Primary Positions

36

98% (n = 3,857) of Undergraduate Student respondents

87% (n = 713) of Graduate/Veterinary Student respondents

92% (n = 699) of Faculty respondents

97% (n = 1,752) of Staff respondents

Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (%)

37

5840

3

5445

2

6634

1

4554

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

WomenMen

Transspectrum

WomenMen

Transspectrum

WomenMen

Transspectrum

WomenMen

Transspectrum

Und

ergr

adG

rad/

Ve

tM

edS

taff

Fa

culty

Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n)

38

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

39

0.1

0.1

0.2

1

1

1

2

4

5

8

82

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Native Hawaiian

Alaska Native

Pacific Islander

American Indian/Native…

Middle Eastern

A racial/ethnic identity not listed here

South Asian

Black/African American

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@

Asian/Asian American

White/European American

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

40

2

3

3

3

5

6

78

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

Other/Missing/Unknown

Black/African American

Additional People of Color

Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@

Multiracial

Asian/Asian American

White

12% (n = 891) of Respondents Had a Condition that Influenced Their Learning, Living, or

Working Activities

41

Condition n %

Mental health/psychological condition 486 54.5

Learning disability 286 32.1

Chronic diagnosis or medical condition 217 24.4

Respondents’ Top Reasons for Not DisclosingTheir Disability to ISU Human Resources

42

Reason n %

I didn't think my disability was relevant to my position/ability to do my job 77 46.7

I wanted to keep my disability private 66 40.0

I didn't think the university would do anything even if they knew about it 50 30.3

Respondents byReligious Affiliation (%)

43

Citizenship/Immigration Status

44

Citizenship n %

U.S. citizen, birth 6,227 85.0

A visa holder (such as F-1, J-1, H1-B, and U) 532 7.3

U.S. citizen, naturalized 288 3.9

Permanent Resident 207 2.8

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) 14 0.2

Other legally documented status < 5 ---

Refugee status < 5 ---

Military Status

45

Military n %

Never served in the military 6,439 87.9Child or spouse/domestic partner of a U.S. Veteran or currently serving U.S. military member 241 3.3

U.S. Veteran 133 1.8

ROTC 48 0.7National Guard 46 0.6Reservist 17 0.2Currently serving active duty in a branch of the U.S. military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) 10 0.1

Student Respondents by Age (n)

46Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.

Employee Respondents by Age (n)


Student Respondents by Caregiving Responsibilities (%)


Employee Respondents by Caregiving Responsibilities (%)


Employee Respondents’Length of Employment

50

Time n %

Less than 1 year 209 8.1

1-5 years 789 30.7

6-10 years 428 16.7

11-15 years 286 11.1

16-20 years 266 10.4

More than 20 years 571 22.2

Note: For a list of Staff respondents’ academic division/work unit affiliations, please see Table 5 in the full report.

Note: For a list of Faculty respondents’ primary academic division/college affiliations, please see Table 6 in the full report.

UndergraduateStudent Respondents’Years at Iowa State University

51

Year n %

First year 1,123 28.5

Second year 967 24.5

Third year 863 21.9

Fourth year 750 19.0

Fifth year 205 5.2

Sixth year (or more) 27 0.7

Note: For a list of Undergraduate Student respondents’ current or intended majors, please see Table 14 in the full report.

Graduate/Veterinary Student Respondents’ Years at IowaState

University

52

Year n %Master ’sstudent 346 42.4

First year 133 42.9Second year 135 43.5Third (or more) year 42 13.5

Doctoral/Veterinary student 419 51.3First year 118 30.8Second year 84 21.9Third (or more) year 181 47.3

All but dissertation (ABD) 49 6.0

Note: For a list of Graduate/Veterinary Student respondents’ academic programs, please see Table 15 in the full report.

Student Respondents’ Residence

53

Non-Campus Housing

(56%, n = 2,643)

Campus Housing (43%, n = 2,054)

Housing Insecure (<1%, n = 9)

Student Respondents’ IncomebyDependency Status (%)

54

40% (n = 1,890) of Student Respondents Reported Experiencing Financial Hardship…

55

Top financial hardships n %

Affording tuition 1,240 65.6

Purchasing my books/course materials 961 50.8

Affording housing 942 49.8

Affording food 746 39.5

Participating in social events 683 36.1

Affording utilities 486 25.7

Affording other campus fees 478 25.3

Note: Table includes Student respondents who reported having experienced financial hardship (n = 1,890) only.

Top Sources of Funding for Student Respondents’ Tuition

56

Source of funding n %

Family contribution 2,582 54.3

Loans 2,270 47.7

Personal contribution/job 1,816 38.2

Non-need based scholarship (e.g., merit, ROTC, athletic, music) 1,645 34.6

Grant (e.g., Pell) 1,174 24.7

Undergraduate Student Employment

57

Employed n %No 1,721 43.7Yes, I work on campus 1,420 36.0

1-10 hours/week 617 44.611-20 hours/week 728 52.621-30 hours/week 33 2.431-40 hours/week < 5 ---More than 40 hours/week < 5 ---

Yes, I work off campus 987 25.11-10 hours/week 338 35.311-20 hours/week 403 42.121-30 hours/week 145 15.231-40 hours/week 54 5.6More than 40 hours/week 17 1.8

Student Respondents’ Participation inClubs/Organizations at Iowa State

University

58

Top clubs/organizations n %

Academic and Academic Honorary Organizations 1,365 28.7

Sports & Recreation Organization 1,086 22.8

Special Interest Organization 1,024 21.5

I do not participate in any clubs or organizations at Iowa State. 860 18.1

Service & Volunteerism Organization 715 15.0

Religious/Spiritual/Faith Organizations 700 14.7

Student Respondents’ G.P.A. at theEndof Last Semester

59

GPAUndergraduate

n %Graduaten %

3.75 – 4.00 717 18.2 357 44.2

3.25 – 3.74 932 23.7 209 25.9

3.00 – 3.24 468 11.9 44 5.4

2.50 – 2.99 558 14.2 15 1.9

2.00 – 2.49 199 5.1 < 5 ---

1.99 and below 68 1.7 < 5 ---

No GPA yet 990 25.2 181 22.4

Findings

60

Comfort with ClimateExamples

Overall Campus (79%)

Department/ Program/ Work Unit

(73%)

Classroom (85%)

61

Comfort With Overall Climate

62Note: Answered by all respondents.

Comfort With Department/ Program/Work Unit

65Note: Answered by Faculty and Staff respondents.

Comfort With Department/ Program/Work Unit

66Note: Answered by Faculty and Staff respondents.

Comfort With Classroom Climate

67Note: Answered by Student and Faculty respondents

Challenges and Opportunities

70

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct

71

Number of Instances of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

72

Instances n %

1 instance 243 18.0

2 instances 306 22.7


4 instances 87 6.5


Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,375). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top Bases of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

73

Basis n %

Gender/gender identity 414 30.1

Ethnicity 283 20.6

Position (e.g., staff, faculty, student) 274 19.9

Racial identity 232 16.9

Political views 228 16.6

Age 226 16.4


Top BasesStaff Respondents

74

Basis n %

Position (e.g., staff, faculty, student) 170 38.3


Age 103 23.2

Length of service at Iowa State 101 22.7

Educational credentials (e.g., BS, MS, PhD, MD) 79 17.8

Ethnicity 45 10.1

Note: Only answered by Staff respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 444). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top Bases Faculty Respondents

75

Basis n %


Position status (e.g., staff, faculty, student) 43 22.9

Ethnicity 37 19.7

Age 35 18.6

Philosophical views 33 17.6


Note: Only answered by Faculty respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 188). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top Bases Student Respondents

76

Basis n %


Ethnicity 201 27.1

Racial identity 157 21.1


Academic performance 109 14.7

Major field of study 101 13.6

Mental health/psychological disability/condition 100 13.5

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 743). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary Conduct as a Result of Gender Identity (%)

77¹ 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 = 919)¹

(n = 325)²

(n = 45)¹

(n = 31)²

(n = 399)¹

(n = 56)²

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary Conduct as a Result of Ethnicity (%)


(n = 308)¹

(n = 185)²

(n = 113)¹

(n = 50)²

(n = 924)¹

(n = 42)²

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary Conduct as a Result of Primary Position (%)


(n 557)

(n = 24)²

(n 186)

(n = 37)²

(n 444)

(n = 170)²

(n 188)

(n = 43)²

Top Forms of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

80

Form n %

I was ignored or excluded. 661 48.1

I was isolated or left out. 540 39.3

I was intimidated/bullied. 504 36.7

I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks. 377 27.4

I experienced a hostile work environment. 358 26.0


Top FormsEmployee Respondents (%)

81

43

43

35

36

33

51

43

41

50

36

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ignored/excluded

Intimidated/bullied

Isolated

Workplace incivility

Hostile work enviroment

Ignored/excluded

Intimidated/bullied

Isolated

Hostile work enviroment

Workplace incivility

Fac

ulty

res

pond

ents

Sta

ff r

espo

nden

ts

Note: Only answered by employee respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 632). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top FormsStudent Respondents (%)

82

47

30

41

33

31

53

34

36

23

25

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ignored/excluded

Intimidated/bullied

Isolated/left out

Staring

Derogatory verbal

Ignored/excluded

Intimidated/bullied

Isolated/left out

Hostile work environment

Derogatory verbal

Und

ergr

adR

espo

nden

tsG

rad/

Ve

tR

espo

nden

ts


Top Locations of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

83

Location n %

While working at an Iowa State job 363 26.4

In a class/lab 358 26.0

In a meeting with a group of people 351 25.5


Top LocationsStaff Respondents

84

Location n %



In an Iowa State administrative office 116 26.1

Note: Only answered by Staff respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 444). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top LocationsFaculty Respondents

85

Location n %


In a faculty office 54 28.7


Note: Only answered by Faculty respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 188). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top Locations Student Respondents

86

Location n %

In a class/lab 323 43.5

In campus housing 163 21.9

In other public spaces at Iowa State 155 20.9

Note: Only answered by Undergraduate Student respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 743). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top Sources of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

87

Source n %

Student 588 44.6

Coworker/colleague 327 24.8

Faculty member/other instructional staff 251 19.0


Top SourcesEmployee Respondents (%)

88

37

21

28

55

32

24

24

49

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Faculty/Instruct staff

Student

Department chair

Coworker/Colleague

Supervisor/Manager

Staff member

Department chair

Coworker/Colleague

Fac

ulty

res

pond

ents

Sta

ff re

spon

dent

s

Note: Only answered by employee respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 632). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top SourcesStudent Respondents (%)

89

70

20

13

8

23

51

12

30

22

17

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Student

Friend

Faculty/Instruct Staff

Co-worker/Colleague

Stranger

Student

Staff

Faculty/Instruct Staff

Co-worker/Colleague

Stranger

Und

erg

rad

Res

pond

ents

Gra

d/V

etR

espo

nde

nts


What did you do?Emotional Responses

Felt angry (69%)Felt embarrassed (38%)Ignored it (27%)Was afraid (26%)Felt somehow responsible (18%)

90Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 1,375). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

What did you do?Actions

91

Told a friend (44%)

Avoided the person/

venue (41%)

Didn’t doanything

(38%)

Told a family

member (34%)


18% (n = 34)Reported It

92


Qualitative Themes Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

Employee Respondents

93

Hostile colleague or coworker

Hostile supervisor

Negative work environment

Negativeperceptions of ISU’sharassment reporting process

Qualitative Themes Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

Student Respondents

94

Hostile campus climate for political conservatives and women students

Conduct based on individuals’ raceorethnicity

Sexual assault/harassment

Experiences with Unwanted Sexual Conduct

95

11% (n = 770) of All Respondents Experienced Unwanted Sexual Conduct

96

Experienced Unwanted Sexual Conduct by Position Status (n)

97

When Relationship Violence Occurred

98

Time n %

Less than 6 months ago 21 26.3

6 - 12 months ago 15 18.8

13 - 23 months ago 20 25.0

2 - 4 years ago 16 20.0

5 - 10 years ago 6 7.5

11 - 20 years ago 2 2.5

More than 20 years ago 0 0.0

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 80).

Semester/Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Relationship

Violence

99Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 80).

Semester/Year n %During my time as a graduate/professional student at Iowa State < 5 ---Prior to my first semester (e.g., Orientation, Pre-collegiate program at ISU) 18 25.7Undergraduate first year 35 50.0

Fall semester 27 77.1Spring semester 22 62.9Summer term 6 17.1

Undergraduate second year 21 30.0Fall semester 13 61.9Spring semester 13 61.9Summer term < 5 ---

Semester/Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Relationship

Violence

100

Semester/Year n %

Undergraduate third year 16 22.9

Fall semester 13 81.3

Spring semester 8 50.0

Summer semester 3 18.8

Undergraduate fourth year 8 11.4



Summer semester < 5 ---

After my fourth year as an undergraduate < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 80).

Student Respondents’ Alcohol/DrugInvolvement in Relationship Violence

101

Alcohol/Drug n %

No 51 72.9

Yes 19 27.1

Alcohol only 12 75.0

Drugs only 0 0.0

Both alcohol and drugs < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 19).

Location of Relationship Violence

102


Top Perpetrators of Relationship Violence

103

Perpetrator n %

Current or former dating/intimate partner 69 86.3

Iowa State student 19 23.8

Acquaintance/friend 13 16.3


Emotional Response toRelationship Violence

104Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 80).

Actions in Response toRelationship Violence

105Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 80).

Told a friend 51%

15% (n = 12)Reported

Relationship Violence

106


Qualitative Themes Relationship Violence

107

Did not report because it was handled

Fear of consequences

Not worth reporting

Didn’t realize it was abuse

When Stalking Occurred

108

Time n %


6 - 12 months ago 44 28.0

13 - 23 months ago 21 13.4

2 - 4 years ago 25 15.9

5 - 10 years ago 12 7.6

11 - 20 years ago < 5 ---

More than 20 years ago < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 157).

Semester/Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Stalking

109Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 17).

Semester/Year n %During my time as a graduate/professional student at Iowa State 12 9.1

Prior to my first semester (e.g., Orientation, Pre-collegiate program at ISU) 6 4.5Undergraduate first year 75 56.8


Undergraduate second year 46 34.8Fall semester 30 65.2Spring semester 23 50.0Summer term < 5 ---

Semester/Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Stalking

110Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 17).

Semester/Year n %









After my fourth year as an undergraduate 3 2.3

Student Respondents’ Alcohol/DrugInvolvement in Stalking

111

Alcohol/Drug n %

No 115 87.1

Yes 17 12.9


Drugs only 0 0.0

Both alcohol and drugs < 5 ---

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 17).

Location of Stalking

112


Top Perpetrators of Stalking

113

Perpetrator n %



Stranger 44 28.0



Emotional Response toStalking

114Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 157).

Actions in Response toStalking

115Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 157).

20% (n = 31)Reported Stalking

116


Qualitative Themes Stalking

117

Not serious enough to report

Handled the situation


Behavior stopped

When Unwanted Sexual Interaction Occurred

118

Time n %


6 - 12 months ago 140 25.3

13 - 23 months ago 65 11.8

2 - 4 years ago 56 10.1

5 - 10 years ago 10 1.8

11 - 20 years ago 6 1.1


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n = 554).

Semester/Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted

Sexual Interaction

119Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n= 474).

Semester/Year n %During my time as a graduate/professional student at Iowa State 29 6.1

Prior to my first semester (e.g., Orientation, Pre-collegiate program at ISU) 15 3.2Undergraduate first year 297 62.7


Undergraduate second year 197 41.6Fall semester 143 72.6Spring semester 104 52.8Summer term 12 6.1

Semester/Year in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted

Sexual Interaction

120

Semester/Year n %









After my fourth year as an undergraduate 10 2.1

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n= 474).

Student Respondents’ Alcohol/DrugInvolvement in Unwanted Sexual

Interaction

121

Alcohol/Drug n %

No 286 60.6

Yes 186 39.4


Drugs only 0 0.0

Both alcohol and drugs 10 5.7

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n= 474).

Location of Unwanted Sexual Interaction

122


Top Perpetrators of Unwanted Sexual Interaction

123

Perpetrator n %

Stranger 315 56.9




Emotional Response toUnwanted Sexual Interaction

124Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n = 554).

Actions in Response toUnwanted Sexual Interaction

125Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n = 554).

Told a friend 50%

7% (n = 39)Reported

Unwanted Sexual

Interaction

126


Qualitative Themes Unwanted Sexual Interaction

127

Catcalling

No big deal

Expected no response

Handled the situation

When Unwanted Sexual Contact Occurred

128

Time n %


6 - 12 months ago 47 21.5

13 - 23 months ago 45 20.5

2 - 4 years ago 51 23.3

5 - 10 years ago 9 4.1

11 - 20 years ago 5 2.3


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 221).

Semester in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted

Sexual Contact

129Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 203).

Semester/Year n %During my time as a graduate/professional student at Iowa State 6 3.0Prior to my first semester (e.g., Orientation, Pre-collegiate program at ISU) 9 4.4Undergraduate first year 109 53.7

Fall semester 67 61.5Spring semester 47 43.1Summer term < 5 ---

Undergraduate second year 60 29.6Fall semester 34 56.7Spring semester 22 36.7Summer term 5 8.3

Semester in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted

Sexual Contact

130Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 203).

Semester/Year n %






Fall semester < 5 ---


Summer semester < 5 ---

After my fourth year as an undergraduate < 5 ---

Student Respondents’ Alcohol/DrugInvolvement in Unwanted Sexual

Contact

131

Alcohol/Drug n %

No 69 34.5

Yes 131 65.5


Drugs only < 5 ---

Both alcohol and drugs 9 7.3

Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 203).

Location of Unwanted Sexual Contact

132


Top Perpetrators of Unwanted Sexual Contact

133

Perpetrator n %



Stranger 56 25.3



Emotional Response toUnwanted Sexual Contact

134


Actions in Response toUnwanted Sexual Contact

135

Told a friend 64%


Qualitative Themes Unwanted Sexual Contact

136


Blamed themselves

No big deal

Qualitative Themes Unwanted Sexual Contact

137

Expected no response

Too much effort

Had limited details to share

Knowledge of Unwanted Sexual Contact/Conduct Definitions, Policies, and

Resources

88% were aware of the definition of

Affirmative Consent

68% knew how and where to report such

incidents

80% were aware of the role of Iowa State

University Title IX Coordinators

138


Resources

139

76% were familiar with the campus

policies on addressing sexual misconduct,

domestic/dating violence, and stalking

92% thought they had a responsibility to

report such incidents when they saw them occurring on campus

or off campus

73% generally were aware of the campus

resources listed on the survey


Resources

140

79% understood that Iowa State

University standards of conduct/penalties

differed from standards of

conduct/penalties under the criminal

law

97% knew that Iowa State University sends a Timely Warning to the

campus community when such an incident

occurs

78% knew that information about the prevalence of sex offenses are

available in the Iowa State Public Safety

Report

Accessibility

141

Top Barriers for Respondents with Disabilities

Facilities n %

Classrooms, labs (including computer labs) 124 14.6

Classroom buildings 115 13.6

Parking 89 10.6

142Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had a disability (n = 891).

Technology/online environment n %

Accessible electronic format 61 7.3

Blackboard/Canvas 51 6.2

Computer equipment (e.g., screens, mouse, keyboard) 55 6.7

Electronic forms 50 6.0

Top Barriers for Respondents with Disabilities

Identity n %

Classroom technology 44 5.4

Surveys 40 4.9

143

Instructional/Campus Materials n %

Textbooks 59 7.1

Food menus 48 5.8

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had a disability (n = 891).

Qualitative Themes for Respondents with Disabilities:

Accessibility of Campus

144

Mobility concerns

Coursework barriers

Accommodation support

Mental health issues

Facilities Barriers for Transspectrum Respondents

Facilities n %

Restrooms 44 28.2

Signage 35 22.4

Campus housing 34 21.8

Changing rooms/locker rooms 27 17.3

Athletic and recreational facilities 24 15.3

Greek housing 10 6.4

145Note: Only answered by respondents who identified their gender identity as Transgender, Genderqueer, or Gender Non-binary (n= 166).

Identity Accuracy Barriers for Transspectrum Respondents

146

Identity accuracy n %

Surveys 36 23.5

Iowa State ID Card 29 18.7

Marketing/Communications 27 17.6

AccessPlus 25 16.2

Intake forms (e.g., Thielen Student Health Center) 23 14.9

Email account 23 14.8

Blackboard/Canvas 22 14.2

Learning technology 22 14.2

Note: Only answered by respondents who identified their gender identity as Transgender, Genderqueer, or Gender Non-binary (n= 166).

Qualitative Themes for Transspectrum Respondents:

Accessibility of Campus

147

Varying views on LGBT emphasis

Preferred name usage

Identity not a concern

Gender neutral bathroom concerns

Intent to Persist

148

Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving Iowa State University (%)

149

StaffTop Reasons Seriously Considered

Leaving Iowa State University

150

Reason n %

Low salary/pay rate 481 53.0

Limited opportunities for advancement 443 48.8

Increased workload 301 33.1

Inability to effect change 293 32.3

Tension with supervisor/manager 280 30.8

Note: Table includes answers from only those Staff respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 908).

FacultyTop Reasons Seriously Considered

Leaving Iowa State University

151

Reason n %

Low salary/pay rate 192 46.7

Interested in a position at another institution 164 39.9

Increased workload 152 37.0

Note: Table includes answers from only those Faculty respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 411).

Qualitative Themes Employee Respondents

Why Considered leaving…

152

Negative work environment

Low salary

Limited advancement opportunities

Do not feel valued

Limited support

Undergraduate StudentsTop Reasons Seriously Considered Leaving

Iowa State University

153

Reason n %

Lack of a sense of belonging 444 50.9

Lack of social life 309 35.4

Personal reasons 292 33.5

Note: Table includes answers from only Undergraduate Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 872).

Graduate/Veterinary Medicine Students Top Reasons Seriously Considered Leaving


154

Reason n %

Lack of sense of belonging 104 56.2

Campus climate was unwelcoming 57 30.8

Tension with supervisor/manager 55 29.7

Discrimination/harassment 53 28.6

Note: Table includes answers from only Graduate/Veterinary Medicine Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 817).

When Student RespondentsSeriously Considered Leaving Iowa State

University

72% in their first year

38% in their second year

18% in their third year

9% in their fourth year

155Note: Table includes answers from only Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 2,376).

Student Respondents Who Intend to Graduate from Iowa State University

6% stated that thinking ahead, it is likely that they will leave ISU

without meeting their academic goal

94% intend to graduate from

ISU

156

Qualitative Themes Student Respondents

Why Considered leaving…

157

Homesickness

Concerns about available majors

Insufficient support

Diversity issues

Academic concerns

Perceptions

158

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…

159

29% (n = 2,107)

Top Bases of Observed Exclusionary Conduct (%)

160

4137

32

Ethnicity (n=859)

Racial identity (n=772)

Gender/gender identity (n=681)

Note: Only answered by respondents who observed exclusionary conduct (n = 2,107). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

Top Forms of Observed Exclusionary Conduct

161

Form n %

Derogatory verbal remarks 1,108 52.6

Person ignored or excluded 660 31.3

Person isolated or left out 609 28.9

Person intimidated/bullied 585 27.8

Racial/ethnic profiling 578 27.4


Top Target of Observed Exclusionary Conduct

162

Target


Top Source of Observed Exclusionary Conduct

163

Source


Top Location of Observed Exclusionary Conduct

164

In other public spaces at Iowa State

In a class/lab


While walking on campus

Observed Exclusionary Conduct by Respondents’ Racial and Sexual Identity

(%)

165

Observed Exclusionary Conduct by Respondents’ Gender Identity and

Citizenship Status (%)

166

Actions in Response to Observed Exclusionary Conduct

26%

Avoided person/venue

18%

Confronted person at the time 16%

Told a family member

14%

Did nothing

37%

167Note: Only answered by respondents who observed exclusionary conduct (n = 2,107). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

8% (n =163) Reported the

Observed Conduct

168


Qualitative Themes Observed Exclusionary Conduct

169

Hostile campus climate for politically conservative individuals

Hostile or derogatory verbal remarks directed toward minorities

Negativeperceptions of ISU’s free-speech zone

Qualitative Themes Observed Exclusionary Conduct

170

Observed acts of exclusion

Presence of white supremacy materials on campus

Employee Perceptions

171

172

Employee Perceptions of Unjust Hiring Practices

Qualitative Themes Perceptions of Unjust Hiring Practices

173

Racial/ethnic identity-related issues

Cronyism

Gender-related issues

Deviation from hiring process

174

Employee Perceptions of Unjust Employment-Related Disciplinary Actions

Qualitative Themes Perceptions of Unjust Employment-Related

Disciplinary Actions

175

Personal preferences

Complications involved with reporting conflict

Discipline not imposed

176

Employee Perceptions of Unjust Practices Related to Promotion

Qualitative Themes Perceptions of Unjust Hiring Practices

177

Reclassification process

Identity (both helps and hinders)

Favoritism

Ignored qualifications

Inconsistency issues

Most Common Bases for Discriminatory Employment Practices

178

Work-Life IssuesSUCCESSES & CHALLENGES

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

179

Staff RespondentsExamples of Successes

180

82% felt valued by coworkers in their department

76% felt that their supervisors provided adequate support for them to manage work-life balance

A majority felt they had supervisors (67%) and colleagues/coworkers (73%) who gave them job/career advice or guidance when they needed it

Staff RespondentsExamples of Successes

181

71% felt that ISU provided them with resources to pursue training/professional development opportunities

A majority felt vacation and personal time packages (87%), health insurance benefits (88%), and retirement benefits (78%) were competitive

74% would recommend ISU as a good place to work

Staff RespondentsExamples of Challenges

182

A hierarchy existed within staff positions that allowed some voices to be valued more than others

58%

Staff salaries or child care benefits were competitive.23%

Staff opinions were valued by ISU faculty and administration. 33%

Staff RespondentsExamples of Challenges

183

Clear procedures existed on how they could advance at ISU22%

ISU policies (e.g., FMLA) were fairly applied across Iowa State University 36%

Positive about their career opportunities at ISU39%

Qualitative Themes - Staff Respondents Work-Life Attitudes

184

Overwhelming workload

Inequitable treatment

Supervisor experiences

Job security concerns

Qualitative Themes Staff Respondents

Benefits, Compensation, Professional Development, Value

185

Compensation

Lack of advancement opportunities

Inadequate professional development support

Flexible scheduling

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents

Examples of Successes

186

87% felt that research was valued by ISU

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents

Examples of Challenges

187

Faculty opinions were taken seriously by senior administrators. 39%

Qualitative Themes Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents

Work-Life Attitudes

188

Faculty input

Service responsibilities

Committee work

The intersection of research and teaching

Issues of inequity

Non-Tenure Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

189

84% felt that research was valued

Non-Tenure Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

190

Opinions were taken seriously by senior administrators25%

Criteria used for contract renewal were applied equally to all positions 35%

Felt that they had job security37%

Qualitative Themes Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents

Work-Life Attitudes

191

Job security concerns

Not feeling valued

Salary concerns

Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

192

85% felt that health insurance benefits were competitive

80% felt valued by students in the classroom

70% would recommend Iowa State as a good place to work

Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

193

Child care benefits were competitive23%

Salaries for non-tenure-track professors were competitive23%

ISU provided adequate resources to help them manage work-life balance33%

Salaries for tenure-track faculty were competitive37%

Qualitative Themes Faculty Respondents

Faculty Work

194

Salary concerns

Childcare

Resources and support

Student Respondents’ Perceptions

195

196

74% of Student respondents felt valued by ISU staff

75% of Student respondents felt valued by ISU faculty

76% of Student respondents felt valued by faculty in the classroom

Student RespondentsPerceptions of Campus Climate


Graduate/Veterinary Medicine Student RespondentsAdvising and Departmental Support


197

82%

81%

82%

Qualitative Themes Graduate Student Respondents

Views on Advising and Departmental Support

Quality of advising

198

Praise for department/ISU

Lack of support

Student Respondents’Perceived Academic Success

199

UndergraduateStudent Respondents’Perceived Academic Success

200

By Gender Identity: Women have greater Perceived Academic Success

than Men

Note: Analyses were run by Gender Identity, Racial Identity, Sexual Identity, Citizenship Status, Disability Status, and Income Status

By Racial Identity: White/European American have greater Perceived

Academic Success than Asian/Asian American, Black/African American, and Multiracial


201

By Citizenship/Immigration Identity: U.S. Citizen have greater Perceived Academic

Success than Not-U.S. Citizen

By Disability Identity: Students with No Disability have greater Perceived

Academic Success than students with a Single Disability



202

By Sexual Identity: Heterosexual have greater Perceived Academic

Success than LGBQ


By Income Status: Not-Low-Income have greater Perceived Academic

Success than Low-Income

Graduate/Veterinary Medicine Student Respondents’

Perceived Academic Success

203

By Income Status: Not-Low-Income have greater Perceived Academic

Success than Low-Income

By Sexual Identity: Heterosexual have greater Perceived Academic

Success than LGBQ


Graduate/Veterinary MedicineStudent Respondents’

Perceived Academic Success

204

By Disability Status: Students with No Disability have greater

Perceived Academic Success than students with a Single Disability


By Disability Status: Students with No Disability or Single Disability have greater Perceived Academic Success than

students with Multiple Disabilities

Institutional Actions

205

Available Campus Initiatives that Positively Influenced Climate for Faculty Respondents

206

Access to counseling for people who have

experienced harassment

Mentorship for new faculty

Fair process to resolve conflicts

Clear process to resolve conflicts

Programs to support the wellbeing of faculty

Unavailable Campus Initiatives that Would Positively Influence Climate for Faculty Respondents

207

Fair process to resolve conflicts

Affordable child care

Programs to support the wellbeing of

faculty

Clear process to resolve conflicts

Mentorship for new faculty

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Faculty Respondents

208

Lack of childcare/Subpar family leave policies

Spousal/partner hiring

Diversity/equity/inclusion training for faculty

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Faculty Respondents

209

Reduced rate gym memberships

Diversity-related professional experiences valued over

qualifications

Available Campus Initiatives that Positively Influenced Climate for Staff Respondents

210

Professional development

opportunities for staff

Career development opportunities for staff

Programs to support the wellbeing of staff

Access to counseling for people who have

experienced harassment

Supervisory training for supervisors/

managers

Unavailable Campus Initiatives that Would Positively Influence Climate for Staff Respondents

211

Career development opportunities for staff

Mentorship for new staff

Fair process to resolve conflictsAffordable child care

Supervisory training for supervisors/

managers

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Staff Respondents

212

Negative effects of spousal hires

Expand tuition reimbursement benefits

Provide affordable/accessible ISU child care

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Staff Respondents

213

Offer accessible wellness programs

Require supervisory trainings

Thoughts on diversity/equity/ inclusion training and professional

development training

214

Career development opportunities for

students

Effective academic advising

Effective peer mentorship of students

Programs to support the wellbeing of students

Effective faculty mentorship of students

Available Campus Initiatives that Positively Influenced Climate for Student Respondents

215

Unavailable Campus Initiatives that Would Positively Influence Climate for Student Respondents

Effective faculty mentorship of students

Programs to support the wellbeing of students

Effective academic advising

Opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue among

students

Opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue

between faculty, staff, and students

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Student Respondents

Uncertainty about available initiatives/institutional actions

216

Specific recommendations to improve climate

Thoughts on diversity training

Qualitative Themes Campus Initiatives – Student Respondents

Cross-cultural competence in curriculum

217

Broadening the concept of diversity

Summary

Strengths and Successes

Opportunities for Improvement

218

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.

219

(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; Smoth, 2009; Worthington, Navarro, Loewy & Hart, 2008)

220

Overall Successes

The majority of…

Faculty felt valued by students in the classroom (80%)

Student and Faculty respondents were comfortable with the classroom climate (85%)

Student respondents felt valued by ISU

faculty in the classroom (76%)

Respondents were comfortable with

the overall climate (79%)

221

Overall Challenges and Opportunities for

Improvement19%

personally experienced exclusionary

conduct within the last year at


11% of respondents

indicated they experienced unwanted

sexual conduct while at ISU

29% observed

exclusionary conduct within the last year at


54% of Faculty

respondents seriously

considered leaving ISU

Next Steps

222

Sharing the Report with the Community

A hard copy is available for review in Library

Full Report and Power Point Presentation

www.campusclimate.iastate.edu

223

Process Forward

In a correspondence to the ISU senior leadership on May 2, President Wintersteen charged several teams with developing actions to ensure the survey results are addressed

224

Implementation Teams

Undergraduate Student Experience

Graduate Student and Post Doc Experience

Faculty Experience

Professional & Scientific and Merit employees

225

Projected Actions Fall 2018

Teams will meet in the summer to discuss strategies and to coordinate activities.

Each team will schedule forum(s) in fall 2018 to solicit input and stakeholder feedback regarding findings.

Each team will prioritize the findings they will focus on and develop implementation plans.

Each team will update the President and stakeholders with progress towards those priorities.

The President will communicate progress to campus.

226

Questions and Discussion

227

assessment of climate for learning, living, and working...campus climate & faculty/staff the...

Documents