Climate Study for Learning, Living, and WorkingClimate In Higher Education Climate (Living, Working, Learning) Create and Distribute of Knowledge Community ... Training (71%) Curriculum

1

Climate Study for Learning, Living,

and Working

September 15, 2017

Climate In Higher Education

Climate (Living, Working, Learning)

Create and Distribute

of 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 Matters

Student 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

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

Lack of Persistence

Source: R&A, 2015; Rankin, et al., 2010; Strayhorn, 201211

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

UMSL 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).

UMSL will use the results of the assessment 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

University

Policies/Service

Intergroup &

Intragroup

Relations

Transformational Tapestry Model©

Baseline

Organizational

Challenges

Systems

Analysis

Local / Sate /

Regional

Environments

Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment

Advanced

Organizational

Challenges

Consultant

Recommendations

Assessment

Transformation

via

Intervention

Fiscal

Actions

Symbolic

Actions

Administrative

Actions

Educational

Actions

Transformed

Campus

Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum

Pedagogy

University

Policies/Service

Intergroup &

Intragroup

Relations

© 2001

External

Relations

External

Relations

15

16

Project Overview

• Review of Institutional Data

• Assessment Tool Development and Implementation

Phase I

• Data Analysis

Phase II

• Final Report and Presentation

Phase III

17

Process to DatePhase I

May 2016

In collaboration with R&A, the Systemwide Climate Study Team (SCST; composed of faculty, staff, and administrators across the UM System) was created.

In meetings, the SCST developed the survey instrument; reviewed multiple drafts; and approved the final survey instrument.

18

Process to DatePhase I

Fall 2016

The final survey was distributed to the entire UMSL community via an invitation from Chancellor Thomas F. George.

The survey was available from October 4th to November 4th.

19

Process to DatePhase II

Spring 2017

Quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted

20

Phase III

Summer/Fall 2017

Report draft reviewed by the Local Campus Study Team (LCST) at UMSL

Final report submitted to UMSL

Presentation to UMSL campus community

Instrument/Sample

21

Final instrument

• 120 questions including space for respondents to provide commentary

• On-line or paper & pencil options

Sample = Population

• All community members were invited to take the survey

• The survey was available from October 4 through November 4, 2016

Survey Limitations

Self-selection

bias

Response rates

Social desirability

Caution in generalizing results

for constituent groups with low response rates

22

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

23

Results: Response Rates

24

Who are the respondents?

1,495 surveys were returned for a

11% overall response rate

25

Response Rates by Employee Position

26

27%

• Faculty (including Administrator with Faculty Rank) (n = 302)

18%

• Staff (including Administrator without Faculty Rank) (n = 391)

12%• Emeritus Faculty (n = 8)

Response Rates by Student Position

27

38%

• Post-Doctoral Scholar/Fellow/ Resident (n = 6)

9%• Graduate/Professional Student (n = 273)

7%• Undergraduate (n = 515)

Response Rates by Gender Identity

28

12%• Woman (n = 1,002)

7%• Man (n = 429)

N/A• Transspectrum (n = 30)

Response Rates by Racial Identity

29

23%• Multiracial (n = 66)

12%• White/European American (n = 1,061)

11%• Asian/Asian American (n = 65)

9%• African American/African/Black (n = 192)

Response Rates by Racial Identity

30

9%• Hispanic/Latin@/Chican@ (n = 30)

N/A• American Indian/Alaska Native (n < 5)

N/A• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n < 5)

N/A• Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian (n = 20)

Response Rates by Citizenship Status

31

16%• Non-U.S. Citizen (n = 162)

10%• U.S. Citizen (n = 1,307)

Additional Demographic Characteristics

32

Respondents by Position (%)

33

Full-Time Status/Benefits Eligible

34

82% (n = 1,228) were full-time in

their primary positions

90% (n = 626) of Employee

respondents were benefits eligible

Note: For a list of Faculty respondents’ academic school/college, please see Table B18 in Appendix B.

Note: For a list of Staff respondents’ academic division/work, please see Table B19 in Appendix B.

Respondents by Gender Identity and Position Status (%)

35

71

25

3

72

22

4

6

35

< 1

64

32

< 1

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

Women

Men

Transspectrum

Women

Men

Transspectrum

Women

Men

Transspectrum

Women

Men

Transspectrum

Underg

rad

Gra

d/P

rof

Faculty

Sta

ff

Respondents by Sexual Identity and Position Status (n)

36

80

410

633

229

< 522

259

0

28

338

0

LGBQ Heterosexual Asexual

Undergraduate

Grad/Prof Student

Faculty

Staff

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

37

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

38

4

8

13

71

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

Multiracial

Add. People of Color

African/Afr Am/Black

White

12% (n = 183) of Respondents Had a Condition/Disability that Influenced Their Learning, Working, or Living Activities

39

Condition n %

Mental health/psychological condition 88 48.1

Developmental/learning difference/disability 56 30.6

Chronic diagnosis or medical condition 52 28.4

Physical/mobility condition that affects walking 22 12.0

Hard of hearing or deaf 18 9.8

Physical/mobility condition that does not affect walking 9 4.9

Low vision or blind 5 2.7

Speech/communication condition 5 2.7

Acquired/Neurological/Traumatic Brain Injury < 5 ---

A disability/condition not listed here < 5 ---

Respondents with a Disability

40

38% (n = 21) of Employee

respondents were receiving

accommodations for their disability

34% (n = 43) of Student respondents

with a disability were registered with

Disability and Support Services

Respondents byReligious/Spiritual Identity (%)

41

Citizenship/Immigration Status

42

Citizenship n %

U.S. citizen, birth 1,307 87.4

U.S. citizen, naturalized 80 5.4

A visa holder (such as J-1, H1-B, and U) 42 2.8

Permanent resident 38 2.5

Military Status

43

Military n %

Never served in the military 1,350 90.3

On active duty in the past, but not now 53 3.5

ROTC 9 0.6

Now on active duty (including Reserves or National

Guard) 5 0.3

Student Respondents by Age (n)

44

Employee Respondents by Age (n)

45Note: Responses with n < 5 are not presented in the figure.

Student Respondents by Caregiving Responsibilities (%)

46

Employee Respondents by Caregiving Responsibilities (%)

47

37% (n = 262) of Employee respondents experienced financial hardship…

48

Financial hardship n %

Affording housing 112 42.7

Affording professional development 112 42.7

Affording health care 88 33.6

Affording benefits 67 25.6

Affording food 56 21.4

Affording childcare 56 21.4

Affording travel to and from UMSL 40 15.3

Affording other campus fees (e.g., parking) 5 1.9

Note: Table includes Student respondents who reported having experienced financial hardship (n = 400) only.

Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Semester in College Career

49

Semester n %

Less than one 332 20.4

1 – 2 66 12.8

3 – 4 153 29.7

5 – 6 100 19.4

7 – 8 53 10.3

9 – 10 21 4.1

11 – 12 7 1.4

13 or more 10 1.9

Student Respondents’ Employment

50

EmploymentUndergraduate

n %

Graduate

n %

No 154 30.1 65 24.2

Yes, I work on-campus 90 17.5 86 30.8

1-10 hours/week 27 30.0 11 12.8

11-20 hours/week 54 60.0 54 62.8

21-30 hours/week 8 8.9 13 15.1

31- 40 hours/week < 5 --- < 5 ---

More than 40 hours/week 0 0.0 < 5 ---

Yes, I work off-campus 262 50.9 122 43.7

1-10 hours/week 35 13.4 10 8.2

11-20 hours/week 63 24.0 21 17.2

21-30 hours/week 83 31.7 17 13.9

31- 40 hours/week 42 16.0 26 21.3

More than 40 hours/week 39 14.9 48 39.3

Student Respondents’ Residence

51

Campus housing (10%, n = 77)

Non-campus housing (84%,

n = 663)

Note: Nine respondents indicated that they were housing insecure (e.g., couch surfing, sleeping in car,

sleeping in campus office/lab)

Non-Campus Housing

52

Where live n %

Non-campus housing 663 83.5

Non-University affiliated apartment/house 382 60.9

Living with family member/guardian 229 36.5

University affiliated apartment/house 16 2.6

Campus Housing

53

Where live n %

Campus housing 77 9.7

Oak Hall 26 41.9

Mansion Hill Apartments 14 22.6

University Meadows Apartments 11 17.7

Villa Hall 11 17.7

Student Respondents’ Income by Dependency Status (%)

54

56% (n = 285) of Undergraduate Student and 42% (n = 115) of Graduate/Professional Student/Post-Doc

respondents experienced financial hardship…

55


Affording tuition 234 58.5

Purchasing my books/course materials 210 52.5

Affording housing 157 39.3

Affording food 156 39.0

Affording health care 141 35.3

Participating in social events 110 27.5

Affording academic related activities 85 21.3

Affording travel to and from UMSL 78 19.5

Affording commuting to campus 75 18.8


Financial Hardship Cont’d…

56


Finding employment 69 17.3

Affording unpaid internships/research

opportunities 64 16.0

Affording other campus fees 58 14.5

Affording co-curricular events or activities 52 13.0

Affording alternative spring breaks 48 12.0

Affording childcare 33 8.3

A financial hardship not listed here 29 7.2


How Student Respondents Were Paying For College

57

Form n %

Loans 413 52.0

Grant (e.g., Pell) 233 29.3

Off Campus employment 211 26.6

Family contribution 170 21.4

Non-need based scholarship 170 21.4

Personal contribution 162 20.4

Need-based scholarship (e.g., Access Missouri) 143 18.0

On Campus employment 90 11.3

How Student Respondents Were Paying For College

58

Form n %

Graduate/Research assistantship 66 8.3

Credit card 64 8.1

GI Bill/Veterans benefits 20 2.5

Money from home country 12 1.5

Graduate fellowship 11 1.4

Dependent tuition < 5 ---

Resident assistant < 5 ---

Student Respondents’ Participation in Clubs or Organizations at UMSL

59

Clubs/Organizations n %

I do not participate in any clubs or organizations at

UMSL 358 45.1

Academic and academic honorary organizations 222 28.0

Professional or pre-professional organization 119 15.0

Faith or spirituality-based organization 64 8.1

Governance organization (e.g., SGA, SFC, Councils) 62 7.8

Culture-specific organization 55 6.9

Greek letter organization 51 6.4

Recreational organization 44 5.5

Student Respondents’ Participation in Clubs or Organizations at UMSL

60

Clubs/Organizations n %

Service or philanthropic organization 43 5.4

Political or issue-oriented organization 25 3.1

Health and wellness organization 24 3.0

Intercollegiate athletic team 20 2.5

Publication/media organization 19 2.4

A student organization not listed above 39 4.9

Student Respondents’ Cumulative GPA

61

EmploymentUndergraduate

n %

Graduate

n %

3.75 – 4.00 157 30.5 148 53.0

3.50 – 3.74 70 13.6 58 20.8

3.25 – 3.49 88 17.1 30 10.8

3.00 – 3.24 69 13.4 23 8.2

2.75 – 2.99 58 11.3 < 5 ---

2.50 – 2.74 25 4.9 0 0.0

2.25 – 2.49 12 2.3 0 0.0

2.00 – 2.24 15 2.9 0 0.0

1.99 and below 13 2.5 0 0.0

Findings

62

Comfort Levels

Overall Campus Climate (75%)

Work Areas* (72%)

Classroom Climate**

(84%)

63

*Employee responses (n = 701) only..

**Faculty and Student responses (n = 1,104) only.

Comfort With Overall Climate

64

Undergraduate Student and

Graduate/ Professional Student

respondents more comfortable than

were Faculty respondents and Staff respondents

Men respondents more comfortable than were Women

respondents

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty


were Tenure-Track Faculty

respondents

Comfort With Overall Climate

65

White respondents more comfortable than were African American/African/Black respondents

Respondents with No Military

Service more comfortable than

were Respondents with Military

Service

Comfort With Primary Work Areas

66

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty


were Tenure-Track Faculty

respondents White Faculty and Staff respondents more comfortable than were Faculty

and Staff Respondents of

Color

Comfort With Classroom Climate

67

Graduate/ Professional

Student respondents more comfortable than

were Undergraduate

Student and Faculty

respondents

Men Faculty and Student


were Women Faculty and

Student respondents

Challenges and Opportunities

68

Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct

69

• 272 respondents indicated that they had personally experienced exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile (bullied, harassed) conduct at UMSL within the past year

18%

Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

70Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 272).

Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.

24 23

2018

15

Position (n=66)

Gender/Gender identity (n=62)

Age (n=53)

Ethnicity (n=48)

Racial identity (n=40)

Top Forms of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

71

Form n %

I was ignored or excluded 117 43.0

I was intimidated/bullied 96 35.3

I was isolated or left out 95 34.9

I experienced a hostile work environment 94 34.6

I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks 73 26.8

I was the target of workplace incivility 57 21.0

Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 272).


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

72¹ 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 = 62)¹

(n = 6)²

(n = 26)¹

(n < 5)²

(n = 102)¹

(n = 33)²

(n = 82)¹

(n = 25)²

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



(n = 74)¹

(n = 10)²

(n = 178)¹

(n = 47)²

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



(n = 173)¹

(n = 8)²

(n = 17)¹

(n < 5)²

(n = 57)¹

(n = 29)²

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



(n = 6)¹

(n = 0)²

(n = 11)¹

(n < 5)²

(n = 45)¹

(n = 17)²

(n = 23)¹

(n < 5)²

(n = 43)¹

(n = 7)²

(n = 11)¹

(n = 0)²

(n = 35)¹

(n < 5)²

(n = 42)¹

(n = 12)²

Location of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

76

Location n %

While working at a UMSL job 66 24.3

In a staff office 65 23.9

In a meeting with a group of people 65 23.9

In a class/lab/clinical setting 52 19.1

In a faculty office 41 15.1



Source of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct by Student Position (%)



50

32

11

42

39

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

Student

Faculty

Aca. Advisor

Faculty

Student

Und

erg

rad

resp

ond

ents

Gra

d/P

rof

Stu

d.

resp

on

de

nts

Source of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct by Employee Status (%)



32

33

35

14

15

24

27

39

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

Dept/Prog/Div Chair

Faculty

Coworker/colleague

Faculty

Sr admin

Supervisor

Staff member

Coworker/colleague

Fa

cu

lty r

esp

on

de

nts

Sta

ff r

esp

on

de

nts

Source of Experienced Exclusionary Conduct by Staff Status (%)



35

24

18

45

32

23

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Coworker

Supervisor

Staff

Coworker

Staff

Supervisor

Sta

ff-H

ou

rly

Sta

ff-S

ala

ry

What did you do?Emotional Responses

Felt angry (70%)

Felt embarrassed (40%)

Was afraid (22%)

Ignored it (21%)

Felt somehow responsible (13%)



What did you do?Actions

Told a friend (38%)

Told a family member (34%)

Avoided the person/venue (34%)

Didn’t do anything (33%)

Contacted a UMSL resource (20%)

Senior administrator (n = 20)

Supervisor (n = 18)

Human Resources (n = 15)

Faculty member (n = 13)

Title IX Coordinator/Clery Act Compliance Officer (n = 8)



16% (n = 42) of Respondents who

Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

Reported It

82

Felt that it was not responded to appropriately

(n = 21)

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

complaint was responded to appropriately

(n = 11)

Felt satisfied with the outcome (n < 5)



Qualitative Themes

Experienced Exclusionary Conduct

83

Hostile environment

5% (n = 79) of All Respondents Experienced Unwanted Sexual Conduct

84

1% (17 respondents) – Relationship Violence

1% (20 respondents) – Stalking

2% (28 respondents) – Unwanted Sexual Interaction

1% (14 respondents) – Unwanted Sexual Contact

Respondents’ Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Conduct by Position (n)

85

When Relationship Violence Occurred

86

Time n %

Within the last year 8 47.1

2-4 years ago 7 41.2

5-10 years ago < 5 ---

11-20 years 0 0.0

More than 20 years ago 0 0.0

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

Location of Relationship Violence

On Campus (47%, n = 8)

87

Off Campus (59%, n = 10)


Perpetrator of Relationship Violence

88

Perpetrator n %

Current or former dating/intimate partner 10 58.8

UMSL student 6 35.3


Emotional Response toRelationship Violence

89

Felt embarrassed

65%

Felt somehow

responsible 59%

Felt afraid 53%


Felt angry 47%

Ignored it 35%

Actions in Response toRelationship Violence

90Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced relationship violence (n = 17).

Told a friend 59%

Qualitative Themes for Undergraduate Student Respondents:Relationship Violence

91

Uncertainty that conduct was reportable/unaware where to report

When Stalking Occurred

92

Time n %



5-10 years ago < 5 ---

11-20 years < 5 ---


Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 20).

Location of Stalking

On Campus (75%, n = 15)

93



Perpetrator of Stalking

94

Perpetrator n %

UMSL student 10 50.0


Emotional Response toStalking

95Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 20).

Felt afraid 60%

Felt angry 35%

Ignored it 35%

Felt embarrassed

35%

Actions in Response toStalking

96Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced stalking (n = 20).

Contacted a UMSL resource

50%

Told a family member 30%


Experienced Stalking Reported It

97


(n < 5)



(n < 5)

Felt satisfied with the outcome (n = 5)

Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n = 20).

When Unwanted Sexual Interaction Occurred

98

Time n %



5-10 years ago < 5 ---

11-20 years < 5 ---

More than 20 years ago < 5 ---


Year/Semester in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted

Sexual Interaction

99Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n

= 16).

Time n %

During my time as a graduate/professional

student at UMSL < 5 ---

Undergraduate first year 5 31.3

Fall semester < 5 ---

Spring semester 0 0.0

Summer semester 0 0.0

Undergraduate second year 6 37.5

Fall semester 6 100.0



Location of Unwanted Sexual Interaction

On Campus (86%, n = 24)

100



Perpetrator of Unwanted Sexual Interaction

101

Perpetrator n %

Stranger 9 32.1

UMSL student 9 32.1

UMSL staff member 6 21.4


Emotional Response toUnwanted Sexual Interaction

102Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n = 28).

Felt embarrassed

57%

Felt angry 54%

Felt afraid 39%

Felt somehow

responsible 29%

Ignored it 25%

Actions in Response toUnwanted Sexual Interaction

103Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n = 28).

Told a friend 61%

Avoided the person/venue

46%


Experienced Unwanted Sexual Interaction

Reported It

104


(n < 5)



(n = 6)

Felt satisfied with the outcome (n < 5)


Qualitative Themes for Respondents:Unwanted Sexual Interaction

105

Reporting not necessary

No consequence for behavior

Student Respondents’ Alcohol/Drug Involvement in Unwanted Sexual

Contact

106

Alcohol/Drugs n %

No 5 45.5

Yes 6 54.5

Alcohol only < 5 ---

Drugs only < 5 ---

Both alcohol and drugs 0 0.0

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

11).

When Unwanted Sexual Contact Occurred

107

Time n %



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 = 14).

Year/Semester in Which Student Respondents Experienced Unwanted Sexual

Conduct Occurred

108Note: Only answered by Student respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual interaction (n

= 14).

Time n %

During my time as a graduate/professional

student at UMSL < 5 ---

Undergraduate first year < 5 ---

Fall semester < 5 ---



Undergraduate second year 5 45.5

Fall semester <5 ---

Spring semester <5 ---

Summer semester <5 ---

Location of Unwanted Sexual Contact

On Campus (57%, n = 8)

109



Perpetrator of Unwanted Sexual Contact

110

Perpetrator n %

UMSL student 8 57.1

Acquaintance/friend 6 42.9


Emotional Response toUnwanted Sexual Contact

111Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 14).

Felt embarrassed

71% Felt angry 71%

Felt afraid 57%

Felt somehow

responsible 57%

Ignored it 14%

Actions in Response toUnwanted Sexual Contact

112Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact (n = 14).

Told a friend 57%

Top Facilities Barriers for Respondents with Disabilities

Barrier n %

Campus transportation/parking 25 14.8

Office furniture (e.g., chair, desk) 20 11.8

Temporary barriers due to construction or maintenance 18 10.6

Classroom buildings 17 9.9

Classrooms, labs (including computer labs) 17 9.9

Elevators/lifts 15 8.8

Doors 14 8.2

113Note: Only answered by respondents who indicated on the survey that they had a disability (n = 183).

Top Technology/Online Environment Barriers for Respondents with

Disabilities

Barrier n %

Moodle/Blackboard/Canvas 10 5.9

Accessible electronic format 9 5.3

Computer equipment

(e.g., screens, mouse, keyboard) 9 5.3

Video/video audio description 8 4.8


Top Identity Barriers for Respondents with Disabilities

Barrier n %

Intake forms (e.g., Student Health) 10 6.0

Learning technology 9 5.4

Electronic databases 6 3.6

Course change forms (e.g., add-drop forms) 6 3.6


Top Instructional/Campus Materials Barriers for Respondents with

Disabilities

Barrier n %

Video-closed captioning and text description 7 4.2

Food menus 6 3.6

Textbooks 6 3.6

Syllabi 5 3.0


Qualitative Themes for Respondents with Disabilities: Accessibility of UMSL

Campus

117

Concerns with facilities

Parking access

Intent to Persist

118

41% (n = 605) of Respondents Seriously Considered Leaving UMSL

119

41%

20%25%

63%57%

All Respondents(n = 605)

Grad Studs/Post-docs(n = 56)

Undergrads (n = 128) Staff (n = 244) Faculty (n = 177)

Employee Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UMSL

57% (n = 177) of Faculty respondents

63% (n = 244) of Staff respondents

120

Top Reasons Faculty Respondents Seriously Considered Leaving UMSL

121Note: Table includes answers from only those Faculty respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 177).

Reason n %

Low salary/pay rate 121 68.4

Lack of institutional support 67 37.9

Increased workload 65 36.7

Interested in a position at another institution 63 35.6

Limited opportunities for advancement 60 33.9

Tension with supervisor/manager 50 28.2

Lack of a sense of belonging 50 28.2

Recruited or offered a position at another institution 43 24.3

Lack of professional development opportunities 33 16.6

Climate not welcoming 33 16.6

Tension with co-workers 29 16.4

Lack of benefits 22 12.4

Top Reasons Staff Respondents Seriously Considered Leaving UMSL

122Note: Table includes answers from only those Staff respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 244).

Reason n %

Low salary/pay rate 160 65.6

Limited opportunities for advancement 125 51.2

Increased workload 81 33.2

Tension with supervisor/manager 80 32.8

Lack of professional development opportunities 73 29.9

Interested in a position at another institution 69 28.3


Tension with co-workers 51 20.9

Climate not welcoming 47 19.3

Lack of institutional support 40 16.4

Recruited or offered a position at another institution 34 12.7

Lack of benefits 22 9.0

Qualitative Themes for Employee Respondents

Why Considered leaving…

123

Low salary, increased workload, and financial/budget concerns

Concerns about administration and leadership

Poor pay

Qualitative Themes for Employee Respondents


124

Lack of opportunities for advancement

Contribution not valued

Poor work environment

Student Respondents WhoSeriously Considered Leaving

UMSL

25% (n = 128) of Undergraduate

Student respondents

20% (n = 56) of Graduate/Professional Student respondents

125

Undergraduate Student Respondents Who Seriously Considered Leaving UMSL by Racial Identity (%)

126

44

2520

17

Multiracial (n=15) White (n=84) African Amer/African/Black(n=19)

Additional Respondents ofColor (n=8)

When Student RespondentsSeriously Considered Leaving UMSL

127Note: Table includes answers from only Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 184).

35% in their first semester

35% in their first year

39% in their second year

17% in their third year

11% in their fourth year

Top Reasons Why Undergraduate Student Respondents Seriously Considered

Leaving UMSL

128

Reason n %


Lack of social life 40 31.3

Financial reasons 31 24.2

Personal reasons 30 23.4

Climate was not welcoming 27 21.1

Academic advancement opportunities elsewhere 26 20.3

Lack of support group 24 18.8

Note: Table includes answers from only Undergraduate Student respondents who indicated that they considered leaving (n = 128).

Top Reasons Why Graduate/Professional Student Respondents Seriously

Considered Leaving UMSL

129

Reason n %


Financial reasons 13 23.2

Lack of social life 9 16.1

Lack of support services 8 14.3

Coursework not challenging enough 8 14.3

Climate was not welcoming 7 12.5

Academic advancement opportunities elsewhere 7 12.5

Lack of support group 7 12.5

Personal reasons 6 10.7

Note: Table includes answers from only Graduate/Professional Student respondents who indicated that they considered

leaving (n = 56).

Qualitative Themes for Student Respondents


130

Concerns about academics

Community and campus activities

Undergraduate Student Respondents Who Agreed It Was Likely They Would Leave UMSL Without

Meeting Their Academic Goal by Select Demographics (%)

131

Undergraduate Student Respondents Who Agreed It Was Likely They Would Leave UMSL Without

Meeting Their Academic Goal by Select Demographics (%)

132

Perceptions

133

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…

134

21% (n = 316)

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

135

n %

Derogatory verbal remarks 157 49.7

Person ignored or excluded 122 38.6

Person intimidated/bullied 102 32.3

Person isolated or left out 98 31.0

Person experienced a hostile work environment 76 24.1

Person was the target of workplace incivility 63 19.9

Note: Only answered by respondents who observed exclusionary conduct (n = 316).


Observed Exclusionary Conduct Based on…(%)

136

25

20 1917

13

Gender/gender identity (n=78)

Ethnicity (n=62)

Racial identity (n=61)

Position (n=53)

Age (n=41)



Source of Observed Exclusionary Conduct

137

• Student (29%)

• Faculty member/other instructional staff (21%)

• Coworker/colleague (20%)

Source



Target of Observed Exclusionary Conduct

138

• Student (45%)

• Coworker/colleague (29%)

• Staff member (20%)

• Faculty member/other instructional staff (15%)

Target



Location of Observed Exclusionary Conduct

139

In a staff office22% n = 69

In other public spaces at UMSL

23% n = 71

In a meeting with a group of people

23% n = 72



Observed Exclusionary Conduct by Position Status, Faculty Status, and

Religious/Spiritual Identity (%)

140

Actions in Response to Observed Exclusionary Conduct

141

Did nothing

26%

Told a friend

19%

Told a family member

16%

Contacted an UMSL

resource

15%




Observed Exclusionary Conduct

Reported It

142


(n=10)



(n=10)

Felt satisfied with the outcome (n=5)



Qualitative Themes

Observed Exclusionary Conduct

143

Conduct based on race and religion

Bullying and harassment

Employee Perceptions

144

145

Employee Perceptions of Unjust

Hiring Practices



Qualitative Themes

Discriminatory Hiring Process

Hiring based on race

Desire for diversity in hiring

146

Hiring and promotion process concerns

147

Employee Perceptions of Unjust Employment-Related Disciplinary Actions



Qualitative Themes

Discriminatory Employment-Related

Disciplinary Actions

148

Specific incidents of discriminatory behavior

149

Employee Perceptions of Unjust

Practices Related to Promotion



Qualitative Themes

Discriminatory Practices Related to

Promotion

150

Favoritism

Race and gender

Promotion

Most Common Bases for

Discriminatory Employment Practices

Gender identity

Ethnicity

Position

Nepotism/ cronyism

Job duties

Age

151

Work-Life IssuesSUCCESSES & CHALLENGES

The majority of employee respondents expressed

positive views of campus climate.

152

Staff RespondentsExamples of Successes

85% were given a reasonable time frame to complete assigned

responsibilities

80% had colleagues/ coworkers who gave

them job/career advice or guidance when they needed it

83% felt that their supervisors provided adequate support for

them to manage work-life balance

153


79% had adequate resources to perform their job duties

79% had supervisors who were supportive of their taking leave

154


Majority felt valued by coworkers in their department (82%), coworkers outside their

department (74%), and their supervisors/managers (76%)

155

Staff RespondentsExamples of Challenges

156

66%

• Workload increased without additional compensation as a result of other staff departures

59%

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

41%

• Performed more work than colleagues with similar performance expectations

Staff Respondents Examples of Challenges

157

36%

• People who have children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities

29%

• Pressured by departmental/program work requirements that occurred outside of normally scheduled hours

22%

• Burdened by work responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance expectations

Staff RespondentsExamples of Challenges

158

20%• Staff salaries were competitive

23%• Staff opinions were valued by UMSL faculty

30%

• Felt positive about their career opportunities at UMSL

Qualitative Themes

Staff Respondents

Work-Life Attitudes

159

Career enhancement

Workload

Performance reviews

Qualitative Themes

Staff/Administrator without Faculty Rank Respondents

Professional Development, Leave, Flexible Work

Schedule, Salary, Benefits

160

Job security

Career advancement/professional development

Salary and benefits

Qualitative Themes

Staff/Administrator without Faculty Rank Respondents

Sense of Value

161

Not addressing needs of at-risk/underserved students

Respect and value for staff overall

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Rank Respondents

Examples of Successes

162

78% felt that teaching was valued by UMSL

Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Rank Respondents

Examples of Challenges

163

53%• Performed more work to help students than did

their colleagues

41%

• Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance expectations

27%

• Felt pressured to change their research/scholarship agenda to achieve tenure/promotion

Qualitative Themes Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Rank Respondents

Work-Life Attitudes

Shared governance concerns

Tenure process concerns

164

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

165

Majority felt that research (86%), teaching (83%), and service (79%) were valued by UMSL

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

166

41%

• Performed more work to help students than did their colleagues

37%• Pressured to do extra work that was

uncompensated

24%

• Burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues with similar performance expectations

Qualitative Themes

Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents

Work-Life Attitudes

167

Job security

Workload and uncompensated service

Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

Majority felt valued by students in the classroom (87%), faculty in

their department/ program (73%), department/programs (73%), and

department/ program chairs (76%)

74% believed that their colleagues included them in opportunities that would help their career as much as

they do others in their position

168

Faculty RespondentsExamples of Successes

72% felt that faculty have taken direct actions to address the needs of at-risk/underserved students

169

170

51%

• People who have children or elder care were burdened with balancing work and family responsibilities

23%

• Faculty in their departments/programs prejudged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background

18%

• Departments/program chairs prejudged their abilities based on their perception of their identity/background

Faculty RespondentsExamples of Challenges

Qualitative Themes

Faculty Respondents

Work-Life Attitudes

Leadership and shared governance

171

Student Respondents’ Perceptions

172

Student Respondents’ Perceptions of Campus Climate

173

51% felt valued by UMSL senior administrators

Majority felt valued by UMSL faculty in the classroom (80%), other students in the classroom (74%), and less by

students outside of the classroom (63%)

Many felt valued by UMSL faculty (78%)

and staff (72%)


174

70% felt that campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics

One-quarter felt faculty (27%) and staff (25%) pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of their

identities/backgrounds

Many had faculty (74%) but less had other students (64%), or staff (55%) whom they perceived as role models


175

Less than half of senior administrators (41%), faculty (50%), and students (47%) had taken direct actions to address the

needs of at-risk/underserved students

Qualitative Themes

Student Respondents

Sense of Value

Leadership concerns

176

Opportunities for community engagement

Graduate Student Respondents’ Views on Advising and Departmental Support

177

A great majority had advisors (92%), department faculty members (94%), and department staff members (96%)

respond to emails, calls, or voicemails in a prompt manner.

A majority had adequate access to their advisors (87%) and had advisors who provided clear expectations (82%).

83% were satisfied with the quality of advising they have received from their departments


178

95% received due credit for their research, writing, and publishing

85% received support from their adviser to pursue research interests

66% had adequate opportunities for them to interact with other university faculty outside of their departments


179

92% felt comfortable sharing their professional goals with their advisor

72% indicated that their department has provided them opportunities to serve the department or university in various

capacities outside of teaching or research

72% had department faculty members encourage them to produce publications and present research

Qualitative Themes

Graduate Student Respondents

Experiences with Faculty, Advising, Teaching, and Research

Advising concerns

180

Valuable experience overall

Institutional Actions

181

Top Five Available Campus Initiatives that Positively

Influenced Climate for Faculty Respondents

182

Mentorship for new faculty

Access to counseling for people who have

experienced harassment

Fair process to resolve conflicts

Clear process to resolve conflicts

Affordable childcare

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

183

Mentorship for new faculty



Career span development

opportunities for faculty at all ranks


Qualitative Themes

Campus Initiatives – Faculty Respondents

184

Mandatory training initiatives

Top Five Available Campus Initiatives that Positively Influenced

Climate for Staff Respondents

185

Career development opportunities for staff

Access to counseling for people who have

experienced harassment



Supervisory training for supervisors/

managers

Top Five Unavailable Campus Initiatives that Would Positively

Influence Climate for Staff Respondents

186

Career development opportunities for staff

Supervisory training for faculty supervisors


Supervisory training for supervisors/

managers


Qualitative Themes

Campus Initiatives – Staff Respondents

187

Diversity and inclusion concerns

188

Effective academic advising

Effective faculty mentorship of students

Cross-cultural dialogue between faculty, staff,

and students

Cross-cultural dialogue among students

A person to address student complaints of bias by faculty/staff in learning environments (e.g. classrooms, labs)

Top Five Campus Initiatives that Positively Influenced

Climate for Student Respondents

189

Top Five Unavailable Campus Initiatives that Would

Positively Influence Climate for Student Respondents

Adequate childcare resources

Effective faculty mentorship of students

Affordable childcareEffective academic

advising

Opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue among students

Qualitative Themes

Campus Initiatives – Student Respondents

Diversity and inclusion

190

Mandatory training

Lack of awareness regarding institutional actions

Summary

Strengths and Successes

Opportunities for Improvement

191

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.

192

(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)

193

Overall Strengths and

Successes83% of Staff respondents felt that supervisors provided adequate support for them to manage work-life balance

80% of Undergraduate Student respondents felt valued by UMSL faculty in the classroom

.

75% of respondents were comfortable with

the overall campus climate

84% of Student and Faculty

respondents were comfortable with

the classroom climate

194

Overall Challenges and Opportunities for

Improvement21% observedexclusionary

conduct within the last year at

UMSL

20% of Staff respondents agreed that

staff salaries were

competitive

18% personally

experiencedexclusionary

conduct within the last year at

UMSL

57% of Faculty and

63% of Staff respondents seriously

considered leaving UMSL

Sharing the Report with the Community

Executive Summary, Full Report, and Power Point will be available at:

http://www.umsl.edu/climate/

195

Questions and Discussion

196

Documents

Climate Study for Learning, Living, and WorkingClimate In Higher Education Climate (Living, Working, Learning) Create and Distribute of Knowledge Community ... Training (71%) Curriculum