Campus Climate Survey Executive Summary www.ecu.edu/ecyu 2016 A prject spnsred by the Office fr Equity and Diversity
Executive Summary Prject Backgrund In FY 2013-2014, the Campus Climate Cmmissin prpsed a climate assessment plan with a fur-year implementatin timeline. The implementatin timeline included the fllwing cmpnents: Year Zer: Develp the assessment tl and administratin plan; cmmunicate with the university abut the climate assessment plan, upcming assessment, and hw results will be used t enhance climate at ECU. Year One: Administer the assessment; analyze results; develp target areas fr imprvement; and cmmunicate results and target areas t the cmmunity. Year Tw: Implement slutins; address target areas and strategically align pririties and prgramming; gather input frm the campus cmmunity; and cmmunicate t the university abut strategies. Year Three: Fllw-up with previus effrts t ensure that actin plans cntinue t align and address pririties; gather input frm the campus cmmunity; and cmmunicate t the university abut the prgress f strategies. Finally, the timeline begins again with the administratin f a secnd Campus Climate Survey in 2018. Survey Instrument The 2015 Campus Climate Survey was designed based n a thrugh review f best practices amng higher educatin institutins arund the cuntry, as well as within the University f Nrth Carlina system. The survey s dimensins were chsen as relevant and imprtant t the establishment f a baseline fr ECU s campus climate assessment and included: Engagement, Safety, Inclusin, Wrking Envirnment, Cmmunicatin, Gvernance and Leadership, and Wellness and Wrk/Life Balance Each survey als included a demgraphic sectin, as well as a variety f pprtunities fr participants t prvide additinal cmments. Surveys were administered t all ECU faculty, staff, and students and were custmized fr each f the three participant grups. The 2015 Campus Climate Survey was administered frm Octber 6, 2015 thrugh Nvember 6, 2015. 1
Methdlgy and Limitatins Surveys were administered using Qualtrics survey sftware and all respnses were cmpletely annymus. Participants were permitted t skip any questin(s) that made them feel uncmfrtable and culd withdraw frm the survey at any time withut penalty. Participants received an invitatin email cntaining a persnalized link t the survey, as well as up t eight email reminders ver the curse f the distributin perid. Limitatins assciated with the prject methdlgy included: All respndents self-selected t participate, ptentially leading t self-selectin bias. Increased marketing f the 2015 Campus Climate Survey t the entire campus cmmunity aimed at mitigating this limitatin. Nt all university members use r have access t cmputers n a cnsistent basis. In turn, sme individuals may have had limited ability t participate in the cmputer-based nline survey. In rder t mitigate this limitatin, university cmputer labs were made available t faculty and staff members thrughut the survey administratin perid and supervisrs encuraged emplyees t participate in the survey during wrking hurs. The use f an nline survey may have als prevented sme individuals with certain disabilities frm participating. Infrmatin directing ptential participants t ECU s Disability Supprt Services was included in the survey in rder t help mitigate this limitatin and prvide supprt fr individuals wh may have required assistance in cmpleting the survey. The student sample included all current students, regardless f status (e.g., Distance Educatin). The inclusin f all students may have bth reduced the verall respnse rate and decreased the representativeness f results. Hwever, due t the intentinal inclusivity f the survey, n measures were taken t mitigate this limitatin. Respnse Rates An verall respnse rate f 24.0 percent was btained frm the 2015 Campus Climate Survey. This verall respnse rate included a faculty respnse rate f 32.0 percent (645 participants), a staff respnse rate f 33.0 percent (1,350 participants), and a student respnse rate f 8.0 percent (1,950 participants). 2
Key Findings The fllwing summary f results cntains key findings frm the 2015 Campus Climate Survey fr faculty, staff, and student participants. The verall reprt f results aims t prvide a detailed descriptin f findings fr each participant grup; whereas, the fllwing summary seeks t prvide an integrated presentatin f key findings acrss all three participant grups. In turn, this summary may be used t develp a general depictin f the current campus climate at East Carlina University and act as an aid when develping specific strategies t address issues regarding the current climate. Engagement In the first sectin f the survey, participants were asked a series f questins regarding their engagement at the university. Overall, participants respnses revealed high levels f engagement. Large prtins f participants frm all three participant grups indicated agreement with statements pertaining t ECU s missin statement. The statement, I believe in ECU s missin, received the largest prtin f participants wh indicated that they strngly agreed; whereas, smaller prtins f participants indicated agreement with the statements, I am prud t share ECU s missin with thers and I feel persnally respnsible fr supprting ECU s missin acrss all f my rles at the university. In turn, participants demnstrated higher levels f belief in the university s missin than they did feelings f respnsibility t supprt the university s missin and share it with thers. All participant grups indicated feelings f pride and engagement related t their rle at the university; hwever, faculty and staff participants indicated mre engagement with their rle at the university than did student participants. Female faculty members demnstrated a higher level f engagement than male faculty members. Specifically, female faculty members indicated higher levels f agreement with statements suggesting that they believe in ECU s missin, understand hw their wrk cntributes t the missin, and lk frward t each day at the university. Junir faculty members (tenure < 5 years) als demnstrated slightly higher levels f engagement than senir faculty members (tenure > 5 years), indicating that they get a sense f accmplishment frm their wrk and are prud t be a member f the ECU cmmunity. 3
Safety Participants were then asked a series f questins abut perceptins and experiences f safety at ECU. Large prtins f faculty, staff, and student participants indicated that they feel safe walking alne n the ECU campus during the day; hwever, a significantly smaller prtin f participants frm all three participant grups indicated similar feelings f safety after dark. Faculty: 51.2% strngly agree (day); 7.8% strngly agree (night) Staff: 42.5% strngly agree (day); 6.4% strngly agree (night) Students: 49.1% strngly agree (day); 7.3% strngly agree (night) Additinally, in cmparisn t female faculty and staff participants, larger prtins f male participants indicated that they feel safe n campus during the day and after dark; hwever, much smaller prtins f bth male and female participants indicated feeling safe after dark. Next, althugh a large prtin f participants indicated that they agreed that ECU makes every effrt t ensure a safe campus and wuld respnd effectively t a safety incident, a smaller prtin strngly agreed with the statements indicating verall feelings f safety, but leaving rm fr imprvement. The mst frequently experienced safety incident acrss all three participant grups was harassment (nt including sexual harassment). Student participants experienced mre physical vilence, sexual vilence, and sexual harassment than faculty and staff participants. Female faculty participants reprted experiencing mre harassment than male faculty participants. Male staff participants reprted experiencing mre physical vilence than female staff participants. Mrever, with few exceptins, all safety incidents were mre likely t be unreprted than t be reprted. Interestingly, fr all grups, when asked abut actual reprting behavirs, harassment was the mst frequently reprted incident type and when asked abut familiarity with reprting methds there was n difference between harassment and any ther incident type. Yet, in cmparisn t all ther incident types, the smallest prtin f participants indicated that they wuld reprt future harassment incidents and the largest prtin f participants indicated that such reprting behavir wuld be dependent upn ther factrs. Finally, staff members were the mst trained grup f participants in regard t safety plicies, prcedures, and preventin methds. 4
Inclusin Next, participants respnded t a series f questins regarding inclusin at ECU. All three participant grups reprted that they frequently interact with faculty, staff, and students with a race/ethnicity, religius backgrund, r scial/ecnmic backgrund that is different frm their wn. In cmparisn, the largest prtin f participants indicated that they never interact with faculty, staff, and students with a gender identity that is different frm their wn. Despite frequent interactin, participants indicated that they are mst likely t hear negative, inapprpriate, r steretypical statements made in reference t race/ethnicity. Furthermre, they are mre likely t hear students make such statements, as well as negative statements pertaining t all ther demgraphic categries in general. Participants respnses indicated that in cmparisn t students, faculty and staff members are mre likely t hear ther faculty and staff members make negative cmments pertaining t inclusin. In fact, student participants rarely reprted hearing such cmments frm faculty and staff members. In cmparisn t female faculty participants, a larger prtin f male faculty participants reprted hearing students make negative statements pertaining t sexual rientatin; hwever, female participants reprted mre experience with acts f bias r discriminatin. In cmparisn t White participants, a larger prtin f participants frm all ther race/ethnicity grups indicated hearing faculty and staff members make negative statements pertaining t immigratin backgrund, race/ethnicity, and scial/ecnmic backgrund. Such participants als reprted mre experience with acts f bias r discriminatin. Over 70.0 percent f all participants had n experience with acts f bias r discriminatin. Hwever, bias r discriminatin n the basis f race/ethnicity was the mst frequently experienced frm f such acts. Furthermre, the largest prtin f participants indicated that they might have experienced an act f bias r discriminatin n the basis f race/ethnicity. Acrss all demgraphic categries, similar prtin f participants indicated that they might have experienced an act f bias r discriminatin, as thse wh said they had experienced an act. All acts f bias r discriminatin were mre likely t be unreprted than t be reprted. Lastly, participants feel welcme at ECU and believe there are faculty, staff, and students frm different cultures and backgrunds at ECU. Hwever, sme participants disagreed that ECU prvides an envirnment that allws free and pen expressin f ideas, pinins, and beliefs. 5
Wrking Envirnment Participants als answered questins pertaining t their wrking envirnment. The wrking envirnment sectin was presented t all faculty and staff members, as well as student participants wh indicated that they are currently emplyed at ECU. Participants were first asked t rate a variety f aspects f their wrking envirnment using a scale that cnsisted f 1 t 5 stars. All participants awarded high ratings t aspects related t their wrking relatinships with cwrkers, cllabratin amng their wrk grups, and the verall quality f faculty and staff members at ECU. Hwever, participants prvided the lwest number f 5-star ratings and the highest number f 1- star ratings fr mentring at ECU. Althugh the majrity f participants indicated lw ratings fr mentring, junir staff participants (tenure < 5 years) prvided mre favrable ratings f mentring than senir staff participants (tenure > 5 years). The largest prtin f participants in all participant grups strngly agreed with the statements, I enjy my jb, My unit adheres t plicies that supprt fair hiring, prmtin, tenure, and wrkplace practices, and There are pprtunities fr prfessinal develpment at ECU. Female faculty participants indicated higher levels f jb enjyment than male participants and were less likely t indicate that they ften think abut leaving their jb. The largest prtin f faculty participants strngly disagreed with the statement, I am paid fairly fr my wrk. Furthermre, in cmparisn t junir faculty participants, a larger prtin f senir faculty participants disagreed that they are paid fairly and rewarded fr perfrming well. The largest prtin f staff participants strngly disagreed with the statements, Criteria fr attaining prmtin are clear, I believe that the prmtin prcess is reasnable, and I am rewarded and/r recgnized fr perfrming well. In cntrast, students demnstrated higher levels f neutrality than disagreement with several statements such as, I hpe t be a permanent emplyee f ECU in the near future, which was given a neutral respnse by nearly half f student participants. 6
Cmmunicatin Next, participants were asked a series f questins regarding cmmunicatin, pertaining t bth psitive cmmunicatin between participants and the individuals t which they reprt, and pen, tw-way cmmunicatin between university entities. Similar t the wrking envirnment sectin, the cmmunicatin sectin was presented t all faculty and staff members, as well as student participants wh indicated that they are currently emplyed at ECU. In general, there were larger prtins f participants wh indicated that they agreed with the varius statements than strngly agreed indicating that there may be verall rm fr imprvement in the manner in which faculty, staff, and students cmmunicate. Additinally, when faculty and staff participants were asked t indicate their agreement with the statement, I am reluctant t bring up issues that cncern me fr fear that it will negatively affect my career, apprximately half f participants did nt indicate that they disagreed with the statement suggesting a reluctance t cmmunicate abut certain issues. Lastly, participants indicated that they experience mre frequent pen, tw-way cmmunicatin between clse university entities, such as within departments/schls, than they d between mre distant entities, such as between clleges/divisins, r thrughut the entire university. In cmparisn t staff participants, faculty participants indicated that they experienced less frequent pen, tw-way cmmunicatin acrss all university entities. In cmparisn t junir faculty and staff participants, senir participants als indicated higher levels f disagreement regarding clear and psitive cmmunicatin thrughut the university. Gvernance and Leadership Faculty and staff participants, as well as ECU-emplyed student participants, were als asked questins pertaining t gvernance and leadership. Specifically, participants were asked abut the gvernance and leadership f their immediate supervisr, as well as senir leadership at the university. Participants indicated high levels f agreement with statements pertaining t their supervisr. Specifically, participants feel that their supervisr has a genuine interest in their career develpment and well-being, is available when needed, creates a psitive wrk envirnment, and clearly cmmunicates prfessinal expectatins. In cntrast, faculty and staff participants indicated lwer levels f agreement with statements pertaining t senir leadership at the university. Specifically, participants agreed that senir leadership clearly cmmunicates institutinal pririties; hwever, the majrity f participants indicated a neutral respnse t statements suggesting that senir leadership encurages transparency in decisin-making, effectively allcates institutinal resurces, and effectively represents the university. 7
Wellness and Wrk/Life Balance Finally, all participants were asked a series f questins pertaining t wellness and wrk/life balance. In cmparisn t faculty and staff, a larger prtin f student participants indicated that they strngly agreed that there are sufficient health resurces available n campus. Hwever, all three participant grups indicated higher levels f agreement regarding the availability f physical health resurces n campus, than mental health resurces. Student participants als indicated that they were mre familiar with physical health services, which were used by apprximately 50.0 percent f participants, than mental health services, which were used by apprximately 15.0 percent f participants Additinally, nearly half f faculty and staff participants felt neutral abut the availability f all health resurces n campus Nevertheless, all participant grups indicated agreement that ECU prmtes health and wellness n campus and prvides sufficient facility space fr physical fitness n campus. Additinally, with the exceptin f fear f jb lss, which faculty and staff participants indicated caused them a high amunt f stress in the past year, all participant grups indicated higher levels f stress caused by persnal aspects in the past year than prfessinal aspects. Faculty participants experienced high amunts f stress caused by the timing f departmental meetings and functins, persnal health, and adult caregiver respnsibilities, but lwer amunts f stress caused by securing funding fr research and departmental plitics. Staff participants experienced high amunts f stress caused by adult caregiver respnsibilities and childcare, but lwer amunts f stress caused by the review/prmtin prcess and departmental plitics. Student participants experienced high amunts f stress caused by making friends, finding things t d scially, and invlvement in a schl-spnsred rganizatin r activity, but lwer amunts f stress caused by class wrk lad and academic perfrmance. Finally, faculty and staff participants indicated that they ften frg persnal activities fr prfessinal respnsibilities, but frg prfessinal respnsibilities fr persnal activities less ften. 8
Next Steps The administratin f the 2015 Campus Climate Survey and subsequent Reprt f Results helps t partially satisfy the gals established in Year One f the fur-year implementatin plan defined by the Campus Climate Cmmissin. Remaining gals include develping target areas fr imprvement and cmmunicating results and target areas t the cmmunity. The implementatin plan als recmmends the use f fcus grups t gather input frm the campus cmmunity and aid in the develpment f strategic pririties. Upn cmpletin f all Year One tasks, the implementatin plan will transitin int Year Tw and Year Three phases. Specifically, during Year Tw, the plan fcuses n implementing slutins and develping an verall strategy, which details hw each target area is being addressed and hw pririties and prgramming can be best aligned t psitively impact campus climate. Finally, in Year Three, attentin will be fcused n fllwing-up with previus effrts t ensure that the actin plans cntinue t align and address the pririties. At the end f the afrementined cycle, the implementatin plan begins again with a secnd administratin f the Campus Climate Survey. It is recmmended that this effrt als reiterate hw past results are being used t imprve the climate and shuld incrprate any new data that can be derived frm surveys cnducted ver the curse f the previus three-year perid. 9