Fashion Institute of Technology
Campus Climate Assessment
Results of Report
April 22-23, 2013
1
Climate In Higher Education
Community
Members
Creation
and
Distribution
of
Knowledge
Climate
(Living,
Working,
Learning)
Barcelo, 2004; Bauer, 1998, Kuh & Whitt, 1998; Hurtado, 1998, 2005; Ingle, 2005; Milhem, 2005; Peterson,
1990; Rankin, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2008; Smith, 2009; Tierney, 1990; Worthington, 2008
3
Assessing Campus Climate
• Campus Climate is a construct
What is it?
• Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards
and practices of employees and students of an
institution
Definition?
• Personal Experiences
• Perceptions
How is it
measured? • Institutional Efforts
Rankin & Reason, 2008
4
Campus Climate & Students
How students
experience their
campus environment
influences both
learning and
developmental
outcomes.1
1
2
3
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
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005
Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991.
Hale, 2004; Harper & Quaye , 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2009; Hurtado, 2003.
5
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
1Settles,
Cortina, Malley, and Stewart, 2006
2002
3Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007; Costello, 2012
2Sears,
6
Projected Outcomes
FIT 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., pedagogy, curricular issues,
professional development, inter-group/intra-group
relations, respect issues).
FIT will use the results of the assessment to inform
current/on-going work.
7
Setting the Context for
Beginning the Work
Examine
the
Research
• Review work
already
completed
Preparation
Assessment
Follow-up
• Readiness of
each campus
• Examine the
climate
• Building on
the successes
and
addressing
the
challenges
8
Overview of the Project
Phase I
• Assessment Tool Development and Implementation
Phase II
• Data Analysis
Phase III
• Final Report and Presentation
10
Instrument/Sample
Final instrument
• 103 questions and additional space for
respondents to provide commentary
• On-line or paper & pencil options
Sample = Population
• All students and employees of FIT’s
community received an invitation to
participate from Dr. Brown and
members of the CSGW forwarded
subsequent invitations.
12
Survey Limitations
Self-selection bias
Response rates
Social desirability
Caution in
generalizing results
for constituent
groups with
significantly lower
response rates
13
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.
14
Results
Response Rates
17
Who are the respondents?
2,046 people responded to the call to participate
(16.5% overall response rate)
1058 different respondents contributed remarks
to one or more of the open-ended questions
18
Response Rates by Position
15%
• Students ( n = 1497)
49%
• Staff (n = 312)
14%
• Faculty (n = 238)
19
Student Response Rates
16% • Undergraduate Student - Day
17%
• Undergraduate Student – Evening/Weekend
4% • Non-Degree Student
15%
• Graduate Student
•
Certificate
Student
86%
20
Faculty Response Rates
42%
57%
7%
• Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty
• Non-Classroom Faculty
• Adjunct
21
Staff Response Rates
46%
29%
>100%
• Staff
• Classroom Assistants
• Administrators
22
Results
Additional Demographic
Characteristics
23
Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (n)
(Duplicated Total)
African (n = 18)
African American/Black (n = 111)
Alaskan Native (n = 0)
Asian (n = 203)
Asian American (n = 85)
Caribbean/West Indian (n - 55)
European (n = 147)
European American/White (n = 642)
Indian subcontinent (n = 13)
Latino(a)/Hispanic (n = 239)
Latin American (n = 68)
Middle Eastern (n = 44)
Native American Indian (n = 34)
Pacific Islander/Hawaiian Native (n = 11)
Southeast Asian (n =12)
642
239
203
147
111
18
85
0
68
55
13
44
34
11
12
24
Respondents by Racial/Ethnic Identity (n)
(Unduplicated Total)
People of Color
White People
967
918
25
Respondents by Gender Identity and
Position Status (n)
4 respondents identified as transgender, but given the small “n” are not included in subsequent gender analyses26
Respondents by Sexual Identity and
Position Status (n)
27
Respondents with Conditions that Substantially
Affect Major Life Activities
No disability
ADD/ADHD
Asperger’s/ High Functioning Autism
Chronic Illness
Emotional/Psychological
Hearing
Learning disabled
Medical/health
Physical/mobility ambulatory
Physical/mobility non-ambulatory
Visual
Other
n
%
1711
91
2
26
85
13
33
45
83.5
4.4
0.1
1.3
4.2
0.6
1.6
2.2
9
3
17
15
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.7
28
Respondents by
Spiritual Affiliation
Christian
Other than Christian
957
Agnostic
Atheist
Spiritual, no affiliation
No affiliation
144
195
243
265
158
31
Students by Class Standing (n)
34
Students’ Family Income by
Dependency Status (n)
35
Students’ Primary Methods for
Paying for FIT
Family contribution
Loans (private and federal)
Pell grant
Personal contribution/job
Credit card
Academic scholarship
Need based grant
Other
Employer sponsored support
Tuition remission through FIT employee
n
%
761
705
378
333
281
198
165
82
11
11
51.1
47.4
25.4
22.4
18.9
13.3
11.1
5.5
0.7
0.7
36
Manners in Which Students
Experienced Financial Hardship
n
%
Difficulty purchasing my books/equipment/supplies
622
79.2
Difficulty affording tuition
534
68.0
Difficulty in affording transportation costs
411
52.4
Difficulty in affording housing
388
49.4
Difficulty affording fees
385
49.0
Difficulty participating in co-curricular events or
activities (alternative spring breaks, class trips, etc.)
Difficulty traveling home during college breaks
240
30.6
224
28.5
Difficulty in affording health insurance
169
21.5
Difficulty affording FIT meal plan/food
144
18.3
Other
48
6.1
37
Students’ Residence
Residence
n
%
On campus residence halls
518
34.8
Off campus Commuter
966
64.9
Living independently or with roommates in
apartment/house
480
49.7
Living with family member/guardian
412
42.7
Missing
74
7.7
39
Time Students Expect to Spend at
FIT to Complete Degrees (n)
40
Findings
42
“Comfortable”/ “Very Comfortable” with:
Overall Campus Climate (81%)
Department/Work Unit Climate (77%)
Classroom Climate for Students (82%)
Classroom Climate for Faculty (78%)
43
Comfort With Overall Climate and
Department/Work Unit
No differences in comfort for overall campus climate
and department/work unit by race, gender, sexual
identity, or religious/spiritual status
• When examining disability status, people with disabilities
were less comfortable than people without disabilities
• When examining the data by position, administrators were
more comfortable than faculty and staff
44
Comfort with
Class Climate for Students
More than 80% of all students were
comfortable with their classroom climate
There were no
differences in
comfort by sexual
identity or lowincome status
When examining
differences by racial
identity, Students of
Color were less
comfortable than
White students
When examining
differences by
gender identity,
women students
were less
comfortable than
men students
45
Least Comfortable with
Classroom Climate for Faculty
More than 85% of all faculty members were
comfortable with their classroom climate
When examining
differences by sexual
There were no differences
in comfort by gender or
identity, LGBQ faculty
were less comfortable than
race
heterosexual faculty
46
Employees’ Overall Satisfaction
68%
• “highly satisfied” or “satisfied”
with their jobs/careers
57%
• “highly satisfied” or “satisfied”
with the way their jobs/careers
have progressed
48%
• “highly satisfied” or “satisfied”
with their opportunities for
job/career development
47
Employee Overall Satisfaction
By Tenure status:
Non-Tenured/NonTenure Track
Faculty less satisfied
than
Tenured/Tenure
Track Faculty
By Overall Position:
Staff and NonTenured/NonTenure Track
Faculty less satisfied
than Administrators
48
Challenges and Opportunities
55
Experiences with Harassment
15%
• 304 respondents indicated
that they had personally
experienced exclusionary
(e.g., shunned, ignored),
intimidating, offensive
and/or hostile conduct
(harassing behavior) at FIT.
56
Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile,
or Intimidating Conduct
n
%
Deliberately ignored or excluded
150
49.3
Intimidated/bullied
120
39.5
Isolated or left out
113
37.2
Isolated or left out when work was required in groups
65
21.4
Target of derogatory verbal remarks
50
16.4
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 304).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
57
Personally Experienced Based on…(%)
Physical Appearance (n=55)
Ethnicity (n=54)
Age (n=52)
Race (n=52)
18
18
17
17
58
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive,
Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct
Due to University Status (%)
(n=174)¹
(n=35)¹
(n=18)¹
(n=25)¹
(n=48)¹
(n=4)¹
(n=26)²
(n=12)²
(n=7)²
(n=10)²
(n=22)²
(n=0)²
¹ 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.
59
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive,
Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct
Due to Gender Identity (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to gender identity²
20
12
14
13
Men
Women
(n=81)¹
(n=214)¹
(n=10)²
(n=30)²
¹ 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.
60
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive,
Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct
Due to Racial Identity (%)
(n=145)¹
(n=122)¹
(n=44)²
(n=5)²
¹ 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.
61
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive,
Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct
Due to Sexual Identity (%)
(n=49)¹
(n=203)¹
(n=19)²
(n=6)²
¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.
62
² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.
Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive,
Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct
Due to Disability Status (%)
Overall experienced conduct¹
Experienced conduct due to learning disability²
Experienced conduct due to medical condition³
29
12
12
7
1
No Disability
(n=209)¹
1
Disability
(n=77)¹
¹ 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.
63
Location of Perceived Harassment
n
%
In a classroom setting
106
34.9
In a campus office
65
21.4
In a public space on campus
51
16.8
In a meeting with a group of people
50
16.4
Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 304).
Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses.
64
Source of Perceived Conduct by
Position Status (n)
65
What did you
1
do?
Personal responses:




Was angry (42%)
Felt embarrassed (36%)
Did nothing (36%)
Told a friend (35%)
Reporting responses:




Didn’t report it for fear their complaints would not be taken seriously (12%)
Didn’t know who to go to (10%)
Did report it but didn’t feel the complaint was taken seriously (9%)
Made complaints to campus officials (5%)
1
Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 304).
Respondents could mark more than one response
66
Unwanted Sexual Contact at FIT
21 respondents experienced unwanted
sexual contact at FIT
More than half of respondents said it
happened off-campus
67
Employee Respondents Who Seriously
Considered Leaving FIT
20% (n = 112)
Non-Bargaining Staff (27%)
Administrators (24%)
Bargaining Staff/Classroom Assistants (21%)
Non-Tenured/Non-Tenured Track Faculty (18%)
Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty (17%)
71
Employee Respondents Who Seriously
Considered Leaving FIT
Gender
Identity
• Women (19%)
• Men (23%)
Racial
Identity
• Employees of Color (28%)
• White Employees (15%)
Sexual
Identity
• LGBQ (33%)
• Heterosexual (17%)
72
Why employees considered
leaving and why they stayed…
Employees who considered leaving did so because of age
discrimination; new supervisors; an uncomfortable, stressful or
hostile working environment; inequities in one’s work unit;
lack of promotion opportunities or acknowledgment of
contributions to the department; and, “culture of entitlement.”
Employees stayed because of the time they already put into the
institution; difficulty in finding another job; the vacation
offered; benefits; they liked their departments and the students
with whom they work; and, they loved their profession.
74
Student Respondents Who Seriously
Considered Leaving FIT
14% (n = 201)
During First Year (70%)
During Second Year (36%)
During Third Year (14%)
During Fourth Year (6%)
75
Student Respondents Who Seriously
Considered Leaving FIT
Gender
Race
Sexual
Orientation
• Women (13%)
• Men (14%)
• Students of Color (13%)
• White Students (15%)
• LGBQ (16%)
• Heterosexual (13%)
76
Why students considered
leaving…
 Some respondents offered that they felt ostracized because
of their identity(ies); they experienced unfriendly students
who are exclusive or “cliquey,” staff who are not helpful,
and, “little campus enthusiasm” since everyone seems to be
doing their own thing.
 Others also described a racist campus; “general social
discomfort;” personal psychological and medical struggles;
physical disability; difficult time adjusting; hostile climate;
political views; unfriendly environment for international
students; and, level of high difficulty in one’s major as
reasons for wanting to leave.
77
Why students stayed…
 Networking opportunities;
 The FIT education and reputation are strong;
 They were already enrolled and didn’t want to fall behind or
disappoint family members;
 FIT had the program that they wanted;
 The proximity to the center of NYC;
 Friends and good faculty members and courses;
 Once they became more involved in campus they felt more
comfortable.
78
Perceptions
79
Respondents who observed conduct or communications
directed towards a person/group of people that created an
exclusionary, intimidating, offensive working or learning
environment…
In the last
year…
%
18.0
n
355
80
Observed Harassment Based on…(%)
Position (n=75)
17
16
15
Ethnicity (n=65)
14
Physical Appearance (n=63)
Race (n=59)
82
Perceived Discrimination
Employees
Hiring Practices
EmploymentRelated Disciplinary
Actions
Employment
Practices Related to
Promotion
22%
n=115
13%
n=66
24%
n=127
87
Perceived Discrimination
Position and ethnicity were cited as the most
common bases for all observed
discriminatory employment practices.
88
Work-Life Issues
The majority of employee respondents expressed
positive attitudes about work-life issues.
89
Welcoming Workplace Climate
More than half of all employees thought the
workplace climate was welcoming for all
characteristics listed
Respondents of Color and LGBQ respondents
were least likely to believe the workplace
climate was welcoming for employees based
on gender, race, and sexual identity.
95
Welcoming Classroom Climate
More than half of all student/faculty respondents felt that the
classroom climate was welcoming for students based on
“difference” across all dimensions
Students of Color less comfortable than White students→ RACE
Students who identified with other than Christian less likely than
Christian students → RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL VIEWS
Students from low income less likely than not low income →
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
96
Student Perceptions of
Campus Climate
Students felt valued by faculty (72%) and other students
(62%) in the classroom.
Students thought that FIT faculty (64%), staff (52%), and administrators
(50%) were genuinely concerned with their welfare.
69% of all students knew faculty who they perceive as role
models.
34% of all students felt faculty pre-judge their abilities based
on their identities/backgrounds
66% of students believed the campus climate encourages free
and open discussion of difficult topics.
97
Institutional Actions
98
Campus Initiatives That Would Positively
Affect the Climate - Employees
The majority of employees thought the following would
positively affect the climate:
Access to
counseling for
people who have
experienced
harassment
Mentorship for
new faculty and
staff
Clear and fair
process to resolve
conflicts
99
Campus Initiatives That Would Positively
Affect the Climate - Students
The majority of students thought the following would
positively affect the climate:
Person to address
student
complaints of
classroom
inequity
Opportunities for
cross-cultural
dialogue among
students, and
between faculty,
staff, and students
More effective
faculty
mentorship of
students
101
Summary
Strengths and Successes
Opportunities for Improvement
102
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.
(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;
103
Worthington, Navarro, Loewy & Hart, 2008)
Overall Strengths & Successes
81%
comfortable with the
overall climate, and
77% with dept/work
unit climate.
Students thought
very positively about
their academic
experiences at FIT.
82% of students and
78% of faculty were
comfortable with the
classroom climate.
68% of employee
respondents were
satisfied with their
jobs/careers at FIT.
104
Overall Opportunities for Improvement
15% (n = 304) had
personally
experienced
exclusionary (e.g.,
stigmatized,
shunned, ignored)
intimidating,
offensive, and/or
hostile conduct
within the past year.
18% (n = 355)
believed that they
had observed
conduct on campus
that created an
exclusionary (e.g.,
shunned, ignored),
intimidating,
offensive and/or or
hostile (harassing)
working or learning
environment within
the past year.
105
Next Steps
113
Process Forward
Sharing the Report with the Community
Spring 2013
Full Report
and Power
Point will be
available on
FIT website
Full Report
hard copies
will also be
available
114
Process Forward - Fall 2013
Following FIT Strategic Plan Approval
Diversity Council will sponsor a series of
forums facilitated by 1-2 committee
members
Purpose: To develop 2-3 actions that can
be accomplished in the next year.
115
Questions and
Discussion
116