Personal Assessment of the College Environment
(PACE) Survey
Summary of Fall 2014 Results
Presentation to College Council Executive Cabinet
August 5, 2015
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Background of PACE Survey
• Developed and administered by the National
Institute for Leadership & Institutional
Effectiveness (NILIE)
• OCC survey administrations
– 2008
– 2009
– 2012
– 2014
PACE Survey Respondents (2014)
• Response rate = 19.4% (299 out
of 1,539)
• Response rates differed by
employee group
– Classified (12.5%) & Faculty (21.4%)
response rates based on FT & PT
– Administrator/manager response rate
(67.5%) higher than other groups
– Overrepresented group low population
size & does not overly influence
responses
Proportion of Total Responses by Personnel Classification
The PACE Model
• Leadership of an institution impacts four climate
factors which lead to an outcome of student
success and institutional effectiveness.
Climate Factors
• Institutional Structure: Extent to which employees are
satisfied with institution‐wide policies and practices
• Supervisory Relationships: Level of employee satisfaction
with supervisor’s professional behavior and expectations
• Teamwork: Level of collaborative environment at the
institution
• Student Focus: Extent to which the institution prepares
students for successful futures
The PACE Model
• Categorizes an institution’s environment
according to four leadership or organizational
systems
– The ideal is the Collaborative System (system 4)
• OCC’s PACE results indicated our overall
climate was 3.69, categorized as a high
Consultative System (system 3)
• NILIE analyzed mean scores on climate factors
and specific items determine high performing
or improvement areas
2014 OCC’s Climate Factor Scores
• Categorization same as previous years
Summary of Findings
In 2014:
• Overall, OCC has a positive and collaborative climate
–
–
Student focus continues to be the strongest climate factor Table 1
Some items in Supervisory Relationships and Teamwork now top performing items
• Institutional Structure factor remains an improvement area
–
–
All areas in need of improvement fell under this category Table 2
» Many items still need improvement from previous years
Decision making, communication, organizational structure and employee advancement
• Ratings differed by Employee Group Figure 1
•
Admin/Managers rated most favorably, Classified employees rated least
favorably
• Overall, OCC slightly lower than Norm Base in Supervisory
Relationship and Teamwork, equivalent in Institutional Structure
and Student Focus
– Majority of items in Supervisory Relationships statistically lower than
norm base Table 4
Summary of Findings
Trends:
• Overall, from 2009 to 2014, climate factors are consistently
falling into same categorizations Figure 2
• In 2014, climate factors mean ratings dropped from 2012, two
statistically below norm base Table 5
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Top Performance Areas
Institutional Structure
◊ The extent to which the actions of this institution reflect its mission
Supervisory Relationships
◊ The extent to which my supervisor expresses confidence in my work
◊ The extent to which my supervisor is open to the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of everyone
◊ The extent to which I am given the opportunity to be creative in my work
Teamwork
◊ The extent to which there is a spirit of cooperation within my work team
Student Focus
◊ The extent to which students receive an excellent education at this institution*
◊ The extent to which this institution prepares students for further learning*
◊ The extent to which this institution prepares students for a career*
◊ The extent to which students are satisfied with their educational experience at this institution*
◊ The extent to which classified personnel meet the needs of the students*
◊ The extent to which non-teaching professional personnel meet the needs of the students*
◊ The extent to which student ethnic and cultural diversity are important at this institution
* Indicates top performing area in 2012
Return to Slide
Table 2: Areas in Need of Improvement
Institutional Structure
◊ The extent to which I am able to appropriately influence the direction of this institution*
◊ The extent to which I have the opportunity for advancement within this institution*
◊ The extent to which decisions are made at the appropriate level at this institution*
◊ The extent to which information is shared within this institution*
◊ The extent to which institutional teams use problem-solving techniques*
◊ The extent to which open and ethical communication is practiced at this institution
◊ The extent to which my work is guided by clearly defined administrative processes
◊ The extent to which a spirit of cooperation exists at this institution *
◊ The extent to which this institution is appropriately organized*
◊ The extent to which this institution has been successful in positively motivating my performance*
* Indicates area in need of improvement in 2012
Return to Slide
Figure 1: Climate Factor Comparisons by Employee Group
Return to Slide
Table 3: Nationwide Comparisons: Higher than Norm Base
OCC Mean Scores Higher than Norm Base
Student Focus
◊ The extent to which classified personnel meet the needs of the students
◊ The extent to which students are satisfied with their educational experience
Return to Slide
Table 4: Nationwide Comparisons: Lower than Norm Base
OCC Mean Scores Lower than Norm Base
Institutional Structure
◊ The extent to which the actions of this institution reflect its mission
◊ The extent to which administrative leadership is focused on meeting the needs of students
◊ The extent to which institution-wide policies guide my work
Supervisory Relationships
◊ The extent to which my supervisor is open to the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of everyone
◊ The extent to which positive work expectations are communicated to me
◊ The extent to which unacceptable behaviors are identified and communicated to me
◊ The extent to which my supervisor actively seeks my ideas
◊ The extent to which my supervisor seriously considers my ideas
◊ The extent to which work outcomes are clarified to me
◊ The extent to which my supervisor helps me improve my work
◊ The extent to which professional development and training opportunities are available
Teamwork
◊ The extent to which my primary work team uses problem-solving techniques
◊ The extent to which my work team coordinates its efforts with appropriate individuals
Student Focus
◊ The extent to which faculty meet the needs of students
◊ The extent to which student ethnic and cultural diversity are important at this institution
◊ The extent to which students’ competencies are enhanced
Return to Slide
Figure 2: Climate Factor Comparisons, 2009-2014
4.5
4
OCC 2009
3.5
OCC 2012
OCC 2014
Norm Base
3
2.5
IN ST IT UT ION AL SUP E RV ISORY
ST RUCT URE
RE LAT ION SHIP S
Return to Slide
T EAM WORK
ST UD E N T FOCUS
OV E RA LL
Table 5: Climate Factor Comparisons with Norm Base, 2009-2014
OCC 2009
OCC 2012
OCC 2014
Norm Base
Institutional Structure
3.44
3.51
3.43
3.47
Supervisory Relationships
3.63
3.76
3.67*
3.82
Team Work
3.78
3.81
3.72*
3.84
Student Focus
4.01
4.06
4.04
4.05
Overall
3.69
3.76
3.69
3.77
* T-test results indicate a significant difference between the 2014 mean and the Norm Base mean (α = 0.05).
Return to Slide