CONFIDENTIALITY

A. EBI has established the following policy regarding the disclosure and use of the results from its benchmarking assessments. Individuals or groups who gain access to the results are subject to this confidentiality policy.

B. EBI results fall into two categories: Restricted Results and Unrestricted Results.

1.

Restricted Results include the following: a. Factor and question means reported for Participant’s “Select 6” comparison group, Carnegie classification, “All Institutions” or any other grouping in the study.

b. Names of comparison institutions and question or factor ranking or comparison with “Select 6” comparison institutions,

Carnegie classification, “All Institutions” or any other grouping in the study.

c. All other information contained in or related to the assessment survey, the results of the survey, or any reports generated regarding the assessment, except as expressly designated as “Unrestricted Results” herein.

2.

Unrestricted Results shall include general comments about Participant’s institutional data as well as differences in factor or question means over time. For example, Participant may indicate qualitative descriptions of the form “we have seen a 15% improvement in overall satisfaction since 1998” or indicate a quantitative description such as “we have improved from a 4.65 to a

5.31 in overall satisfaction.”

C. Participant is permitted to disclose Restricted Results to the following parties only , subject further to the condition that this confidentiality policy is included with all shared results:

1. Offices or staff internal to Participant, including executive offices and offices of assessment and/or institutional research

2. Any external consultant hired to assist Participant, provided that any such consultant does not share the results with external organizations, third parties, or members of their consulting organization not engaged in the consulting project for Participant

3. Regional/national/discipline-specific accrediting organizations or legislative review processes, if applicable

4. Participant’s institutional advisory boards/committees Participant is thereby not permitted to disclose Restricted Results in any other manner, including but not limited to, disclosing Restricted Results to the following parties: prospective students, organizations external to the institution, or any other third parties, including release to such parties through external newsletters, news releases, websites, marketing materials, or publications viewed by external populations.

D. Participant is permitted to disclose Unrestricted Results to any party mentioned in Section C above, as well as prospective students, students, alumni or organizations external to Participant. This includes release of results through publications viewed by external populations (e.g. external newsletters, news releases, websites or marketing materials).

E.

Workshop and Professional Publications Confidentiality Statement.

For the limited purpose of sharing their experiences of using results of EBI studies for continuous improvement, including the sharing of results analysis techniques, presenters at conferences designed to facilitate the effective use of project results and authors of professional publications may disclose the following with fellow professionals: (1) their own results analysis, (2) the aggregate results of all institutions, (3) the aggregate results of the Carnegie Class

Analysis, and (4) the aggregate results of their Select 6”comparison group, so long as the “Select 6” institutions are not individually identified.

NEED HELP?

If you have questions or comments about this report or EBI’s Online Reporting, please contact EBI at (417) 429-0551 (8 a.m. - 5 p.m. CT), email at helpdesk@webebi.com, or sign up for one of EBI’s free online webinars at http://www.webebi.com/community/events.

THE POWER OF ASSESSMENT AND BENCHMARKING

We appreciate your interest and participation in the EBI Faculty/Staff Organizational Climate/Diversity Assessment. Rigorous, research-based

EBI® assessments can unlock the power of assessment results to improve your institution's performance. Our assessments provide targeted, analysis-backed insights to measure your performance and guide your improvement efforts. EBI's analysis identifies where you should focus your time, money and resources to improve the overall quality of the student experience and help each student thrive.

OUR MISSION

To empower college educators to positively impact student retention, success, learning and satisfaction; to improve the overall quality of the college student experience.

Since 1994, EBI has been dedicated to improving retention, student success, and the quality of the college student experience. EBI has empowered over 1,500 college and universities to impact student development, learning, retention and satisfaction through the MAP-Works® student success and retention platforms, and through national benchmarking assessments for accreditation and continuous improvement. EBI’s retention effectiveness is grounded in theory, research and statistical methods. EBI assessment programs are rooted in accreditation and professional standards and in principles of continuous improvements. EBI offers over 50 nationally benchmarked academic and student affairs assessments as well as MAP-Works, a comprehensive student success and retention platform. EBI’s MAP-Works and benchmarking assessments are the essential foundation of an effective assessment and student success initiative. To learn more about EBI and our history, please visit http://www.webebi.com/about.

Commitment to Assessment // Your institution partnered with EBI to participate in the EBI Faculty/Staff Organizational Climate/Diversity

Assessment. Assessment is a process to collect information to better understand the perceptions of your institution’s effectiveness from the viewpoint of your campus constituents. Assessment information answers important questions such as “How effective is our program?” or

“Where should we focus resources to improve?”

Focusing only on your institution’s performance can be limiting; questions such as “Is improvement possible?” are difficult to answer without benchmarking information. Benchmarking, a key feature in this project, provides comparisons between your institution and others (external benchmarking), between successive years (longitudinal benchmarking), and between groups (internal benchmarking). Benchmarking allows you to identify comparative strengths and weaknesses.

Closing the Assessment Loop // Successful assessment projects combine data collection, analysis, action planning, and implementation of actions. Unfortunately, most assessment projects end after studying the assessment results without creating and implementing actions for improvement. We recommend the following steps:

CONDUCT ASSESSMENT // Using a survey instrument that reliably measures areas important to your profession is a critical first step.

IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN //

Assign a person(s) to each action and hold them accountable for their area of responsibility.

ANALYZE INFORMATION //

Carefully review the analysis (both written and online) to understand issues facing your program and where your program should focus its attention.

CREATE ACTION PLAN //

Develop an Action Plan for program improvement based on these results.

2011-12 EBI Faculty/Staff Organizational Climate/Diversity Assessment

©2012 EBI MAP-Works, LLC. Survey report may not be reproduced without permission

1

EBI provides two reporting platforms for your convenience.

THE POWER OF ASSESSMENT AND BENCHMARKING

EBI’s Written Report // EBI’s written report is segmented into four major areas:

• Confidentiality Statement: (Located on the first page of this written report.) All results are confidential and may be reproduced and utilized only for continuous improvement purposes on your campus.

• Assessment Summary: This section contains supplemental information to assist you in understanding the results such as a glossary of terms, list of survey questions and factors, description of the statistical analysis used, external benchmarking groups, and survey response rates.

• Executive Summary: EBI recommends you begin your review of the results with this section. All the major components are pulled together to give an excellent overview of your institution’s current performance, external benchmarking comparisons, longitudinal trends, and areas on which to focus resources for improvement. Be sure to identify individual factors key to institutional improvement and any populations (e.g., gender, race) with specific issues in order to target actions as necessary.

• Individual Factor Analysis: Once key factors are identified, explore them in-depth to better understand their current and past performance. In addition, detailed information of the factor’s scaled questions is reported. Actions should be targeted towards scaled questions which are more tangible and directly actionable.

EBI’s Online Reports // If you would like to delve deeper into your assessment information, EBI’s Online Reports provides additional information

(e.g., population characteristics) and interactive tools (e.g., filtering and cross-tabs) to enrich your understanding of the results.

Summary // Assessment and benchmarking helps focus your time and financial resources for greatest impact and moves your institution from a debate about what is wrong to a discussion of possible solutions. Closing the assessment loop by creating and implementing improvement actions guarantees forward progress.



2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Assessment Summary

Executive Summary

Overall Evaluation of Organization

FACTOR 1 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust

FACTOR 2 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Insensitive Remarks

FACTOR 3 // Management/Supervisor

FACTOR 4 // Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups

FACTOR 5 // Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups

FACTOR 6 // Work Environment: Inclusive Environment

FACTOR 7 // Work Environment: Value of Contributions

FACTOR 8 // Work Environment: Represent Others

FACTOR 9 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff

FACTOR 10 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Supervisors

FACTOR 11 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Fellow Employees

FACTOR 12 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Personal Development

FACTOR 13 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others

FACTOR 14 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others

FACTOR 15 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility

FACTOR 16 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity

FACTOR 17 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Established Procedures

FACTOR 18 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create

Celebrations

FACTOR 19 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity

FACTOR 20 // Overall Evaluation

Non-Factor Questions

2011-12 EBI Faculty/Staff Organizational Climate/Diversity Assessment // Ramapo College of New Jersey


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Below is a compilation of terms used in this report.

% Total // Relative size of the respondent population.

All Institution Mean // Mean of the aggregated results of all participating institutions.

Carnegie Class Mean // Mean of the aggregated results of the institutions in your Carnegie Classification. If the number of institutions in the class is two or fewer, the results will not be reported to protect anonymity.

Categorical Questions // Categorical questions are closed-ended questions that ask the respondent to choose an answer(s) that best represent their situation. Typical categorical questions are age, gender, and class standing

Contribution // The “contribution to the variance” as explained through the regression analysis. Essentially, this refers to the amount each predictor contributes to the overall variance. The larger the contribution, the larger the impact the factor has on the dependent factor.

Factor // A group of statistically-related questions which describe a broad concept more completely than just a single question.

Goal // The goal value, set by EBI, is a value of 5.50 on a 7-point scale or a value of 75% on the performance scale. Different performance indicators are given based on its relationship with the goal. indicates that the goal was met. indicates the goal is within reach. indicates the performance is well below goal.

Mean // The average (the sum of the values divided by the number of respondents) of the item.

Mean Range // The difference between the minimum mean (Min) and maximum mean (Max) across populations provides a range of means which gives a measure of the variation of the data.

N // Number of respondents to that item.

Negative Correlation (NEG) // The relationship between an independent factor and the dependent factor where the factors move in opposite directions. In other words if the factor’s mean decreases, then we would expect the mean of the overall performance factor to increase.

Non-Factor Questions // Scaled questions that are relevant but not statistically related to a factor. Results of these questions are reported individually.

Not a Predictor (NP) // A factor which does not contribute to the variance thus is not a predictor of the dependent variable. Because this factor is not a predictor, changes to its performance will not impact the dependent factor.

Not Reported (NR) // In order to protect participant anonymity, EBI will not report population data when the number in that population is five or fewer. In order to protect institutional anonymity, EBI will not report performance values for the Carnegie Class if the number of institutions in the class is two or fewer.

Performance // Mean scaled from 0-100%. The translation is: “1” on the 7-point scale equates with 0% performance, “4” equates to 50% performance, and “7” equates to 100% performance.

Predictor // Predictor status of the factor as calculated from the regression analysis. The strongest predictor is labeled as “1st”, the second strongest is “2nd”, and so forth. We label factors that do not contribute to the variance as “NP” (non-predictor).

Rank // Sorting the institutions from highest performance to lowest performance, your institution’s rank is determined. Note, your institution’s data is included when we calculate your institution’s ranking within that comparison group (e.g., your institution’s Select 6 rank is out of 7 institutions since your institution is included in the rank).

Response Rate // The number of participants who completed the assessment divided by the total number of participants attempted to survey.



Survey Summary // 4

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Scaled Questions // These survey questions rely on a 1-to-7 Likert scale with "1" indicating either strong disagreement or being very dissatisfied and "7" indicating either strong agreement or being very satisfied. This type of question is designed to gather perceptions of the participants across a variety of content areas.

Select 6 Mean // Mean of the aggregated results of the Select 6 institutions.

Standard Deviation // The measure of the variation in response values within that item. Small standard deviations indicate consistency among respondents. In these cases, any intervention taken can be the same for all populations since respondents are responding similarly. Large standard deviations indicate wide variability among respondents. A deeper understanding of which populations are creating this variability is necessary before an intervention can begin. May be abbreviated as Std Dev in reporting.

Statistical Significance (Stat Sig) // The indication of a statistical difference in means. Statistical testing is conducted between your institution’s results and the aggregate of your external benchmarking institutions to determine if differences in the means are statistically significant. indicates your institution performed statistically higher than the external benchmarking group; indicates no statistical difference; and indicates your institution performed statistically lower than the external benchmarking group. We also conduct statistical testing between populations and between the current year’s data and prior years’ data.




SURVEY ITEMS

There are three types of questions used in this assessment: Categorical Questions, Scaled Questions, and Open-Ended Questions. Below is a full listing of the survey items grouped by question type.

Categorical Questions // Categorical questions are closed-ended questions that ask the respondent to choose an answer(s) that best represents their situation. Typical categorical questions are GPA, Class Standing, and Place of Residence. Below are the categorical questions asked in this assessment. In this written report, EBI has chosen to report detailed information on a few key items marked with an asterisk; reporting by all categorical questions can be found in EBI’s Online Reports.

D001 // Sex: *

D002 // What is your ethnicity?

MR003 // What is your race? (choose all that apply)

D004 // Race/Ethnicity (reporting only) *

D005 // Are you a citizen/permanent resident of the country where this institution is located?

D006 // Is English your native language?

D007 // Religious Identification:

D008 // Sexual Orientation:

D009 // Age:

D010 // Which best describes your political/social ideology?

D011 // Annual income:

D012 // What is your highest level of education?

D013 // Type of Environment - Where do you predominantly work?

D014 // How are you paid?

D015 // Employee Type: *

D016 // Number of years with this organization: *

D017 // Which best describes your main work role/assignment at this institution? If you have a dual role, please choose only one.

D018 // What is your level of management?

D019 // What is your faculty level?

D020 // What percentage of other employees in your work environment are of the same race/ethnicity as you?

D021 // What percentage of other employees in your work environment are of the same age as you?

D022 // What percentage of other employees in your work environment has the same gender identification as you?

D023 // What percentage of other employees in your work environment has the same religious identification as you?

D024 // What percentage of other employees in your work environment has the same political/social ideology (liberal / moderate / conservative) as you?

D025 // What percentage of other employees in your work environment has the same financial standing as you?

D044 // Have you ever felt harassed (sexual or non-sexual) while working in this organization?

D045 // What form did this harassment (sexual or non-sexual) predominantly take?

D046 // What was this harassment predominantly based on?

D047 // What was the predominant source of this harassment (sexual or non-sexual)?

D048 // Where did this harassment predominately occur?

D129 // Do you have a documented/diagnosed disability?

D130 // Choose your most prominent disability:

D144 // Are you aware if the organization has a stated policy regarding diversity?

Scaled Questions // These survey questions rely on a 1-to-7 Likert scale with “1” indicating either strong disagreement or being Not at all and

“7” indicating either strong agreement or being Extremely. These questions are designed to gather perceptions of the participants across a variety of content areas. The scaled questions from the survey are listed below.

To what degree do you:

Q026 // Respect your co-workers

Q027 // Like your co-workers

Q028 // Trust your co-workers

Q029 // Feel accepted by your co-workers

Q030 // Feel valued by your co-workers

While at work, how often:

Q031 // Have co-workers made insensitive or disparaging remarks about you

Q032 // Have co-workers made insensitive or disparaging remarks about others in your presence

Q033 // Has your manager/supervisor made insensitive or disparaging remarks about you

Q034 // Has your manager/supervisor made insensitive or disparaging remarks about others in your presence

To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to):

Q035 // Encourage you to offer feedback

Q036 // Treat you fairly

Q037 // Treat you with respect

Q038 // Provide you feedback on your job performance

Q039 // Encourage you to contribute to the organization

Q040 // Recognize your contribution to the organization

Q041 // Communicate clearly what is expected of you

Q042 // Care about you as a person

Q043 // Help you to resolve problems




To what degree are the following present in your work environment:

Q050 // Respect by employees for other employees of different racial / ethnic backgrounds

Q051 // Friendships between employees of different racial / ethnic backgrounds

To what degree is the following present in your work environment:

Q052 // Racial / ethnic separation

Q053 // Interracial tensions

To what degree:

Q054 // Do you feel welcome in your workplace

Q055 // Is appropriate and inclusive language used in your workplace

Q056 // Do supervisors model multicultural sensitivity

Q057 // Do fellow employees model multicultural sensitivity

Q058 // Are different views and perspectives encouraged in your workplace

To what degree:

Q059 // Do you find workplace humor to be offensive

Q060 // Do you feel isolated or left out when group work is required in your workplace

Q061 // Do you feel you have been treated unfairly by your supervisors

Q062 // Do you feel you have been treated unfairly by your fellow workers

To what degree do you believe your contributions to your organization are devalued due to your:

Q063 // Race / ethnicity

Q064 // Gender

Q065 // Religious identification

Q066 // Sexual orientation

Q067 // Political / social ideology

Q068 // Disability / Ability

Q069 // Age

Q070 // Financial standing

To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your:


Q072 // Gender





Q077 // Age


To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your:


Q080 // Gender





Q085 // Age


How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing:

Q087 // Races / ethnicities

Q088 // Genders

Q089 // Religious identifications

Q090 // Sexual orientations

Q091 // Political / social ideologies

Q092 // Disabilities / Abilities

Q093 // Age


How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing:


Q096 // Genders





Q101 // Age


To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop:



SURVEY ITEMS


SURVEY ITEMS

Q103 // A belief that learning about others who are different from you is valuable

Q104 // A personal commitment to combating discrimination

Q105 // A belief that differences do not have to interfere with meaningful relationships

Q106 // An active involvement in being an agent of change

Q107 // An awareness of your own cultural heritage

Q108 // A willingness to self-examine your assumptions about others

Q109 // The ability to challenge, when necessary, your biases toward people who are different from you

Q110 // An ability to think more critically

Q111 // Prepare for work in diverse work places

Q112 // An ability to consider real world problems from multiple perspectives

To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on:


Q114 // Genders




Q118 // Disabilities / abilities

Q119 // Age


Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing:


Q122 // Genders





Q127 // Age


Based on your disability, rate the accessibility of your organization in the following areas:

Q131 // Training programs

Q132 // Documentation / Manuals

Q133 // Web sites

Q134 // Audio Visual presentations (i.e. PowerPoint, overheads, videos)

Q135 // Please rate the physical accessibility of your organization

To what degree does the leadership in your department:

Q137 // Challenge you to consider diversity in your daily activities

Q138 // Have a plan to incorporate diversity in your work environment

Q139 // Regularly communicate the importance of diversity

Q140 // Include diverse people (i.e. people of differing races, genders, religious affiliations, etc.) on committees and teams

Q141 // Provide you with diversity training

Q142 // Provide you with training to recognize harassment

Q143 // Commit resources to enhance the diversity of the organization

To what degree are there established procedures for addressing instances of:

Q145 // Harassment

Q146 // Discrimination

Q147 // Hate incidents

To what degree does your organization:

Q148 // Publicly post diversity policies and standards in prominent places

Q149 // Publicly recognize their commitment to diversity through celebrations (e.g. cultural dinners, special history months)

Q150 // Reflect diversity in their publications (i.e. inclusive language, photos, graphics)

Q151 // Communicate expectations regarding appropriate behaviors in support of diversity

Q152 // To what degree is your commitment to diversity part of your overall performance evaluation as an employee?

To what degree are you encouraged to provide feedback regarding diversity:

Q153 // On the organization as a whole

Q154 // Your direct supervisor

Regarding your work environment, to what degree is this organization:

Q155 // Committed to diversity

Q156 // Promoting diversity

Q157 // Developing a diverse environment

Q158 // Actively addressing issues of diversity

Within your organization, to what degree do you feel:

Q159 // Accepted by others

Q160 // That you have been treated fairly




SURVEY ITEMS

Q161 // Valued

Q162 // That your ideas are respected

Q163 // That you are appreciated for your differences

To what degree:

Q164 // Would you recommend this organization to friends as a good place to work

Open-End Questions // Open-ended questions are designed to encourage a full, meaningful answer from the respondent. Typical open-ended questions are “How can we improve this program?” Below are the open-ended questions asked on this survey; please access EBI’s Online

Reports to read or download respondents’ answers.

LA049 // Please provide comments regarding the harassment you experienced:

LA136 // List the specific area(s) of your work environment that are difficult to access or maneuver in:

LA165 // What experience has had the greatest positive impact on you with regard to diversity?

LA166 // What experience has had the greatest negative impact on you with regard to diversity?

LA167 // The questions of this survey have raised a number of issues. From your perspective, please offer suggestions on how this organization might improve the work environment. Additional comments or observations are also welcome:




FACTORS

Factors, also called constructs, are groupings of related scaled questions. EBI utilizes factors for two important reasons:

• Reduces complexity: The number of questions in this assessment is large making analysis based solely on survey questions complex and unwieldy. The number of factors is significantly smaller, bundling the details and reducing the complexity of analysis;

• Strengthen regression: The focal point of EBI’s analysis, Recommendations for Improvement (based on a multi-variant linear regression), is weakened if too many variables are used. Factors, a significantly shorter set of variables, strengthen the regression analysis.

Factor Analysis // Factor analysis is a statistical technique used to derive factors. The basic assumption of factor analysis is that underlying dimensions, or factors, can be used to explain more complex phenomena. In measuring perceptions, the object is to combine several questions that, in concert, capture the notion for a particular topic, such as “Facilities”.

Factor Reliability // Once it has been determined that a set of scaled questions do share a relationship and therefore constitute a factor, there is an additional (and necessary) statistical test to assess the psychometric soundness of the factor. We rely on Cronbach’s Alpha to determine the internal consistency or reliability of any factor. A Cronbach’s alpha of zero would mean that there is no internal consistency at all, i.e., subjects are likely to respond with any value on any of the questions in a factor with no discernible pattern. An alpha of 1 would mean that every subject answered every question comprising the factor consistently. This is a highly unlikely event. An alpha of .5 is considered acceptable; an alpha of

.7 good; alphas in the .8 to .9 range are exceptional.

Below is a list of this assessment’s factors and the corresponding Reliability (Chronbach’s Alpha).

FACTOR NAME

FACTOR 1 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust

FACTOR 2 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Insensitive Remarks

FACTOR 3 // Management/Supervisor

FACTOR 4 // Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups

FACTOR 5 // Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups

FACTOR 6 // Work Environment: Inclusive Environment

FACTOR 7 // Work Environment: Value of Contributions

FACTOR 8 // Work Environment: Represent Others

FACTOR 9 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff

FACTOR 10 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Supervisors

FACTOR 11 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Fellow Employees

FACTOR 12 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Personal Development

FACTOR 13 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others

FACTOR 14 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others

FACTOR 15 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility

FACTOR 16 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity

FACTOR 17 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Established Procedures

FACTOR 18 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create Celebrations

FACTOR 19 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity

FACTOR 20 // Overall Evaluation

QUESTION NUMBERS RELIABILITY

26-30, 62 0.92

31-34

35-43, 61

0.86

0.96

50-51

52-53

54-58, 60

63-70

0.87

0.89

0.90

0.87

71-78

79-86

87-94

95-102

103-105, 107-112

0.93

0.96

0.94

0.94

0.97

113-120

121-128

131-135

137-143

145-147

148-151

152-154

159-164

0.97

0.91

0.88

0.96

0.98

0.99

0.96

0.96




STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

EBI is dedicated to providing relevant statistical analysis which removes the guesswork from the reader. Making decisions on assessment information without fully understanding if the results are statistical, could lead to decisions with unintended consequences. In this report, we provide results from regression analysis and statistical testing of means.

Regression Analysis (Identifying Predictors) // A correlation establishes the relationship between two variables. Regression analysis, by contrast, allows us to determine the relationship between an assment’s dependent factor (in this assessment, Overall Evaluation of Organization) and multiple independent factors (e.g., facilities, environment, etc.). If we suspect, for example, that Overall Evaluation of Organization is related to a set of independent factors, we could simultaneously assess the extent to which all of these independent factors predict Overall Evaluation of

Organization. Beyond that, we can determine the exact weights for each of the independent factors, which allows us to identify which of the independent factors is most important, which is second, and so forth. We can further determine how much each independent factor increases our ability to predict Overall Evaluation of Organization.

The first step in regression analysis is to identify which of the independent factors is the best predictor of Overall Evaluation of Organization.

Next, the analysis takes into account (controls for) the effect of the first predictor and then determines the second best predictor. This is an iterative process, which controls for all prior factors, then identifies the next predictor (e.g., the 3rd most important, 4th most important and so on).

Examining the output of this process allows us to identify the most important predictors among the dependent factors, those with more modest explanatory power, and finally those factors that contribute nothing to our understanding of the Overall Evaluation of Organization.

We should note that while the factors in this latter category have no explanatory power, in a practical sense, they contribute greatly to our decision-making ability. Knowing what is not related to -- or predictive of -- Overall Evaluation of Organization can be a valuable insight.

Presumably, one would not allocate scarce resources to improve elements that are not related to Overall Evaluation of Organization. Conversely, if we know the best predictors of Overall Evaluation of Organization, investment in those elements would pay high dividends.

In reporting results of regression analysis, we discuss the “contribution to the variance”. Essentially, this refers to how well we can explain a certain outcome (improving Overall Evaluation of Organization) by using the factors. The higher the contribution, the stronger our conclusions about how well the factors we have identified help us understand what predicts a given outcome (in this case, improving Overall Evaluation of

Organization).

Statistical Testing of Means (T-Test) // The t-test determines whether the means of two data sets are statistically different from each other.

The result of the t-test is a p-value that indicates how likely those results could happen by chance. A difference is identified as “significant” if the probability that the result could have occurred merely due to chance is less than 5%. All differences reported are significant at the p < 0.05

levels or better. Many are significant at the p < 0.01 (less than 1% of the results could have occurred due to chance) or p < 0.001 (less than

0.1% of the results could have occurred due to chance) level.

Statistical testing is conducted between your institution’s results and the aggregate of your external benchmarking institutions (Select 6 institutions, Carnegie Class institutions, and all participating institutions). We also conduct statistical testing between populations and between subsequent years. In this report, we indicate if the test was statistical to p < 0.05 but do not provide individual p-values; p-values can be found in EBI’s Online Reporting.




EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING

Benchmarking is the process of comparing your institution's performance against other institutions. National benchmarking assessments allow standards to be set and, through those standards, your institution can calibrate its effectiveness. Throughout this report (and EBI's Online

Reporting), you will find comparisons of your institution's results against those of your external benchmarking institutions (Select 6 institutions,

Carnegie Class institutions, and all participating institutions). As you review these results, note the areas where your institution’s outperforms your external benchmarks; these are areas to celebrate! The opposite may also be true; you may find areas where your institution underperforms your external benchmarks. This indicates that others may have a better approach or better implementation and improvement is possible.

Select 6 Institutions // A very important aspect of this benchmarking assessment is the comparison of your institution's results against four to six peer or aspirant institutions (regardless of the number of institutions selected, EBI refers to this group as "Select 6"). In this report, we provide the aggregated information from these institutions. If you want to view an individual Select 6 institutional performance, please access EBI’s

Online Reports; however to protect anonymity, institutional names are not linked to results. Your Select 6 institutions are:

NOTE: Your institution was allowed to choose from institutions who participated in 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012; the data collection year is noted beside the institutions name.

YOUR SELECT 6 INSTITUTIONS

Dominican University of California (2012)

Frostburg State University (2012)

Indiana University-Purdue University (Fort Wayne) (2012)

Eastern Connecticut State University (2011)

Henderson State University (2012)

Wingate University (2012)

Carnegie Classification Institutions // The institutions in your Carnegie Class compose the second external benchmarking group. The Carnegie

Classification of Institutions of Higher Education is a framework for classifying, or grouping, colleges and universities in the United States. The primary purpose of the framework is for educational research and analysis, where it is often important to identify groups of roughly comparable institutions. The classification includes all accredited, degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States that are represented in the

National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). For this assessment, EBI used the 2010 Basic

Carnegie Classifications to determine your institution’s classification. All institutions outside the United States are combined into an

“International” Carnegie Class. For a complete list of the institutions in your Carnegie Class, please refer to EBI's Online Reports.

YOUR CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION

Master's Colleges and Universities (small to medium programs)

Generally includes institutions that awarded at least 50 master's degrees and fewer than 20 doctoral degrees during the update year (with occasional exceptions). Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.

All Institutions // The third external benchmark is the combination of all participating institutions. This provides a national norm or national standard. For a complete list of all participating institutions, please access EBI’s Online Reports.




SURVEY RESPONSE RATES

Survey response rate (also known as completion rate or return rate) refers to the percentage of the surveyed population who responded to the survey. It is calculated by dividing the number of survey participants by the number of people in the sample. For example: if 1,000 surveys were attempted and 257 were completed, then the response rate would be 25.7%. Below are the response rates for your institution and your external benchmarking institutions. We have also included response rates by a few key categorical/demographic questions. Response rates for all other categorical/demographic questions can be found in EBI's Online Reports.

SURVEY RESPONSE RATE PERFORMANCE

Your Institution

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

# ATTEMPTED

1,011

4,403

2,395

11,769

# RESP

350

1,780

922

4,769

RESPONSE

RATE

34.6%

40.4%

38.5%

40.5%

0 ------ RESPONSE RATE ------ 100%

SEX:

Female

Male

Other

# RESP

212

132

1

% TOTAL

61.4%

38.3%

0.3%

0 ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 100%

RACE/ETHNICITY (REPORTING ONLY)

White

Black or African American

Hispanic (regardless of race)

Asian

Race and ethnicity unknown

American Indian/Alaska Native/First Nation

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Two or more races

# RESP

275

26

6

3

21

19

0

0

% TOTAL

78.6%

7.4%

6.0%

5.4%

1.7%

0.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0 ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 100%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

Full-time

Part-time, non-student

Temporary employee

Part-time, student

# RESP

293

40

9

3

% TOTAL

84.9%

11.6%

2.6%

0.9%

0 ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 100%




NUMBER OF YEARS WITH THIS ORGANIZATION:

2 to 5 years

6 to 10 years

11 to 20 years

Less than 2 years

21 to 30 years

More than 30 years

SURVEY RESPONSE RATES

# RESP

83

43

33

81

79

25

% TOTAL

24.1%

23.5%

23.0%

12.5%

9.6%

7.3%

0 ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 100%




EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING

INDICATOR // OVERALL EVALUATION

RECOMMENDATIONS LONGITUDINAL TRENDS SUMMARY CURRENT PERFORMANCE

In this series of reports, you will find a summary of the indicator, Overall Evaluation of Organization. This summary includes current performance, external benchmarking, recommendations for improvement, and longitudinal trends. Together these analyses create a picture of your institution's performance and provide guidance for future improvement efforts. If you need to better understand the behavior of a factor, please reference its section (tabs are labeled by factor numbers). Also, please reference EBI's Online Reports for additional reporting.

Summary // The analyses below allow you to monitor the overall performance of the indicator, Overall Evaluation of Organization. Included are the current performance of the indicator’s dependent variable, Overall Evaluation of Organization, your institutional strength and weakness (the highest and lowest performance factor within this indicator), peer comparison (the factors where your institution performs best and worst against your Select 6), and the longitudinal trend of Overall Evaluation of Organization. In subsequent indicator reports, we provide in-depth information in each of these areas.

INDICATOR PERFORMANCE

Factor 20 // Overall Evaluation

SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

338

MEAN

5.65

STD

DEV

1.41

PERFORMANCE

77.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES // YOUR INSTITUTION

SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

Factor 8 // Work Environment: Represent Others

Factor 19 // Elements of Organizational Diversity:

Feedback Regarding Diversity

ALL

INST.

N

336

332

MEAN

6.59

3.93

STD

DEV

0.91

PERFORMANCE

93.2%

1.93

48.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES // COMPARISON WITH SELECT 6

SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.


Established Procedures

Factor 5 // Relationships: Tolerance Among

Racial/Ethnic Groups

N

324

342

MEAN

5.82

STD

DEV

1.46

PERFORMANCE

80.3%

5.91

1.40

81.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

LONGITUDINAL TREND // OVERALL EVALUATION

80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.4%

5.65

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported

NEG Negative Correlation



Lower Equal Higher

Executive Summary // 1



RECOMMENDATIONS LONGITUDINAL TRENDS SUMMARY CURRENT PERFORMANCE

There are many pieces of analysis that, when combined, create a comprehensive picture of your institution’s performance. The first analysis to examine is the current performance. This information, coupled with understanding of individual population perceptions, external benchmarks, longitudinal trends, recommendations for improvement, and other institutional information or assessment is invaluable to constructing an effective Action Plan for improvement.

Current Performance // Aggregate

Below is your institution's current performance for Overall Evaluation of Organization. This factor would be difficult to improve directly, but improving its predictors should result in its improvement. Be sure to review the Recommendations section, within the indicatior, before creating your improvement plan.



N

338

MEAN

5.65

STD

DEV

1.41

PERFORMANCE

77.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Below is the current performance of the factors associated with the Overall Evaluation of Organization indicator. Please review all of the information in this section before creating your program’s Action Plan to improve Overall Evaluation of Organization. It is natural to want to improve the lowest performing factors, but be careful! Improving the lowest performing factor may not improve Overall Evaluation of Organization if it is not a predictor. Finish reviewing all analysis before developing your improvement plan.

INDICATOR FACTORS BY PERFORMANCE

N

336

MEAN

6.59

STD

DEV

0.91

PERFORMANCE

93.2% Factor 8 // Work Environment: Represent Others

Factor 10 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Supervisors

Factor 7 // Work Environment: Value of Contributions

Factor 11 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Fellow Employees

Factor 9 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff

Factor 5 // Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups

Factor 2 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Insensitive Remarks

Factor 17 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Established Procedures

Factor 6 // Work Environment: Inclusive Environment

Factor 4 // Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups

Factor 1 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust

Factor 3 // Management/Supervisor

Factor 18 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create

Celebrations

Factor 12 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Personal Development

Factor 14 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others

341

342

338

336

342

335

324

344

343

347

346

329

330

314

6.55

6.48

6.32

6.28

5.91

5.82

5.82

5.79

5.78

5.71

5.40

5.32

5.24

5.07

0.99

1.03

1.10

1.27

1.40

1.33

1.46

1.22

1.25

1.13

1.58

1.48

1.69

1.29

92.5%

91.3%

88.7%

88.0%

81.8%

80.3%

80.3%

79.8%

79.7%

78.5%

73.3%

72.0%

70.7%

67.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported


Lower Equal Higher




Factor 15 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility

Factor 13 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others

Factor 16 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity

Factor 19 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity

N

27

325

325

332

MEAN

4.90

4.89

4.57

3.93


STD

DEV

2.13

1.96

PERFORMANCE

65.0%

64.8%

1.70

1.93

59.5%

48.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher




RECOMMENDATIONS LONGITUDINAL TRENDS SUMMARY CURRENT PERFORMANCE

Current Performance // Key Populations

EBI continues to analyze the current performance of Overall Evaluation of Organization by investigating how key subpopulations rate your institution’s performance. Key categorical questions have been selected and are reported on below. Answer options within each categorical question have been divided into two groups in order to facilitate a statistical testing of means; a designates the population which is statistically higher than the other population, a designates the population that is statistically lower and an indicates that the populations have statistically equal factor means. Relative population size (% Total) and Performance values for each group are plotted. Analysis for other subpopulations can be found in EBI’s Online Reporting.

SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212

% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

STAT

SIG

N

132

203

MEAN

5.71

5.65

STD

DEV

1.33

1.44

PERFORMANCE

78.5%

77.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%


N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

STAT

SIG

N

270

68

MEAN

5.72

5.35

STD

DEV

1.36

1.57

PERFORMANCE

78.7%

72.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


STAT

SIG

N

50

286

MEAN

5.96

5.60

STD

DEV

1.16

1.44

PERFORMANCE

82.7%

76.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

N

122

213

MEAN

5.71

5.63

STD

DEV

1.36

1.42

PERFORMANCE

78.5%

77.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher





The second piece of the analysis picture is External Benchmarking. Throughout this report and in EBI’s Online Reporting, EBI compares your institutional data to the aggregate of your external benchmarking groups. If your Action Plan for institutional improvement includes improving

Overall Evaluation of Organization and if your program is performing below any of these external benchmarking groups, this information can be used to convince staff that higher performance is possible. If your institutional performance is higher than any of these groups, use this to celebrate!

Below is a comparison of your institutional results to your Select 6, Carnegie Class, and all participating institutions for the indicator’s dependent variable, Overall Evaluation of Organization, and the other factors associated with this indicator. A designates factors where your institution performs statistically higher than that external benchmarking group; a designates factors where your program is statistically lower in performance; and a represents factors that are statistically equal with that external benchmarking group. The chart represents your institution’s performance on each factor.



SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

338

MEAN

5.65

STD

DEV

1.41

PERFORMANCE

77.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

INDICATOR FACTORS BY PERFORMANCE

SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS


Factor 10 // Expressions of Insensitivity and

Prejudice: Supervisors

Factor 7 // Work Environment: Value of

Contributions


Prejudice: Fellow Employees

Factor 9 // Equal Treatment of Diverse

Faculty/Staff



Factor 2 // Relationships with Fellow Employees:

Insensitive Remarks



Factor 6 // Work Environment: Inclusive

Environment

Factor 4 // Relationships: Respect and Friendship

Among Racial/Ethnic Groups


Respect and Trust


ALL

INST.

342

338

336

342

335

324

344

343

347

346

N

336

341

MEAN

6.59

6.55

STD

DEV

0.91

PERFORMANCE

93.2%

0.99

92.5%

6.48

1.03

91.3%

6.32

1.10

88.7%

6.28

1.27

88.0%

5.91

1.40

81.8%

5.82

1.33

80.3%

5.82

1.46

80.3%

5.79

1.22

79.8%

5.78

1.25

79.7%

5.71

1.13

78.5%

5.40

1.58

73.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher



Publicize Efforts and Create Celebrations

Factor 12 // Impact of Organizational Diversity:

Personal Development


Changing Attitudes of Others


Accessibility


Working Effectively with Others


Leadership Impacting Diversity



SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

329


MEAN

5.32

STD

DEV

1.48

PERFORMANCE

72.0%

330 5.24

1.69

70.7%

314 5.07

1.29

67.8%

27 4.90

2.13

65.0%

325 4.89

1.96

64.8%

325 4.57

1.70

59.5%

332 3.93

1.93

48.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher





Arguably the most important piece of the analysis is Recommendations for Improvement In order to improve Overall Evaluation of Organization, it is necessary to know which factors have the greatest impact. Improving factors with high impact should lead to an improvement in Overall

Evaluation of Organization. The first chart shown below is the current performance for Overall Evaluation of Organization. If this performance is below your desired level, identify the high impact factors (listed below) and focus your institution’s improvement efforts on those factors.



N

338

MEAN

5.65

STD

DEV

1.41

PERFORMANCE

77.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

EBI has grouped the Overall Evaluation of Organization predictors into high and low impact as calculated from a multi-variant linear regression analysis. The strongest predictor is labeled as “1st”, the second strongest is “2nd”, and so forth. We label factors that do not contribute to the variance as “NP” (non-predictor). EBI recommends your program focus its resources to improve the performance of your high impact factors while maintaining, but not expending resources to improve, low/no impact factor performance.

HIGH IMPACT FACTORS



Respect and Trust




Publicize Efforts and Create Celebrations

PREDICTOR

1 ST

2 ND

3 RD

4 TH

5 TH

CONTRIBUTION

21.5%

16.2%

14.4%

10.8%

10.1%

346

336

329

N

344

347

MEAN

5.79

5.71

5.40

6.28

5.32

1.58

1.27

1.48

STD

DEV

1.22

PERFORMANCE

79.8%

1.13

78.5%

73.3%

88.0%

72.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

LOW/NO IMPACT FACTORS



Prejudice: Supervisors



Prejudice: Fellow Employees




Insensitive Remarks



PREDICTOR

NP

NP

CONTRIBUTION

0.0%

0.0%

NP

NP

NP

NP

NP

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

342

338

342

N

336

341

MEAN

6.59

6.55

STD

DEV

0.91

PERFORMANCE

93.2%

0.99

92.5%

6.48

6.32

5.91

1.03

1.10

1.40

91.3%

88.7%

81.8%

335

324

5.82

1.33

80.3%

5.82

1.46

80.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher


Factor 4 // Relationships: Respect and Friendship

Among Racial/Ethnic Groups


Personal Development


Changing Attitudes of Others


Working Effectively with Others


Leadership Impacting Diversity



PREDICTOR

NP

CONTRIBUTION

0.0%

NP

NP

0.0%

0.0%

NP

NP

NP

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

N

343


MEAN

5.78

STD

DEV

1.25

PERFORMANCE

79.7%

330 5.24

1.69

70.7%

314 5.07

1.29

67.8%

325 4.89

1.96

64.8%

325 4.57

1.70

59.5%

332 3.93

1.93

48.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

EXCLUDED FROM REGRESSION ANALYSIS


N

27

MEAN

4.90

STD

DEV

2.13

PERFORMANCE

65.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher





The final piece of the analysis is Longitudinal Trends which supports continuous improvement. The term “continuous improvement” means a never-ending effort to improve programs and processes through several incremental improvements rather than one overwhelming innovation.

The term “continuous assessment” means conducting assessment at regular intervals (EBI recommends annual assessment); continuous assessment informs continuous improvement.

Longitudinal trends analysis, an artifact of continuous assessment, is the key to evaluating your institution’s continuous improvement efforts.

Understanding trends is necessary to determine whether the actions conducted resulted in a successful outcome. If your institution’s current performance falls short of expectations, review the actions conducted on the top predictors and make adjustments.

Below is the longitudinal trend for the indicator and top predictors for the most recent iterations of this assessment. If your institution did not participate continuously during these iterations, EBI extrapolated between successive iterations. A designates years where your institution performs statistically higher than the current year; a designates years where your program is statistically lower in performance; and a represents years that are statistically equal to the current year.

LONGITUDINAL TRENDS

OVERALL INDICATOR PERFORMANCE


80%

1 ST PREDICTOR

Factor 6 // Work Environment: Inclusive

Environment

2 ND PREDICTOR

Factor 1 // Relationships with Fellow

Employees: Respect and Trust

70%

Performance

Mean

Performance

Mean

Performance

Mean

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




2012

77.4%

5.65

79.8%

5.79

78.5%

5.71

Lower Equal Higher


FACTOR COMPOSITION


FACTOR PERFORMANCE EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS

Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust, in this section of reports.

You are likely referencing this section to better understand this factor due to: 1) this factor is a high predictor; 2) this factor is performing below a desired level; 3) this factor is of special interest to your institution; or 4) this factor is an indicator. Through this analysis (i.e., current performance, external benchmark comparisons, and longitudinal trends), a thorough picture of the factor should emerge, however additional information can be found in EBI’s Online Reports.

If improving this factor is a goal for your institution, actions should be targeted toward the factor’s scaled questions (see list below) which are more tangible and more directly actionable. Analysis for these scaled questions is provided in this section allowing for sufficient understanding; additional information can be found in EBI’s Online Reports.


Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust // To what degree do you:






Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust // To what degree:


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 1

FACTOR COMPOSITION



There are many pieces of analysis that, when combined, create a comprehensive picture of your institution’s performance for this factor. The first analysis to examine is the current performance of the factor. This information, coupled with understanding of individual population perceptions, external benchmarks, longitudinal trends, individual scaled question performance, and other institutional information or assessment is invaluable to constructing an effective Action Plan for improvement.

Factor Performance // Aggregate

Below is your institution's current performance for Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.

FACTOR PERFORMANCE

Factor 1 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust

N

347

MEAN

5.71

STD

DEV

1.13

PERFORMANCE

78.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

FACTOR QUESTION PERFORMANCE







N

343

339

342

342

341

343

MEAN

6.07

5.98

5.79

5.67

5.50

5.30

STD

DEV

1.09

1.51

PERFORMANCE

84.5%

83.0%

1.15

1.37

79.8%

77.8%

1.47

1.43

75.0%

71.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 2

FACTOR COMPOSITION



Factor Performance // Key Populations

Key categorical questions have been selected and are reported below. Answer options within each categorical question are divided into two groups in order to facilitate a statistical testing of means; a designates the population which is statistically higher than the other population, a

designates the population that is statistically lower and an indicates that the populations have statistically equal factor means. Relative population size (% Total) and Performance values for each group are plotted. To review this factor reported by all categorical questions and for all answer options, please refer to the Online Reporting.

If this factor is included in your Action Plan, consider the behavior of these populations to determine if targeted interventions are needed.

SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

132

212

MEAN

5.81

5.67

STD

DEV

1.00

1.19

PERFORMANCE

80.2%

77.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

275

72

MEAN

5.81

5.34

STD

DEV

1.07

1.29

PERFORMANCE

80.2%

72.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

52

293

MEAN

5.99

5.66

STD

DEV

0.94

1.16

PERFORMANCE

83.2%

77.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

126

218

MEAN

5.92

5.61

STD

DEV

0.92

1.22

PERFORMANCE

82.0%

76.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 3

FACTOR COMPOSITION



In this report, EBI compares your institutional results to your Select 6, Carnegie Class, and all participating institutions for the factor and its scaled questions. A designates where your institution’s mean is statistically higher than the comparative group; a designates where your institution’s mean is statistically lower than the comparative group; and designates where your institution’s mean is statistically equal to the comparative group. A ranking of your institution and the external benchmarking groups is also provided. If your institution’s performance is below that of an external benchmarking group, use this information to motivate staff that higher performance is possible; but if your institutional performance is higher, celebrate!



Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

347

1,771

568

4,382

MEAN

5.71

5.83

5.95

5.77

STD

DEV

1.13

1.08

0.96

1.10

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.70

4.70

4.70

6.03

6.03

6.03

RANK

--

5/7

4/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

78.5%

80.5%

82.5%

79.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%








SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

343

339

342

342

341

343

MEAN

6.07

5.98

STD

DEV

1.09

1.51

PERFORMANCE

84.5%

83.0%

5.79

5.67

5.50

5.30

1.15

1.37

1.47

1.43

79.8%

77.8%

75.0%

71.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 4

FACTOR COMPOSITION


FACTOR PERFORMANCE EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS

The final analysis for the factor is its performance over time. Longitudinal trends support continuous improvement and are the key to evaluating the success of your institution’s action plan for this factor. If your institution’s current performance falls short of expectations, review the actions conducted and make adjustments.

If your institution participated in two or more iterations of this assessment, a longitudinal trend is plotted. If your institution did not participate continuously, EBI extrapolated between successive iterations. A designates years where your institution performs statistically higher than the current year; a designates years where your program is statistically lower in performance; and a represents years that are statistically equal to the current year.

LONGITUDINAL TREND

80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

78.5%

5.71

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 5

FACTOR 1 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Respect and Trust // Q026

Q026 // Relationships with Fellow Employees // To what degree do you: Respect your co-workers

A summary of Q026 is provided. Please visit EBI's Online Reporting to understand how different populations perceive this question.

A comparison of your institution’s results with your external benchmarking groups is shown below. In addition to current performance, EBI reports the range of means across the external benchmarking groups and the rank of your institution within those groups.


N

343

MEAN

6.07

STD

DEV

1.09

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

84.5% Your Institution

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,760

566

4,359

6.16

6.24

6.13

0.99

0.88

1.02

5.53

5.53

5.53

6.31

6.31

6.38

5/7

4/5

9/15

86.0%

87.3%

85.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Scaled questions have seven answer options ranging from “1” (least desired response) to “7” (most desired response). Below is the breakdown of your institution’s results and the results of your external benchmarking groups.

ANSWER FREQUENCY


NOT AT ALL ------------------------------------ MODERATELY ------------------------------------ EXTREMELY

1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 1.5% 1.5% 6.7% 8.2% 41.7% 40.2%

Select 6 0.2% 0.6% 1.2% 4.8% 11.5% 37.7% 44.0%

Carnegie Class 0.1% 0.6% 1.2% 5.2% 9.7% 39.2% 44.1%

All Institutions 0.4% 0.7% 1.1% 5.5% 11.1% 38.1% 43.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%

A longitudinal trend and table for this question is shown below.


90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

84.5%

6.07

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 6


Q027 // Relationships with Fellow Employees // To what degree do you: Like your co-workers




N

342

MEAN

5.79

STD

DEV

1.15

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,758

564

4,355

5.91

6.04

5.85

1.09

0.95

1.10

5.18

5.18

5.18

6.16

6.16

6.16

6/7

4/5

10/15

81.8%

84.0%

80.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.6% 1.8% 1.2% 10.2% 14.6% 44.4% 27.2%

Select 6 0.3% 1.0% 1.8% 7.7% 15.8% 40.6% 32.9%

Carnegie Class 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% 7.9% 13.5% 44.0% 32.1%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

79.8%

5.79

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 7


Q028 // Relationships with Fellow Employees // To what degree do you: Trust your co-workers




N

343

MEAN

5.30

STD

DEV

1.43

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,755

561

4,344

5.52

5.64

5.44

1.39

1.26

1.41

3.82

3.82

3.82

5.79

5.79

5.82

6/7

4/5

11/15

75.3%

77.3%

74.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.0% 3.5% 6.7% 11.1% 22.7% 34.7% 19.2%

Select 6 1.4% 2.9% 4.4% 12.8% 17.5% 34.2% 26.8%

Carnegie Class 1.0% 2.8% 4.4% 12.5% 18.8% 36.1% 24.4%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

71.7%

5.30

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 8


Q029 // Relationships with Fellow Employees // To what degree do you: Feel accepted by your co-workers




N

342

MEAN

5.67

STD

DEV

1.37

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,759

565

4,350

5.71

5.81

5.65

1.31

1.20

1.33

4.53

4.53

4.53

5.94

5.94

5.94

5/7

4/5

8/15

78.5%

80.2%

77.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.5% 3.5% 2.9% 9.4% 14.0% 39.2% 29.5%

Select 6 1.0% 2.2% 3.5% 10.6% 14.5% 37.4% 30.8%

Carnegie Class 0.7% 2.3% 3.5% 9.6% 13.0% 39.9% 31.0%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.8%

5.67

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 9


Q030 // Relationships with Fellow Employees // To what degree do you: Feel valued by your co-workers




N

341

MEAN

5.50

STD

DEV

1.47

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,751

560

4,337

5.57

5.75

5.52

1.43

1.30

1.44

4.71

4.71

4.71

5.80

5.80

5.80

5/7

4/5

8/15

76.2%

79.2%

75.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.1% 4.4% 4.1% 10.6% 14.4% 38.4% 26.1%

Select 6 1.6% 3.0% 4.8% 11.9% 15.1% 33.5% 30.1%

Carnegie Class 1.3% 2.6% 4.0% 11.5% 12.7% 37.4% 30.5%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

75.1%

5.50

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 10


Q062 // To what degree: Do you feel you have been treated unfairly by your fellow workers




N

339

MEAN

5.98

STD

DEV

1.51

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,731

552

4,288

6.12

6.22

6.06

1.36

1.19

1.40

4.41

4.41

4.41

6.36

6.36

6.36

5/7

4/5

10/15

85.3%

87.0%

84.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




EXTREMELY ------------------------------------ MODERATELY ------------------------------------ NOT AT ALL

1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.8% 2.7% 5.6% 6.8% 8.0% 19.2% 56.0%

Select 6 1.1% 2.9% 2.7% 5.8% 8.4% 21.8% 57.3%

Carnegie Class 0.8% 2.2% 3.8% 5.5% 8.9% 21.4% 57.4%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

83.0%

5.98

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 1 // 11


FACTOR COMPOSITION FACTOR PERFORMANCE EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS

Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Relationships with Fellow Employees: Insensitive Remarks, in this section of reports.




Relationships with Fellow Employees: Insensitive Remarks // While at work, how often:





Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Relationships with Fellow Employees: Insensitive Remarks and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 2 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Insensitive Remarks

N

335

MEAN

5.82

STD

DEV

1.33

PERFORMANCE

80.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%






N

328

329

326

333

MEAN

6.21

STD

DEV

1.51

PERFORMANCE

86.8%

5.95

1.62

82.5%

5.90

5.26

1.53

1.74

81.7%

71.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 2







SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

132

201

MEAN

5.92

5.78

STD

DEV

1.27

1.35

PERFORMANCE

82.0%

79.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

265

70

MEAN

5.88

5.61

STD

DEV

1.25

1.58

PERFORMANCE

81.3%

76.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

49

285

MEAN

6.59

5.69

STD

DEV

0.76

1.36

PERFORMANCE

93.2%

78.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

121

212

MEAN

6.03

5.72

STD

DEV

1.19

1.39

PERFORMANCE

83.8%

78.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

335

1,733

557

4,278

MEAN

5.82

5.85

5.93

5.82

STD

DEV

1.33

1.29

1.21

1.28

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.50

4.50

4.50

6.03

6.03

6.08

RANK

--

5/7

4/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

80.3%

80.8%

82.2%

80.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%






SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

328

329

MEAN

6.21

STD

DEV

1.51

PERFORMANCE

86.8%

5.95

1.62

82.5%

326

333

5.90

1.53

81.7%

5.26

1.74

71.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 4


FACTOR COMPOSITION FACTOR PERFORMANCE EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS




90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

80.4%

5.82

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 5

FACTOR 2 // Relationships with Fellow Employees: Insensitive Remarks // Q031

Q031 // While at work, how often: Have co-workers made insensitive or disparaging remarks about you




N

326

MEAN

5.90

STD

DEV

1.53

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,680

537

4,154

5.96

6.08

5.94

1.45

1.31

1.45

4.18

4.18

4.18

6.21

6.21

6.21

5/7

4/5

9/15

82.7%

84.7%

82.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




VERY OFTEN --------------------------------------- SOMETIMES --------------------------------------- NEVER

1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.1% 3.4% 2.8% 12.3% 3.4% 25.5% 50.6%

Select 6 1.4% 2.8% 2.9% 11.9% 5.6% 23.8% 51.7%

Carnegie Class 1.3% 2.7% 2.1% 11.6% 4.9% 25.1% 52.4%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

81.7%

5.90

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 6


Q032 // While at work, how often: Have co-workers made insensitive or disparaging remarks about others in your presence





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

333

1,715

554

4,238

MEAN

5.26

5.25

5.36

5.23

STD

DEV

1.74

1.68

1.63

1.67

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.06

3.06

5.59

5.59

3.06

5.65

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

71.0%

70.8%

72.7%

70.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.9% 6.3% 4.8% 18.6% 10.5% 23.1% 32.7%

3.3% 5.0% 5.5% 21.0% 11.3% 22.7% 31.3%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

3.0%

3.2%

5.3%

5.3%

4.5%

5.6%

20.3%

20.8%

11.3%

11.8%

21.9%

23.1%

33.7%

30.2%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

71.0%

5.26

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 7


Q033 // While at work, how often: Has your manager/supervisor made insensitive or disparaging remarks about you





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

328

1,681

540

4,117

MEAN

6.21

6.27

6.34

6.26

STD

DEV

1.51

1.41

1.34

1.41

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.41

5.41

6.41

6.41

5.41

6.43

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

86.8%

87.8%

89.0%

87.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.7% 2.1% 3.4% 7.0% 1.5% 14.0% 69.2%

2.0% 2.0% 2.7% 6.7% 3.6% 12.9% 70.1%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

2.0%

1.9%

2.4%

2.4%

2.3%

2.5%

6.3%

6.6%

2.5%

3.7%

13.7%

13.7%

70.7%

69.1%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

86.9%

6.21

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 8


Q034 // While at work, how often: Has your manager/supervisor made insensitive or disparaging remarks about others in your presence





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

329

1,692

546

4,156

MEAN

5.95

5.99

5.99

5.94

STD

DEV

1.62

1.55

1.57

1.56

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.35

5.35

6.06

6.06

5.35

6.18

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

82.5%

83.2%

83.2%

82.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.6% 2.1% 3.3% 11.6% 2.4% 19.1% 57.8%

2.5% 3.1% 3.1% 8.7% 6.6% 18.1% 57.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

3.0%

2.5%

3.1%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

9.0%

10.2%

5.7%

6.1%

18.1%

19.0%

57.9%

55.9%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

82.6%

5.95

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 2 // 9


EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS FACTOR COMPOSITION FACTOR PERFORMANCE

Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Management/Supervisor, in this section of reports.




Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to):










Management/Supervisor // To what degree:


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 1


EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS FACTOR COMPOSITION FACTOR PERFORMANCE



Below is your institution's current performance for Management/Supervisor and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.



N

346

MEAN

5.40

STD

DEV

1.58

PERFORMANCE

73.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%












N

338

338

341

341

339

340

336

341

342

339

MEAN

5.77

5.76

5.65

5.45

5.37

5.35

5.28

5.26

5.18

5.12

1.80

1.83

1.87

1.76

1.85

1.84

STD

DEV

1.68

1.79

PERFORMANCE

79.5%

79.3%

1.65

1.83

77.5%

74.2%

72.8%

72.5%

71.3%

71.0%

69.7%

68.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 2


EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS FACTOR COMPOSITION FACTOR PERFORMANCE





SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

132

211

MEAN

5.45

5.39

STD

DEV

1.42

1.67

PERFORMANCE

74.2%

73.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

275

71

MEAN

5.48

5.07

STD

DEV

1.54

1.71

PERFORMANCE

74.7%

67.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

52

292

MEAN

5.61

5.36

STD

DEV

1.33

1.62

PERFORMANCE

76.8%

72.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

125

218

MEAN

5.61

5.32

STD

DEV

1.45

1.61

PERFORMANCE

76.8%

72.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

346

1,766

567

4,370

MEAN

5.40

5.66

5.70

5.57

STD

DEV

1.58

1.38

1.27

1.42

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.12

5.12

5.12

5.79

5.79

5.81

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

73.3%

77.7%

78.3%

76.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%












SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

341

341

339

340

336

341

342

339

N

338

338

MEAN

5.77

5.76

STD

DEV

1.68

1.79

PERFORMANCE

79.5%

79.3%

5.65

5.45

1.65

1.83

77.5%

74.2%

5.37

5.35

5.28

5.26

5.18

5.12

1.76

1.85

1.84

1.80

1.83

1.87

72.8%

72.5%

71.3%

71.0%

69.7%

68.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 4






80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

73.3%

5.40

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 5

FACTOR 3 // Management/Supervisor // Q035

Q035 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Encourage you to offer feedback





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

342

1,758

566

4,347

MEAN

5.18

5.47

5.47

5.41

STD

DEV

1.83

1.68

1.62

1.68

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.06

5.06

5.59

5.59

5.06

5.76

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

69.7%

74.5%

74.5%

73.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

6.7% 5.8% 5.6% 12.6% 12.3% 28.1% 28.9%

3.6% 5.0% 4.7% 12.1% 13.1% 25.1% 36.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

4.4%

3.9%

5.1%

5.2%

4.8%

4.3%

13.1%

13.9%

13.3%

13.1%

26.7%

25.4%

32.6%

34.1%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

69.6%

5.18

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 6


Q036 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Treat you fairly





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

341

1,759

566

4,340

MEAN

5.65

5.91

5.99

5.82

STD

DEV

1.65

1.42

1.25

1.45

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.29

5.29

6.08

6.08

5.29

6.08

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

77.5%

81.8%

83.2%

80.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.5% 3.8% 5.3% 8.8% 10.9% 26.1% 41.6%

1.3% 2.9% 4.2% 7.3% 10.5% 27.6% 46.3%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.5%

1.7%

2.4%

3.0%

4.4%

4.6%

7.9%

8.7%

11.5%

10.7%

28.3%

28.4%

43.9%

42.9%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.4%

5.65

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 7


Q037 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Treat you with respect





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

338

1,752

563

4,339

MEAN

5.77

6.03

6.10

5.93

STD

DEV

1.68

1.39

1.22

1.43

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.71

5.71

6.18

6.18

5.53

6.18

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

79.5%

83.8%

85.0%

82.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

4.4% 2.7% 5.9% 5.3% 9.8% 23.7% 48.2%

1.4% 2.8% 3.1% 6.1% 9.8% 24.7% 52.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

2.0%

1.8%

2.1%

2.9%

3.7%

3.7%

6.2%

7.2%

10.2%

10.1%

25.7%

26.3%

50.1%

48.1%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

79.5%

5.77

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 8


Q038 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Provide you feedback on your job performance





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

339

1,754

561

4,333

MEAN

5.12

5.36

5.34

5.30

STD

DEV

1.87

1.68

1.64

1.69

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.59

4.59

5.55

5.47

4.59

5.58

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

13/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

68.7%

72.7%

72.3%

71.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

6.8% 6.5% 5.6% 14.7% 12.4% 23.6% 30.4%

3.2% 6.0% 5.6% 12.5% 14.1% 26.1% 32.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

4.3%

3.8%

6.2%

5.9%

5.3%

6.0%

13.8%

13.4%

14.3%

14.0%

25.8%

26.7%

30.2%

30.2%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

68.6%

5.12

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 9


Q039 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Encourage you to contribute to the organization





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

341

1,747

564

4,332

MEAN

5.45

5.70

5.71

5.61

STD

DEV

1.83

1.56

1.50

1.61

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.24

5.24

5.82

5.82

5.19

5.89

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

74.2%

78.3%

78.5%

76.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

6.7% 3.5% 4.7% 11.7% 9.7% 23.5% 40.2%

2.4% 3.8% 4.0% 10.1% 11.8% 26.0% 41.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

3.4%

3.4%

3.5%

4.0%

4.4%

4.3%

12.2%

10.4%

10.7%

12.1%

25.0%

26.6%

40.8%

39.2%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

74.2%

5.45

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 10


Q040 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Recognize your contribution to the organization





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

339

1,751

565

4,332

MEAN

5.37

5.49

5.49

5.41

STD

DEV

1.76

1.70

1.61

1.73

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.06

5.06

5.59

5.59

5.06

5.67

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

72.8%

74.8%

74.8%

73.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

5.3% 4.7% 5.0% 11.5% 14.5% 24.5% 34.5%

3.9% 4.7% 4.9% 11.1% 13.2% 24.3% 37.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

3.5%

4.2%

4.2%

5.4%

5.9%

5.4%

12.3%

11.6%

14.5%

13.1%

23.9%

24.8%

35.7%

35.5%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

72.8%

5.37

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 11


Q041 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Communicate clearly what is expected of you





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

341

1,753

562

4,332

MEAN

5.26

5.33

5.34

5.25

STD

DEV

1.80

1.70

1.61

1.72

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.53

4.53

5.46

5.46

4.53

5.46

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

71.0%

72.2%

72.3%

70.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

5.3% 5.6% 7.0% 11.7% 13.2% 24.6% 32.6%

3.6% 6.4% 5.0% 12.8% 13.7% 27.5% 31.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

3.7%

4.1%

5.4%

6.4%

6.0%

6.0%

13.5%

13.0%

14.2%

14.4%

27.0%

26.5%

30.2%

29.5%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

71.0%

5.26

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 12


Q042 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Care about you as a person





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

340

1,744

563

4,315

MEAN

5.35

5.71

5.80

5.58

STD

DEV

1.85

1.59

1.48

1.66

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.35

5.35

5.96

5.96

5.18

5.96

RANK

--

7/7

5/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

72.5%

78.5%

80.0%

76.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

6.8% 3.8% 6.5% 12.6% 8.5% 24.7% 37.1%

3.2% 3.4% 3.4% 10.0% 11.6% 25.2% 43.1%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

3.8%

3.9%

3.0%

4.3%

4.9%

4.5%

11.5%

10.5%

10.1%

11.9%

25.5%

25.8%

41.3%

39.1%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

72.5%

5.35

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 13


Q043 // Management/Supervisor // To what degree does your immediate manager/supervisor (i.e. the person you directly report to): Help you to resolve problems





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

336

1,723

559

4,283

MEAN

5.28

5.56

5.60

5.43

STD

DEV

1.84

1.66

1.57

1.70

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.28

5.28

5.65

5.65

5.14

5.65

RANK

--

7/7

5/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

71.3%

76.0%

76.7%

73.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

5.7% 5.7% 8.3% 10.4% 8.9% 27.4% 33.6%

3.6% 4.6% 4.6% 9.8% 12.5% 27.0% 38.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

3.4%

4.1%

4.5%

5.2%

7.3%

5.2%

10.7%

11.7%

10.8%

12.5%

26.4%

26.5%

37.0%

34.8%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

71.3%

5.28

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 14


Q061 // To what degree: Do you feel you have been treated unfairly by your supervisors




N

338

MEAN

5.76

STD

DEV

1.79

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,737

555

4,305

5.99

6.14

5.95

1.60

1.41

1.60

4.88

4.88

4.88

6.21

6.21

6.30

6/7

4/5

12/15

83.2%

85.7%

82.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

4.4% 4.4% 5.9% 8.0% 5.6% 16.6% 55.0%

Select 6 3.1% 3.7% 3.3% 6.2% 6.4% 19.2% 58.2%

Carnegie Class 2.8% 3.4% 3.7% 6.6% 6.8% 18.8% 57.9%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

79.3%

5.76

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 3 // 15



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups, in this section of reports.




Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups // To what degree are the following present in your work environment:



Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 4 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups and its scaled questions.

While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 4 // Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups

N

343

MEAN

5.78

STD

DEV

1.25

PERFORMANCE

79.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




N

341

339

MEAN

5.88

STD

DEV

1.27

PERFORMANCE

81.3%

5.68

1.35

78.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 4 // 2







SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

210

130

MEAN

5.81

5.80

STD

DEV

1.24

1.21

PERFORMANCE

80.2%

80.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

272

71

MEAN

5.93

5.22

STD

DEV

1.11

1.56

PERFORMANCE

82.2%

70.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

50

291

MEAN

6.19

5.72

STD

DEV

0.86

1.29

PERFORMANCE

86.5%

78.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

124

216

MEAN

5.87

5.76

STD

DEV

1.16

1.27

PERFORMANCE

81.2%

79.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 4 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

343

1,748

557

4,323

MEAN

5.78

5.98

6.00

5.89

STD

DEV

1.25

1.15

1.10

1.17

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.94

3.94

3.94

6.18

6.18

6.18

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

79.7%

83.0%

83.3%

81.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

341

339

MEAN

5.88

STD

DEV

1.27

PERFORMANCE

81.3%

5.68

1.35

78.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 4 // 4






80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

79.7%

5.78

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 4 // 5

FACTOR 4 // Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups // Q050

Q050 // Relationships // To what degree are the following present in your work environment: Respect by employees for other employees of different racial / ethnic backgrounds





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

341

1,742

556

4,313

MEAN

5.88

6.09

6.10

6.01

STD

DEV

1.27

1.16

1.12

1.18

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.75

3.75

6.27

6.27

3.75

6.27

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

81.3%

84.8%

85.0%

83.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.6% 2.3% 2.6% 9.4% 10.6% 36.7% 37.8%

0.7% 1.3% 1.4% 7.2% 9.3% 34.2% 46.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.3%

0.6%

1.8%

1.4%

1.9%

1.8%

8.4%

8.4%

9.5%

10.9%

35.6%

35.3%

42.6%

41.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

81.4%

5.88

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 4 // 6

FACTOR 4 // Relationships: Respect and Friendship Among Racial/Ethnic Groups // Q051

Q051 // Relationships // To what degree are the following present in your work environment: Friendships between employees of different racial / ethnic backgrounds





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

339

1,725

552

4,254

MEAN

5.68

5.88

5.89

5.77

STD

DEV

1.35

1.30

1.23

1.33

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.12

4.12

6.08

6.08

4.12

6.08

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

78.0%

81.3%

81.5%

79.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 3.2% 5.0% 10.9% 12.7% 36.3% 31.6%

1.2% 1.4% 3.1% 8.8% 13.1% 32.7% 39.7%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.3%

1.1%

2.4%

2.1%

3.5%

3.2%

10.1%

10.8%

13.8%

13.8%

33.4%

33.5%

36.5%

35.6%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.9%

5.68

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 4 // 7




Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups, in this section of reports.




Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups // To what degree is the following present in your work environment:



Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 5 // 1

FACTOR COMPOSITION





Below is your institution's current performance for Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 5 // Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups

N

342

MEAN

5.91

STD

DEV

1.40

PERFORMANCE

81.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




N

339

340

MEAN

6.05

5.79

STD

DEV

1.42

1.51

PERFORMANCE

84.2%

79.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 5 // 2

FACTOR COMPOSITION







SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

130

209

MEAN

5.96

5.93

STD

DEV

1.20

1.48

PERFORMANCE

82.7%

82.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

272

70

MEAN

6.07

5.31

STD

DEV

1.21

1.87

PERFORMANCE

84.5%

71.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

50

290

MEAN

6.44

5.84

STD

DEV

0.88

1.44

PERFORMANCE

90.7%

80.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

124

215

MEAN

6.07

5.86

STD

DEV

1.28

1.42

PERFORMANCE

84.5%

81.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 5 // 3

FACTOR COMPOSITION






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

342

1,751

559

4,319

MEAN

5.91

6.27

6.18

6.12

STD

DEV

1.40

1.20

1.21

1.31

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.94

3.94

3.94

6.36

6.34

6.36

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

81.8%

87.8%

86.3%

85.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

339

340

MEAN

6.05

5.79

STD

DEV

1.42

1.51

PERFORMANCE

84.2%

79.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 5 // 4

FACTOR COMPOSITION






90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

81.9%

5.91

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 5 // 5

FACTOR 5 // Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups // Q052

Q052 // To what degree is the following present in your work environment: Racial / ethnic separation




N

340

MEAN

5.79

STD

DEV

1.51

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,746

559

4,302

6.18

6.05

6.02

1.35

1.41

1.44

3.65

3.65

3.65

6.28

6.28

6.29

6/7

4/5

12/15

86.3%

84.2%

83.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 12.9% 11.2% 22.4% 45.9%

Select 6 1.0% 2.7% 2.6% 6.8% 6.4% 19.1% 61.5%

Carnegie Class 1.6% 2.9% 2.6% 10.5% 9.3% 20.7% 52.5%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

79.8%

5.79

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 5 // 6

FACTOR 5 // Relationships: Tolerance Among Racial/Ethnic Groups // Q053

Q053 // To what degree is the following present in your work environment: Interracial tensions




N

339

MEAN

6.05

STD

DEV

1.42

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,729

552

4,276

6.38

6.30

6.22

1.15

1.16

1.29

4.24

4.24

4.24

6.45

6.39

6.45

6/7

4/5

11/15

89.7%

88.3%

87.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.8% 2.7% 2.4% 8.0% 7.1% 23.3% 54.9%

Select 6 0.5% 1.7% 2.0% 4.1% 5.1% 20.0% 66.5%

Carnegie Class 0.8% 2.1% 2.2% 6.4% 6.6% 22.7% 59.1%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

84.2%

6.05

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 5 // 7


FACTOR PERFORMANCE EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS FACTOR COMPOSITION

Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Work Environment: Inclusive Environment, in this section of reports.




Work Environment: Inclusive Environment // To what degree:






Work Environment: Inclusive Environment // To what degree:


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 1


FACTOR PERFORMANCE EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS FACTOR COMPOSITION



Below is your institution's current performance for Work Environment: Inclusive Environment and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.



N

344

MEAN

5.79

STD

DEV

1.22

PERFORMANCE

79.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%








N

330

343

343

335

334

339

MEAN

6.11

5.98

5.73

5.67

5.67

5.54

STD

DEV

1.54

1.28

PERFORMANCE

85.2%

83.0%

1.52

1.57

78.8%

77.8%

1.39

1.55

77.8%

75.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 2







SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

130

211

MEAN

5.81

5.80

STD

DEV

1.13

1.26

PERFORMANCE

80.2%

80.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

272

72

MEAN

5.93

5.23

STD

DEV

1.09

1.50

PERFORMANCE

82.2%

70.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

52

290

MEAN

6.14

5.73

STD

DEV

1.00

1.24

PERFORMANCE

85.7%

78.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

126

215

MEAN

5.86

5.78

STD

DEV

1.18

1.22

PERFORMANCE

81.0%

79.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

344

1,760

562

4,350

MEAN

5.79

5.90

5.94

5.85

STD

DEV

1.22

1.13

1.04

1.13

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.35

4.35

4.35

6.03

6.03

6.03

RANK

--

5/7

4/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

79.8%

81.7%

82.3%

80.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%








SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

330

343

343

335

334

MEAN

6.11

STD

DEV

1.54

PERFORMANCE

85.2%

5.98

5.73

1.28

1.52

83.0%

78.8%

5.67

1.57

77.8%

5.67

1.39

77.8%

339 5.54

1.55

75.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 4






80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

79.8%

5.79

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 5

FACTOR 6 // Work Environment: Inclusive Environment // Q054

Q054 // Work Environment // To what degree: Do you feel welcome in your workplace




N

343

MEAN

5.98

STD

DEV

1.28

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,752

557

4,333

6.09

6.24

6.02

1.23

0.99

1.26

4.76

4.76

4.76

6.33

6.33

6.33

5/7

4/5

8/15

84.8%

87.3%

83.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 1.7% 1.7% 11.7% 7.3% 31.8% 44.9%

Select 6 1.0% 1.3% 2.4% 6.7% 9.1% 30.5% 48.9%

Carnegie Class 0.3% 0.8% 2.0% 7.9% 7.8% 32.9% 48.3%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

82.9%

5.98

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 6


Q055 // Work Environment // To what degree: Is appropriate and inclusive language used in your workplace




N

343

MEAN

5.73

STD

DEV

1.52

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,740

557

4,303

5.84

5.85

5.81

1.44

1.41

1.40

4.41

4.41

4.41

6.02

6.02

6.02

5/7

4/5

10/15

80.7%

80.8%

80.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.5% 2.3% 2.3% 11.1% 9.3% 33.5% 37.9%

Select 6 2.9% 2.0% 2.6% 7.7% 10.7% 33.4% 40.6%

Carnegie Class 2.9% 2.1% 2.8% 8.8% 9.4% 35.4% 38.6%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

78.8%

5.73

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 7


Q056 // Work Environment // To what degree: Do supervisors model multicultural sensitivity




N

335

MEAN

5.67

STD

DEV

1.57

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,733

555

4,289

5.90

5.88

5.85

1.41

1.34

1.40

4.06

4.06

4.06

5.99

5.99

6.03

6/7

4/5

12/15

81.7%

81.3%

80.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.3% 2.7% 3.9% 11.9% 10.4% 27.5% 40.3%

Select 6 1.7% 2.4% 3.6% 8.1% 9.4% 30.4% 44.4%

Carnegie Class 1.5% 2.8% 4.2% 10.0% 10.2% 30.1% 41.2%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.9%

5.67

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 8


Q057 // Work Environment // To what degree: Do fellow employees model multicultural sensitivity




N

334

MEAN

5.67

STD

DEV

1.39

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,731

554

4,282

5.82

5.82

5.75

1.32

1.29

1.33

3.71

3.71

3.71

5.95

5.95

5.95

6/7

4/5

11/15

80.3%

80.3%

79.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.8% 1.5% 4.2% 12.3% 14.1% 32.9% 33.2%

Select 6 1.0% 2.1% 3.3% 9.6% 13.2% 33.0% 37.8%

Carnegie Class 0.7% 2.6% 3.8% 10.1% 13.2% 34.2% 35.4%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.8%

5.67

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 9


Q058 // Work Environment // To what degree: Are different views and perspectives encouraged in your workplace





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

339

1,728

551

4,285

MEAN

5.54

5.64

5.68

5.56

STD

DEV

1.55

1.51

1.42

1.54

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.24

4.24

5.81

5.81

4.24

5.81

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

75.7%

77.3%

78.0%

76.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.7% 3.5% 5.0% 11.8% 13.0% 31.0% 33.0%

2.4% 2.6% 4.7% 11.3% 13.0% 29.5% 36.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.7%

2.4%

3.5%

3.6%

4.6%

4.9%

10.7%

12.2%

14.4%

13.1%

30.9%

29.9%

34.3%

34.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

75.7%

5.54

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 10


Q060 // To what degree: Do you feel isolated or left out when group work is required in your workplace




N

330

MEAN

6.11

STD

DEV

1.54

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,738

555

4,304

6.15

6.21

6.12

1.41

1.32

1.41

4.94

4.94

4.94

6.27

6.27

6.27

5/7

4/5

9/15

85.8%

86.8%

85.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.0% 3.3% 2.4% 4.8% 6.1% 17.9% 62.4%

Select 6 1.8% 2.6% 2.4% 6.7% 5.6% 20.3% 60.6%

Carnegie Class 1.9% 2.7% 2.0% 5.8% 6.1% 20.1% 61.4%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

85.2%

6.11

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 6 // 11



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Work Environment: Value of Contributions, in this section of reports.




Work Environment: Value of Contributions // To what degree do you believe your contributions to your organization are devalued due to your:


Q064 // Gender





Q069 // Age


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Work Environment: Value of Contributions and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.



N

342

MEAN

6.48

STD

DEV

1.03

PERFORMANCE

91.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%







Q064 // Gender

Q069 // Age


N

329

332

334

332

331

341

341

0

MEAN

6.77

6.69

6.69

6.62

6.57

6.28

6.09

NR

1.10

1.43

1.58

NR

STD

DEV

0.88

0.99

PERFORMANCE

96.2%

94.8%

1.02

1.08

94.8%

93.7%

92.8%

88.0%

84.8%

NR NR

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 2







SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

129

210

MEAN

6.66

6.40

STD

DEV

0.76

1.13

PERFORMANCE

94.3%

90.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

270

72

MEAN

6.56

6.18

STD

DEV

0.91

1.35

PERFORMANCE

92.7%

86.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

52

288

MEAN

6.77

6.44

STD

DEV

0.55

1.07

PERFORMANCE

96.2%

90.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

126

213

MEAN

6.57

6.44

STD

DEV

0.99

1.03

PERFORMANCE

92.8%

90.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

342

1,749

558

4,310

MEAN

6.48

6.58

6.59

6.54

STD

DEV

1.03

0.75

0.71

0.79

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.78

5.78

5.78

6.66

6.66

6.68

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

91.3%

93.0%

93.2%

92.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%







Q064 // Gender

Q069 // Age


SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

NR NR NR

N

329

332

334

332

331

341

341

0

MEAN

6.77

6.69

6.69

6.62

6.57

6.28

6.09

NR

1.10

1.43

1.58

NR

STD

DEV

0.88

0.99

PERFORMANCE

96.2%

94.8%

1.02

1.08

94.8%

93.7%

92.8%

88.0%

84.8%

NR NR

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 4






100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

91.3%

6.48

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 5

FACTOR 7 // Work Environment: Value of Contributions // Q063

Q063 // To what degree do you believe your contributions to your organization are devalued due to your: Race

/ ethnicity





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

0

1,741

556

4,291

MEAN

NR

6.70

6.69

6.59

STD

DEV

NR

0.95

0.92

1.09

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

NR NR

4.76

4.76

6.87

6.87

4.76

6.87

RANK

NR

0/6

0/4

0/14

STAT SIG

--

--

--

--

PERFORMANCE

--

95.0%

94.8%

93.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

NR NR NR NR NR NR NR

0.7% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 7.4% 86.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.5%

1.0%

0.9%

1.2%

1.1%

1.2%

1.8%

3.2%

3.1%

3.0%

7.0%

8.9%

85.6%

81.5%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



Performance

Mean

2012

--

--

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 6


Q064 // To what degree do you believe your contributions to your organization are devalued due to your:

Gender





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

341

1,743

557

4,290

MEAN

6.28

6.31

6.34

6.28

STD

DEV

1.43

1.35

1.24

1.34

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.76

4.76

6.46

6.46

4.76

6.62

RANK

--

5/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

88.0%

88.5%

89.0%

88.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.1% 1.8% 3.8% 5.9% 3.8% 10.3% 72.4%

1.4% 2.1% 2.6% 5.6% 6.1% 10.7% 71.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.2%

1.3%

1.4%

2.0%

3.2%

2.6%

5.9%

6.5%

5.9%

6.1%

11.2%

12.0%

71.0%

69.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

88.0%

6.28

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 7



Religious identification





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

332

1,736

558

4,272

MEAN

6.69

6.67

6.68

6.65

STD

DEV

0.99

0.94

0.86

0.96

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.24

6.24

6.73

6.73

6.24

6.80

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

94.8%

94.5%

94.7%

94.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 0.9% 1.2% 2.7% 0.3% 7.2% 86.7%

0.5% 0.7% 1.6% 2.2% 2.6% 8.5% 83.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.4%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

1.3%

1.1%

2.4%

3.0%

2.1%

2.5%

8.4%

9.0%

84.6%

83.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

94.9%

6.69

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 8



Sexual orientation





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

334

1,735

554

4,270

MEAN

6.69

6.78

6.75

6.75

STD

DEV

1.02

0.75

0.78

0.80

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.18

6.18

6.86

6.86

6.18

6.87

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

94.8%

96.3%

95.8%

95.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 2.7% 0.9% 5.7% 87.7%

0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 1.7% 2.0% 6.8% 88.3%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.6%

0.4%

0.8%

0.6%

0.6%

0.5%

2.4%

2.3%

1.8%

2.1%

6.8%

7.5%

87.2%

86.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

94.9%

6.69

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 9



Political / social ideology





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

332

1,737

553

4,272

MEAN

6.62

6.56

6.60

6.54

STD

DEV

1.08

1.06

0.99

1.08

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.00

6.00

6.63

6.63

6.00

6.74

RANK

--

3/7

3/5

5/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

93.7%

92.7%

93.3%

92.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 0.9% 1.5% 2.7% 1.8% 8.4% 83.4%

0.7% 1.3% 1.4% 2.9% 4.0% 10.7% 79.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.6%

0.8%

1.2%

1.1%

1.5%

1.3%

2.5%

3.8%

3.2%

3.8%

9.9%

10.8%

81.1%

78.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

93.7%

6.62

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 10



Disability / Ability





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

329

1,730

554

4,254

MEAN

6.77

6.75

6.79

6.72

STD

DEV

0.88

0.84

0.70

0.85

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.47

6.47

6.84

6.84

6.39

6.84

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

5/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

96.2%

95.8%

96.5%

95.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 0.3% 1.2% 1.8% 0.3% 5.5% 90.0%

0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 2.3% 1.7% 7.2% 87.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.6%

0.5%

0.2%

0.5%

0.7%

0.6%

1.7%

2.5%

1.5%

2.0%

6.7%

8.1%

88.7%

85.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

96.1%

6.77

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 11


Q069 // To what degree do you believe your contributions to your organization are devalued due to your: Age




N

341

MEAN

6.09

STD

DEV

1.58

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,738

553

4,271

6.32

6.32

6.26

1.29

1.24

1.32

5.59

5.59

5.59

6.40

6.40

6.44

6/7

4/5

12/15

88.7%

88.7%

87.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.1% 3.8% 4.4% 6.7% 4.7% 12.0% 66.3%

Select 6 0.9% 2.1% 2.4% 5.5% 6.9% 12.1% 70.1%

Carnegie Class 1.0% 2.5% 3.5% 6.5% 6.7% 11.4% 68.5%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

84.9%

6.09

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 12



Financial standing





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

331

1,719

553

4,241

MEAN

6.57

6.61

6.58

6.61

STD

DEV

1.10

1.00

1.01

0.98

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.24

6.24

6.68

6.68

6.24

6.70

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

92.8%

93.5%

93.0%

93.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 0.6% 2.1% 4.2% 3.0% 7.6% 81.6%

0.6% 0.8% 1.2% 3.8% 3.2% 8.8% 81.6%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.6%

0.5%

0.6%

0.8%

1.8%

1.1%

4.5%

3.5%

3.5%

3.6%

8.1%

10.0%

80.9%

80.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

92.8%

6.57

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 7 // 13



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Work Environment: Represent Others, in this section of reports.




Work Environment: Represent Others // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your:


Q072 // Gender





Q077 // Age


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Work Environment: Represent Others and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.



N

336

MEAN

6.59

STD

DEV

0.91

PERFORMANCE

93.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%







Q077 // Age

Q072 // Gender


N

331

329

332

332

330

328

335

335

MEAN

6.70

6.69

6.68

6.67

6.65

6.51

6.48

6.47

1.06

1.21

1.20

1.30

STD

DEV

0.95

1.05

PERFORMANCE

95.0%

94.8%

0.96

0.97

94.7%

94.5%

94.2%

91.8%

91.3%

91.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 2







SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

126

208

MEAN

6.63

6.55

STD

DEV

0.84

0.96

PERFORMANCE

93.8%

92.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

265

71

MEAN

6.67

6.28

STD

DEV

0.84

1.10

PERFORMANCE

94.5%

88.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

50

285

MEAN

6.68

6.57

STD

DEV

0.76

0.94

PERFORMANCE

94.7%

92.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

124

210

MEAN

6.61

6.57

STD

DEV

0.89

0.93

PERFORMANCE

93.5%

92.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

336

1,716

551

4,238

MEAN

6.59

6.67

6.69

6.64

STD

DEV

0.91

0.79

0.72

0.80

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.19

6.19

6.19

6.75

6.75

6.83

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

93.2%

94.5%

94.8%

94.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%







Q077 // Age

Q072 // Gender


SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

331

329

332

332

330

328

335

335

MEAN

6.70

6.69

6.68

6.67

6.65

6.51

6.48

6.47

1.06

1.21

1.20

1.30

STD

DEV

0.95

1.05

PERFORMANCE

95.0%

94.8%

0.96

0.97

94.7%

94.5%

94.2%

91.8%

91.3%

91.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 4






100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

93.1%

6.59

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 5

FACTOR 8 // Work Environment: Represent Others // Q071

Q071 // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your: Race / ethnicity





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

335

1,716

551

4,235

MEAN

6.47

6.63

6.63

6.56

STD

DEV

1.30

1.06

1.07

1.16

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.00

5.00

6.75

6.75

5.00

6.80

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

91.2%

93.8%

93.8%

92.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 2.1% 3.3% 4.2% 1.2% 6.9% 81.2%

1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 3.9% 1.7% 6.2% 85.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.1%

1.2%

1.6%

1.4%

2.0%

1.4%

3.2%

4.2%

1.6%

2.5%

7.2%

7.0%

83.3%

82.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

91.2%

6.47

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 6


Q072 // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your: Gender





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

335

1,709

551

4,216

MEAN

6.48

6.50

6.57

6.48

STD

DEV

1.20

1.22

1.11

1.19

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.29

5.29

6.68

6.68

5.29

6.76

RANK

--

4/7

4/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

91.3%

91.7%

92.8%

91.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 1.8% 3.3% 4.5% 3.6% 7.2% 79.4%

1.0% 1.8% 1.8% 5.1% 2.9% 7.3% 80.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.7%

0.8%

1.5%

1.6%

2.0%

1.7%

4.3%

5.6%

2.9%

3.5%

8.0%

8.3%

80.6%

78.5%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

91.4%

6.48

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 7


Q073 // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your: Religious identification





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

330

1,705

547

4,215

MEAN

6.65

6.69

6.67

6.68

STD

DEV

1.06

0.92

0.92

0.94

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.52

6.52

6.78

6.78

6.40

6.84

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

94.2%

94.8%

94.5%

94.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 0.9% 1.8% 3.3% 0.9% 6.1% 86.1%

0.4% 0.8% 0.9% 3.8% 1.9% 5.9% 86.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.5%

0.6%

0.9%

0.8%

1.4%

0.8%

3.3%

3.5%

2.3%

2.3%

6.5%

6.6%

85.2%

85.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

94.1%

6.65

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 8


Q074 // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your: Sexual orientation





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

332

1,711

550

4,210

MEAN

6.68

6.73

6.76

6.72

STD

DEV

0.96

0.89

0.82

0.90

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.18

6.18

6.84

6.84

6.18

6.84

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

94.7%

95.5%

96.0%

95.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 0.3% 2.4% 3.9% 1.2% 4.5% 87.3%

0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 3.2% 1.4% 5.0% 88.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.3%

0.6%

0.5%

0.6%

1.5%

0.9%

2.8%

3.0%

1.6%

1.7%

5.2%

5.6%

88.1%

87.6%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

94.7%

6.68

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 9


Q075 // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your: Political / social ideology





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

332

1,700

543

4,200

MEAN

6.67

6.68

6.72

6.69

STD

DEV

0.97

0.94

0.87

0.91

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.59

6.59

6.82

6.82

6.44

6.83

RANK

--

5/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

94.5%

94.7%

95.3%

94.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 0.6% 2.1% 3.9% 1.2% 5.7% 86.1%

0.3% 1.0% 1.0% 3.9% 1.5% 6.3% 86.1%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.1%

0.4%

0.9%

0.7%

1.3%

1.0%

3.7%

3.4%

1.5%

2.1%

5.8%

6.9%

86.7%

85.5%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

94.5%

6.67

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 10


Q076 // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your: Disability / Ability





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

329

1,703

547

4,201

MEAN

6.69

6.75

6.76

6.72

STD

DEV

1.05

0.87

0.81

0.90

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.69

6.69

6.80

6.78

6.49

6.89

RANK

--

7/7

5/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

94.8%

95.8%

96.0%

95.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 0.6% 1.8% 3.0% 0.3% 4.0% 89.1%

0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 3.1% 1.4% 4.6% 89.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.5%

0.6%

1.0%

0.7%

1.0%

0.8%

2.3%

2.7%

1.6%

1.8%

4.5%

5.7%

89.2%

87.6%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

94.8%

6.69

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 11


Q077 // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your: Age





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

328

1,699

547

4,192

MEAN

6.51

6.65

6.69

6.61

STD

DEV

1.21

0.97

0.92

1.01

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.29

6.29

6.75

6.75

6.29

6.83

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

91.8%

94.2%

94.8%

93.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.6% 2.1% 2.4% 4.3% 3.0% 5.8% 81.7%

0.4% 0.9% 0.9% 3.8% 2.7% 7.4% 83.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.5%

0.5%

1.4%

1.0%

1.5%

1.2%

3.4%

4.1%

2.9%

3.3%

6.3%

7.9%

84.1%

82.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

91.9%

6.51

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 12


Q078 // To what degree have you been expected to speak within your organization on the behalf of other people of your: Financial standing





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

331

1,686

542

4,175

MEAN

6.70

6.75

6.76

6.74

STD

DEV

0.95

0.85

0.81

0.85

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.70

6.70

6.78

6.78

6.47

6.88

RANK

--

7/7

5/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

95.0%

95.8%

96.0%

95.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.6% 0.6% 1.5% 3.0% 1.5% 4.8% 87.9%

0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 3.1% 1.7% 4.9% 88.7%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.6%

1.0%

0.7%

2.7%

2.7%

1.8%

1.9%

5.2%

6.0%

88.3%

87.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

95.1%

6.70

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 8 // 13



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff, in this section of reports.




Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your:


Q080 // Gender





Q085 // Age


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.



N

336

MEAN

6.28

STD

DEV

1.27

PERFORMANCE

88.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%








Q080 // Gender

Q085 // Age

N

331

331

326

329

329

335

336

333

MEAN

6.43

6.42

6.41

6.34

6.33

6.27

6.15

6.05

1.38

1.42

1.51

1.54

STD

DEV

1.21

1.29

PERFORMANCE

90.5%

90.3%

1.33

1.34

90.2%

89.0%

88.8%

87.8%

85.8%

84.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 2







SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

206

127

MEAN

6.36

6.22

STD

DEV

1.09

1.45

PERFORMANCE

89.3%

87.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

266

70

MEAN

6.42

5.76

STD

DEV

1.11

1.63

PERFORMANCE

90.3%

79.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

50

284

MEAN

6.58

6.24

STD

DEV

0.89

1.31

PERFORMANCE

93.0%

87.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

123

210

MEAN

6.49

6.19

STD

DEV

1.01

1.36

PERFORMANCE

91.5%

86.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

336

1,724

552

4,246

MEAN

6.28

6.45

6.41

6.35

STD

DEV

1.27

0.95

0.94

1.05

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.65

5.65

5.62

6.50

6.50

6.50

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

88.0%

90.8%

90.2%

89.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%








Q080 // Gender

Q085 // Age

SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

331

331

326

329

329

335

336

333

MEAN

6.43

6.42

6.41

6.34

6.33

6.27

6.15

6.05

1.38

1.42

1.51

1.54

STD

DEV

1.21

1.29

PERFORMANCE

90.5%

90.3%

1.33

1.34

90.2%

89.0%

88.8%

87.8%

85.8%

84.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 4






90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

88.0%

6.28

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 5

FACTOR 9 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // Q079

Q079 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your: Race / ethnicity





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

335

1,718

552

4,230

MEAN

6.27

6.50

6.45

6.36

STD

DEV

1.42

1.05

1.04

1.19

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.94

4.94

6.61

6.61

4.94

6.61

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

87.8%

91.7%

90.8%

89.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.7% 1.5% 3.0% 5.1% 2.7% 17.3% 67.8%

0.8% 0.9% 1.2% 4.1% 3.1% 17.4% 72.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.2%

1.2%

1.1%

1.3%

2.0%

1.4%

5.1%

5.8%

2.8%

4.3%

20.0%

18.9%

67.8%

67.1%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

87.8%

6.27

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 6


Q080 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your: Gender





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

336

1,720

551

4,222

MEAN

6.15

6.27

6.24

6.17

STD

DEV

1.51

1.25

1.19

1.31

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.59

4.59

6.36

6.36

4.59

6.45

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

85.8%

87.8%

87.3%

86.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.3% 1.5% 3.3% 6.5% 3.6% 17.6% 64.3%

1.1% 1.1% 2.3% 6.9% 6.2% 18.5% 63.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.5%

1.4%

1.2%

1.5%

2.8%

2.2%

7.4%

8.1%

4.8%

7.1%

21.0%

19.8%

61.2%

59.9%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

85.9%

6.15

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 7


Q081 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your: Religious identification





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

329

1,708

546

4,196

MEAN

6.34

6.51

6.48

6.43

STD

DEV

1.34

1.04

1.03

1.14

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.18

6.18

6.54

6.54

5.69

6.54

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

89.0%

91.8%

91.3%

90.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.4% 1.2% 1.5% 6.4% 2.1% 15.5% 70.8%

0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 4.2% 3.6% 16.7% 73.1%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.5%

1.4%

0.9%

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

5.3%

5.5%

2.7%

3.8%

19.0%

17.8%

69.8%

69.9%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

89.1%

6.34

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 8


Q082 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your: Sexual orientation





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

331

1,700

543

4,190

MEAN

6.42

6.59

6.52

6.50

STD

DEV

1.29

0.97

1.04

1.06

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.00

6.00

6.66

6.66

5.74

6.66

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

90.3%

93.2%

92.0%

91.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.7% 0.6% 1.5% 4.2% 2.7% 14.5% 73.7%

1.0% 0.4% 0.6% 3.5% 2.6% 15.5% 76.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.7%

1.3%

0.8%

0.5%

0.7%

0.7%

4.2%

4.8%

2.4%

3.4%

17.3%

16.8%

72.9%

72.6%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

90.3%

6.42

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 9


Q083 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your: Political / social ideology





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

331

1,705

548

4,202

MEAN

6.43

6.46

6.45

6.38

STD

DEV

1.21

1.12

1.08

1.19

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.88

5.88

6.54

6.54

5.69

6.54

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

90.5%

91.0%

90.8%

89.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.1% 0.6% 1.2% 4.2% 3.6% 16.9% 71.3%

1.1% 0.8% 1.5% 4.6% 3.6% 17.3% 71.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.4%

1.5%

0.7%

0.9%

1.3%

1.2%

4.4%

5.6%

3.5%

4.3%

18.8%

18.1%

70.0%

68.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

90.4%

6.43

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 10


Q084 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your: Disability / Ability





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

326

1,704

548

4,194

MEAN

6.41

6.57

6.53

6.46

STD

DEV

1.33

0.99

1.00

1.12

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.06

6.06

6.61

6.61

5.68

6.61

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

12/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

90.2%

92.8%

92.2%

91.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.1% 0.6% 1.8% 3.7% 2.1% 15.0% 73.6%

0.9% 0.4% 1.1% 3.6% 2.5% 15.8% 75.7%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.7%

1.5%

0.6%

0.7%

1.3%

0.9%

3.7%

5.0%

2.3%

3.4%

17.8%

16.9%

72.7%

71.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

90.1%

6.41

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 11


Q085 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your: Age





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

333

1,703

546

4,192

MEAN

6.05

6.32

6.28

6.22

STD

DEV

1.54

1.22

1.18

1.30

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.65

5.65

6.37

6.33

5.59

6.37

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

13/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

84.2%

88.7%

88.0%

87.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.7% 2.1% 4.2% 8.4% 4.8% 17.1% 60.7%

1.1% 1.2% 1.8% 6.1% 5.9% 17.7% 66.1%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

2.6%

2.1%

7.3%

7.3%

6.5%

6.6%

19.2%

19.7%

61.4%

61.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

84.1%

6.05

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 12


Q086 // Equal Treatment of Diverse Faculty/Staff // To what degree are you being treated equally within your organization regardless of your: Financial standing





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

329

1,690

541

4,180

MEAN

6.33

6.46

6.42

6.37

STD

DEV

1.38

1.10

1.09

1.19

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.94

5.94

6.54

6.53

5.65

6.54

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

88.8%

91.0%

90.3%

89.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.7% 1.5% 1.8% 4.9% 2.7% 15.8% 70.5%

1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 4.3% 4.6% 16.9% 71.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.5%

1.6%

1.4%

0.9%

1.3%

1.1%

4.5%

5.6%

4.1%

5.1%

19.1%

17.5%

68.2%

68.1%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

88.8%

6.33

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 9 // 13




Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Supervisors, in this section of reports.




Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Supervisors // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing:


Q088 // Genders





Q093 // Age


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 1

FACTOR COMPOSITION





Below is your institution's current performance for Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Supervisors and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 10 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Supervisors

N

341

MEAN

6.55

STD

DEV

0.99

PERFORMANCE

92.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%







Q093 // Age


Q088 // Genders

N

336

336

335

337

336

337

338

339

MEAN

6.72

6.64

6.62

6.61

6.56

6.51

6.50

6.43

1.06

1.18

1.16

1.20

STD

DEV

0.90

0.99

PERFORMANCE

95.3%

94.0%

1.07

1.06

93.7%

93.5%

92.7%

91.8%

91.7%

90.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 2

FACTOR COMPOSITION







SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

208

130

MEAN

6.58

6.52

STD

DEV

0.96

1.02

PERFORMANCE

93.0%

92.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

271

70

MEAN

6.60

6.33

STD

DEV

0.92

1.19

PERFORMANCE

93.3%

88.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

51

288

MEAN

6.78

6.51

STD

DEV

0.65

1.02

PERFORMANCE

96.3%

91.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

125

213

MEAN

6.63

6.53

STD

DEV

0.94

0.98

PERFORMANCE

93.8%

92.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 3

FACTOR COMPOSITION






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

341

1,741

557

4,282

MEAN

6.55

6.61

6.61

6.58

STD

DEV

0.99

0.79

0.75

0.82

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.95

5.95

5.95

6.66

6.66

6.76

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

92.5%

93.5%

93.5%

93.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%







Q093 // Age


Q088 // Genders

SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

336

336

335

337

336

337

338

339

MEAN

6.72

6.64

6.62

6.61

6.56

6.51

6.50

6.43

1.06

1.18

1.16

1.20

STD

DEV

0.90

0.99

PERFORMANCE

95.3%

94.0%

1.07

1.06

93.7%

93.5%

92.7%

91.8%

91.7%

90.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 4

FACTOR COMPOSITION






100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

92.4%

6.55

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 5

FACTOR 10 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Supervisors // Q087

Q087 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Races / ethnicities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

338

1,737

556

4,272

MEAN

6.50

6.59

6.60

6.54

STD

DEV

1.16

0.96

0.89

1.01

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.41

5.41

6.73

6.73

5.41

6.78

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

91.7%

93.2%

93.3%

92.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




ALWAYS ----------------------------------------- SOMETIMES ----------------------------------------- NEVER

1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 1.5% 1.8% 3.8% 4.1% 10.1% 77.8%

0.2% 0.5% 1.5% 5.0% 2.4% 11.7% 78.6%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.3%

0.3%

0.9%

0.8%

1.3%

1.4%

4.1%

5.2%

3.4%

3.3%

12.4%

12.9%

77.5%

76.1%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

91.7%

6.50

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 6


Q088 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Genders





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

339

1,734

556

4,269

MEAN

6.43

6.51

6.53

6.49

STD

DEV

1.20

1.06

1.03

1.06

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.12

5.12

6.65

6.65

5.12

6.73

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

90.5%

91.8%

92.2%

91.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 0.9% 2.4% 6.2% 4.4% 10.6% 74.6%

0.4% 1.0% 1.7% 4.6% 3.7% 13.2% 75.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.6%

0.4%

1.1%

0.9%

1.7%

1.8%

4.8%

5.3%

3.7%

4.0%

13.5%

13.9%

74.6%

73.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

90.5%

6.43

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 7


Q089 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Religious identifications





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

336

1,732

554

4,261

MEAN

6.64

6.63

6.63

6.63

STD

DEV

0.99

0.92

0.88

0.92

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.53

6.53

6.68

6.68

6.41

6.81

RANK

--

3/7

2/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

94.0%

93.8%

93.8%

93.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 0.9% 1.8% 3.6% 2.7% 6.5% 84.2%

0.2% 0.7% 1.2% 3.9% 2.7% 10.3% 81.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.1%

0.2%

0.8%

0.7%

1.2%

1.2%

3.8%

3.5%

2.8%

3.1%

10.2%

10.9%

81.0%

80.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

94.0%

6.64

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 8


Q090 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Sexual orientations





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

337

1,725

551

4,252

MEAN

6.61

6.62

6.58

6.61

STD

DEV

1.06

0.95

0.96

0.95

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.82

5.82

6.69

6.69

5.82

6.79

RANK

--

3/7

2/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

93.5%

93.7%

93.0%

93.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.6% 0.9% 2.4% 3.3% 2.7% 6.8% 83.4%

0.3% 0.5% 1.7% 3.4% 3.4% 9.6% 81.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.3%

0.2%

0.9%

0.7%

1.6%

1.6%

3.5%

3.6%

4.1%

3.4%

9.3%

10.8%

80.3%

79.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

93.4%

6.61

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 9


Q091 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Political / social ideologies





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

336

1,728

553

4,250

MEAN

6.56

6.48

6.54

6.46

STD

DEV

1.06

1.12

1.00

1.12

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.29

6.29

6.58

6.58

6.29

6.66

RANK

--

3/7

3/5

5/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

92.7%

91.3%

92.3%

91.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 1.2% 2.4% 3.9% 2.1% 11.0% 79.2%

0.6% 1.0% 2.1% 4.9% 4.0% 11.9% 75.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.2%

0.5%

1.2%

1.2%

1.6%

1.9%

3.9%

4.9%

3.1%

4.3%

13.2%

13.4%

76.7%

73.8%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

92.7%

6.56

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 10


Q092 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Disabilities / Abilities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

336

1,733

555

4,263

MEAN

6.72

6.72

6.71

6.67

STD

DEV

0.90

0.83

0.79

0.88

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.24

6.24

6.81

6.81

6.24

6.81

RANK

--

3/7

2/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

95.3%

95.3%

95.2%

94.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.6% 0.3% 1.8% 2.1% 1.2% 7.4% 86.6%

0.2% 0.3% 1.4% 2.2% 2.1% 8.5% 85.1%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

1.3%

1.2%

2.2%

2.8%

1.6%

2.7%

9.9%

10.3%

84.3%

82.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

95.3%

6.72

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 11


Q093 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Age





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

337

1,726

552

4,257

MEAN

6.51

6.62

6.57

6.56

STD

DEV

1.18

0.91

0.99

1.00

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.71

5.71

6.68

6.63

5.71

6.70

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

91.8%

93.7%

92.8%

92.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 1.8% 1.2% 3.9% 2.7% 11.0% 78.3%

0.1% 0.8% 1.2% 3.2% 3.5% 11.6% 79.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.4%

0.3%

1.6%

1.0%

0.9%

1.5%

4.3%

4.0%

3.4%

3.4%

11.7%

12.6%

77.7%

77.2%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

91.9%

6.51

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 12


Q094 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice // How often have you heard supervisors with whom you work make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Financial standing





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

335

1,719

552

4,236

MEAN

6.62

6.72

6.69

6.70

STD

DEV

1.07

0.80

0.77

0.82

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

6.47

6.47

6.78

6.78

6.47

6.82

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

93.7%

95.3%

94.8%

95.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.5% 0.3% 0.9% 3.9% 2.7% 6.9% 83.9%

0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 2.7% 2.2% 9.3% 84.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.6%

0.3%

0.3%

0.6%

0.5%

0.7%

3.7%

2.6%

2.9%

2.4%

9.6%

10.4%

82.4%

83.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

93.7%

6.62

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 10 // 13



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Fellow Employees, in this section of reports.




Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Fellow Employees // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing:


Q096 // Genders





Q101 // Age


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Fellow Employees and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 11 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Fellow Employees

N

338

MEAN

6.32

STD

DEV

1.10

PERFORMANCE

88.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%






Q101 // Age

Q096 // Genders



N

329

334

333

336

332

335

337

332

MEAN

6.53

6.44

6.38

6.35

6.33

6.27

6.27

6.20

1.28

1.23

1.23

1.32

STD

DEV

1.15

1.16

PERFORMANCE

92.2%

90.7%

1.19

1.25

89.7%

89.2%

88.8%

87.8%

87.8%

86.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 2







SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

128

208

MEAN

6.40

6.28

STD

DEV

0.98

1.16

PERFORMANCE

90.0%

88.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

269

69

MEAN

6.40

5.99

STD

DEV

1.02

1.31

PERFORMANCE

90.0%

83.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

50

287

MEAN

6.74

6.24

STD

DEV

0.63

1.14

PERFORMANCE

95.7%

87.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

124

212

MEAN

6.50

6.23

STD

DEV

0.98

1.13

PERFORMANCE

91.7%

87.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

338

1,738

554

4,283

MEAN

6.32

6.40

6.42

6.36

STD

DEV

1.10

0.94

0.92

0.94

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.83

4.83

4.83

6.59

6.59

6.59

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

88.7%

90.0%

90.3%

89.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%






Q101 // Age

Q096 // Genders



SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

329

334

333

336

332

335

337

332

MEAN

6.53

6.44

6.38

6.35

6.33

6.27

6.27

6.20

1.28

1.23

1.23

1.32

STD

DEV

1.15

1.16

PERFORMANCE

92.2%

90.7%

1.19

1.25

89.7%

89.2%

88.8%

87.8%

87.8%

86.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 4






90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

88.7%

6.32

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 5

FACTOR 11 // Expressions of Insensitivity and Prejudice: Fellow Employees // Q095

Q095 // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Races / ethnicities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

337

1,736

553

4,271

MEAN

6.27

6.32

6.29

6.23

STD

DEV

1.23

1.18

1.21

1.22

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.53

3.53

6.53

6.53

3.53

6.67

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

87.8%

88.7%

88.2%

87.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 2.1% 1.5% 8.9% 5.0% 18.1% 64.1%

0.2% 1.5% 2.1% 7.3% 5.8% 17.3% 65.7%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.2%

0.3%

2.2%

1.6%

1.5%

2.2%

8.0%

8.8%

5.2%

6.4%

19.2%

19.2%

63.7%

61.6%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

87.8%

6.27

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 6


Q096 // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Genders





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

335

1,733

552

4,270

MEAN

6.27

6.32

6.34

6.26

STD

DEV

1.23

1.18

1.17

1.20

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.06

4.06

6.55

6.55

4.06

6.62

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

87.8%

88.7%

89.0%

87.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 1.8% 1.8% 8.7% 6.6% 15.8% 65.1%

0.2% 1.6% 2.0% 7.2% 5.7% 17.4% 65.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.3%

0.3%

1.9%

1.3%

1.6%

2.2%

7.0%

8.2%

6.0%

6.7%

17.9%

19.0%

65.3%

62.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

87.9%

6.27

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 7


Q097 // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Religious identifications





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

333

1,735

553

4,345

MEAN

6.38

6.35

6.27

3.26

STD

DEV

1.19

1.30

1.54

3.30

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

0.00

0.00

6.68

6.68

0.00

6.68

RANK

--

3/7

3/5

4/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

89.7%

89.2%

87.8%

37.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.0% 2.4% 1.8% 5.7% 6.6% 12.0% 71.5%

0.3% 1.0% 2.2% 5.9% 5.3% 14.0% 70.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.1%

0.1%

1.6%

0.7%

2.0%

1.2%

4.9%

3.6%

5.1%

2.9%

14.0%

7.8%

70.4%

38.2%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

89.7%

6.38

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 8


Q098 // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Sexual orientations





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

336

1,728

552

4,262

MEAN

6.35

6.36

6.38

6.34

STD

DEV

1.25

1.19

1.17

1.16

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.88

3.88

6.65

6.65

3.88

6.65

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

89.2%

89.3%

89.7%

89.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 1.5% 2.1% 6.0% 3.9% 16.1% 69.3%

0.3% 1.4% 2.4% 6.6% 5.4% 14.2% 69.6%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.6%

0.3%

1.8%

1.3%

2.1%

2.0%

5.5%

6.9%

5.0%

5.9%

15.3%

16.4%

69.7%

67.1%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

89.2%

6.35

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 9


Q099 // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Political / social ideologies





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

332

1,730

551

4,254

MEAN

6.20

6.20

6.28

6.18

STD

DEV

1.32

1.30

1.23

1.30

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.35

5.35

6.44

6.44

5.35

6.47

RANK

--

3/7

3/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

86.7%

86.7%

88.0%

86.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.3% 2.7% 3.0% 7.2% 7.8% 14.8% 64.2%

0.6% 1.9% 2.7% 8.6% 6.5% 17.3% 62.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.3%

0.5%

2.3%

2.0%

2.6%

2.8%

6.8%

8.6%

7.2%

7.2%

16.3%

17.5%

64.4%

61.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

86.7%

6.20

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 10


Q100 // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Disabilities / Abilities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

329

1,721

547

4,242

MEAN

6.53

6.61

6.60

6.56

STD

DEV

1.15

0.94

0.92

0.96

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.47

5.47

6.73

6.73

5.47

6.74

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

92.2%

93.5%

93.3%

92.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 2.1% 1.2% 3.0% 1.8% 13.4% 77.5%

0.2% 0.5% 1.5% 3.8% 3.2% 11.9% 79.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.6%

0.2%

1.3%

0.9%

0.9%

1.1%

3.3%

4.4%

2.6%

3.8%

13.9%

13.3%

77.4%

76.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

92.1%

6.53

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 11


Q101 // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Age





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

332

1,724

550

4,252

MEAN

6.33

6.45

6.47

6.37

STD

DEV

1.28

1.08

1.05

1.12

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.24

5.24

6.64

6.64

5.24

6.64

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

88.8%

90.8%

91.2%

89.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 2.4% 1.5% 5.7% 3.0% 18.1% 68.1%

0.3% 0.8% 1.7% 5.5% 5.6% 14.2% 71.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.7%

0.3%

1.4%

1.3%

1.8%

1.7%

4.9%

6.7%

4.4%

5.6%

16.6%

16.8%

70.3%

67.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

88.9%

6.33

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 12


Q102 // How often have you heard fellow employees (non-supervisors) make insensitive remarks regarding people of differing: Financial standing





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

334

1,712

542

4,234

MEAN

6.44

6.57

6.58

6.55

STD

DEV

1.16

0.98

0.91

0.97

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.94

5.94

6.70

6.70

5.94

6.70

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

90.7%

92.8%

93.0%

92.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 0.9% 2.4% 4.2% 5.7% 12.6% 73.4%

0.3% 0.4% 1.9% 3.8% 4.3% 12.0% 77.3%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.5%

0.3%

0.7%

0.7%

1.6%

1.4%

3.7%

4.2%

4.7%

4.5%

14.2%

13.3%

74.8%

75.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



100%

90%

Performance

Mean

2012

90.7%

6.44

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 11 // 13



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Impact of Organizational Diversity: Personal Development, in this section of reports.




Impact of Organizational Diversity: Personal Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop:










Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Impact of Organizational Diversity: Personal Development and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 12 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Personal Development

N

330

MEAN

5.24

STD

DEV

1.69

PERFORMANCE

70.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%











N

329

324

327

324

320

323

324

324

327

MEAN

5.51

5.45

5.36

5.36

5.29

5.20

5.15

1.85

1.87

1.90

STD

DEV

1.82

1.85

PERFORMANCE

75.2%

74.2%

1.85

1.83

72.7%

72.7%

71.5%

70.0%

69.2%

5.10

4.70

1.93

2.09

68.3%

61.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 2







SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

5 years or less

126 36.6%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

200

128

MEAN

5.32

5.13

STD

DEV

1.74

1.58

PERFORMANCE

72.0%

68.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

263

67

MEAN

5.29

5.03

STD

DEV

1.66

1.81

PERFORMANCE

71.5%

67.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

49

280

MEAN

5.39

5.21

STD

DEV

1.61

1.71

PERFORMANCE

73.2%

70.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

208

120

MEAN

5.34

5.08

STD

DEV

1.66

1.74

PERFORMANCE

72.3%

68.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

330

1,710

541

4,211

MEAN

5.24

5.28

5.25

5.22

STD

DEV

1.69

1.69

1.72

1.69

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.16

4.16

4.16

5.48

5.48

5.48

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

70.7%

71.3%

70.8%

70.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%











SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

324

327

324

320

N

329

MEAN

5.51

STD

DEV

1.82

PERFORMANCE

75.2%

5.45

1.85

74.2%

5.36

1.85

72.7%

5.36

5.29

1.83

1.85

72.7%

71.5%

323

324

5.20

1.87

70.0%

5.15

1.90

69.2%

324

327

5.10

4.70

1.93

2.09

68.3%

61.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 4






80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

70.6%

5.24

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 5

FACTOR 12 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Personal Development // Q103

Q103 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: A belief that learning about others who are different from you is valuable





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

329

1,704

540

4,193

MEAN

5.51

5.50

5.42

5.46

STD

DEV

1.82

1.80

1.85

1.78

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.47

4.47

4.47

5.60

5.58

5.63

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

75.2%

75.0%

73.7%

74.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

7.3% 3.0% 3.0% 11.2% 9.7% 24.9% 40.7% Your Institution

Select 6 6.9%

7.5%

3.1%

3.7%

2.1%

2.3%

14.1%

13.2%

9.6%

8.7%

23.0%

25.0%

41.1%

39.6%

Carnegie Class


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

75.1%

5.51

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 6


Q104 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: A personal commitment to combating discrimination





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

327

1,703

540

4,187

MEAN

5.36

5.31

5.24

5.28

STD

DEV

1.85

1.84

1.87

1.84

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.88

3.88

3.88

5.51

5.51

5.51

RANK

--

3/7

2/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

72.7%

71.8%

70.7%

71.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //


Select 6 7.6%

8.1%

3.5%

3.8%

3.1%

3.7%

16.4%

15.1%

10.0%

8.9%

24.3%

26.3%

35.1%

34.1%

Carnegie Class


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

72.7%

5.36

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 7


Q105 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: A belief that differences do not have to interfere with meaningful relationships





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

324

1,697

536

4,176

MEAN

5.45

5.52

5.46

5.44

STD

DEV

1.85

1.79

1.85

1.79

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.18

4.18

4.18

5.67

5.67

5.67

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

74.2%

75.3%

74.3%

74.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //


Select 6 6.9%

7.4%

3.1%

4.0%

2.3%

2.6%

12.7%

13.0%

9.7%

7.4%

24.2%

25.7%

41.1%

39.9%

Carnegie Class


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

74.2%

5.45

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 8


Q107 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: An awareness of your own cultural heritage





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

327

1,694

533

4,171

MEAN

4.70

4.79

4.84

4.68

STD

DEV

2.09

2.05

2.00

2.07

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.94

3.94

5.10

5.10

3.94

5.10

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

61.7%

63.2%

64.0%

61.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

13.8% 6.7% 5.8% 16.2% 11.6% 18.7% 27.2%

13.4% 5.1% 4.3% 19.0% 10.1% 21.3% 26.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

12.2%

14.0%

6.4%

5.8%

5.0%

5.4%

17.4%

18.5%

12.0%

10.9%

19.9%

20.0%

27.1%

25.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

61.7%

4.70

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 9


Q108 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: A willingness to self-examine your assumptions about others





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

323

1,691

537

4,170

MEAN

5.20

5.33

5.32

5.28

STD

DEV

1.87

1.80

1.80

1.79

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.29

4.29

4.29

5.49

5.49

5.50

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

70.0%

72.2%

72.0%

71.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //


Select 6 7.2%

7.2%

3.5%

4.2%

3.4%

4.0%

14.3%

14.4%

12.2%

12.1%

25.1%

25.0%

34.3%

33.1%

Carnegie Class


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

70.0%

5.20

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 10


Q109 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: The ability to challenge, when necessary, your biases toward people who are different from you





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

324

1,698

539

4,177

MEAN

5.15

5.24

5.22

5.18

STD

DEV

1.90

1.85

1.85

1.84

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.94

3.94

3.94

5.50

5.50

5.50

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

69.2%

70.7%

70.3%

69.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //


Select 6 7.9%

8.0%

4.4%

4.8%

2.8%

4.1%

15.7%

14.9%

11.6%

11.0%

25.4%

25.6%

32.2%

31.6%

Carnegie Class


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

69.1%

5.15

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 11


Q110 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: An ability to think more critically





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

324

1,692

538

4,163

MEAN

5.36

5.32

5.30

5.25

STD

DEV

1.83

1.84

1.84

1.85

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.00

4.00

5.56

5.56

4.00

5.56

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

72.7%

72.0%

71.7%

70.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

7.7% 2.5% 5.2% 11.4% 14.2% 21.9% 37.0%

7.8% 3.7% 2.9% 14.2% 11.7% 24.9% 34.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

7.8%

8.1%

3.1%

3.7%

4.6%

3.1%

12.4%

15.0%

12.5%

11.9%

24.6%

25.4%

34.9%

32.9%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

72.6%

5.36

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 12


Q111 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: Prepare for work in diverse work places





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

324

1,687

536

4,162

MEAN

5.10

5.20

5.15

5.15

STD

DEV

1.93

1.87

1.90

1.88

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.44

4.44

5.39

5.39

4.44

5.46

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

68.3%

70.0%

69.2%

69.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

9.0% 4.3% 5.2% 16.7% 12.0% 19.4% 33.3%

8.4% 4.3% 3.3% 16.0% 10.9% 25.2% 31.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

9.3%

8.6%

3.6%

4.4%

4.9%

3.9%

15.8%

16.0%

11.3%

11.3%

23.7%

25.0%

31.4%

30.8%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

68.4%

5.10

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 13


Q112 // Impact of Organizational Diversity on Learning and Development // To what degree have experiences with diversity within your work environment helped you develop: An ability to consider real world problems from multiple perspectives





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

320

1,683

529

4,147

MEAN

5.29

5.32

5.30

5.27

STD

DEV

1.85

1.82

1.85

1.82

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.47

4.47

4.47

5.42

5.42

5.47

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

71.5%

72.0%

71.7%

71.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //


Select 6 7.2%

7.7%

3.8%

4.1%

3.2%

3.7%

14.9%

13.9%

11.0%

11.2%

25.8%

25.2%

34.0%

34.3%

Carnegie Class


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

71.5%

5.29

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 12 // 14



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others, in this section of reports.




Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on:


Q114 // Genders





Q119 // Age


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others and its scaled questions.



Factor 13 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others

N

325

MEAN

4.89

STD

DEV

1.96

PERFORMANCE

64.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





Q114 // Genders

Q119 // Age




323

325

322

N

324

325

325

323

324

MEAN

5.08

5.02

4.95

4.93

4.93

4.84

4.78

4.60

2.09

2.12

2.18

STD

DEV

2.05

PERFORMANCE

68.0%

1.96

2.07

2.03

2.00

67.0%

65.8%

65.5%

65.5%

64.0%

63.0%

60.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 2







SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

5 years or less

126 36.6%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

200

123

MEAN

4.98

4.76

STD

DEV

1.95

1.95

PERFORMANCE

66.3%

62.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

260

65

MEAN

4.91

4.82

STD

DEV

1.93

2.10

PERFORMANCE

65.2%

63.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

47

277

MEAN

5.12

4.84

STD

DEV

2.02

1.95

PERFORMANCE

68.7%

64.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

207

116

MEAN

5.04

4.65

STD

DEV

1.91

2.03

PERFORMANCE

67.3%

60.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

325

1,689

537

4,159

MEAN

4.89

4.96

4.95

4.83

STD

DEV

1.96

1.83

1.85

1.85

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.34

4.34

4.34

5.16

5.16

5.16

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

64.8%

66.0%

65.8%

63.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





Q114 // Genders

Q119 // Age




SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

324

325

325

323

324

323

325

322

MEAN

5.08

5.02

4.95

4.93

4.93

4.84

4.78

4.60

2.00

2.09

2.12

2.18

STD

DEV

2.05

1.96

PERFORMANCE

68.0%

67.0%

2.07

2.03

65.8%

65.5%

65.5%

64.0%

63.0%

60.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 4






70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

64.8%

4.89

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 5

FACTOR 13 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Working Effectively with Others // Q113

Q113 // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on: Races / ethnicities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

325

1,683

536

4,148

MEAN

5.02

5.17

5.10

5.07

STD

DEV

1.96

1.86

1.88

1.87

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.71

4.71

5.37

5.37

4.63

5.37

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

67.0%

69.5%

68.3%

67.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

11.1% 3.1% 3.7% 20.3% 9.8% 20.6% 31.4%

8.7% 3.9% 3.0% 17.1% 11.3% 26.3% 29.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

10.0%

9.1%

3.8%

4.4%

3.7%

3.2%

16.8%

18.3%

11.4%

12.1%

25.4%

24.8%

28.8%

28.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

67.0%

5.02

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 6


Q114 // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on: Genders





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

323

1,680

535

4,135

MEAN

4.93

5.06

5.03

4.94

STD

DEV

2.03

1.92

1.94

1.94

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.88

4.88

5.26

5.26

4.41

5.26

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

65.5%

67.7%

67.2%

65.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

11.8% 4.3% 4.6% 20.1% 8.4% 18.6% 32.2%

9.9% 4.3% 3.2% 18.0% 10.7% 25.3% 28.7%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

11.0%

10.6%

4.5%

4.9%

4.3%

3.8%

16.8%

19.0%

9.9%

11.2%

24.5%

23.2%

29.0%

27.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

65.6%

4.93

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 7


Q115 // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on: Religious identifications





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

323

1,676

536

4,133

MEAN

4.84

4.86

4.89

4.74

STD

DEV

2.09

1.99

1.94

2.01

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.00

4.00

5.02

5.02

4.00

5.02

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

64.0%

64.3%

64.8%

62.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

13.9% 4.0% 4.6% 19.2% 8.7% 18.9% 30.7%

11.7% 4.5% 5.5% 18.5% 10.4% 23.0% 26.3%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

11.6%

12.8%

4.8%

5.5%

5.7%

4.7%

17.6%

19.2%

10.1%

11.2%

23.2%

21.8%

27.0%

24.8%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

64.0%

4.84

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 8


Q116 // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on: Sexual orientations





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

325

1,669

534

4,120

MEAN

4.95

4.91

4.88

4.83

STD

DEV

2.07

1.99

2.00

2.01

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.51

4.51

5.05

5.05

4.23

5.05

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

5/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

65.8%

65.2%

64.7%

63.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

12.3% 4.9% 4.9% 16.9% 8.0% 20.3% 32.6%

11.7% 4.9% 3.8% 17.7% 11.0% 24.0% 26.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

12.3%

12.3%

5.1%

5.3%

4.3%

4.0%

15.7%

18.4%

10.5%

11.0%

24.7%

22.6%

27.4%

26.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

65.8%

4.95

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 9


Q117 // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on: Political / social ideologies





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

325

1,672

533

4,125

MEAN

4.78

4.89

4.89

4.73

STD

DEV

2.12

1.93

1.92

1.98

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.76

3.76

5.11

5.11

3.76

5.11

RANK

--

5/7

4/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

63.0%

64.8%

64.8%

62.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

14.5% 5.2% 5.2% 17.2% 8.9% 19.1% 29.8%

10.4% 5.2% 4.5% 19.2% 12.0% 23.4% 25.3%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

11.7%

12.1%

5.6%

5.9%

5.0%

4.7%

17.2%

20.1%

11.2%

12.3%

23.4%

21.1%

25.9%

24.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

62.9%

4.78

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 10


Q118 // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on: Disabilities / abilities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

324

1,676

534

4,120

MEAN

5.08

5.00

4.99

4.86

STD

DEV

2.05

1.96

1.95

2.00

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.24

4.24

5.21

5.21

4.24

5.21

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

4/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

68.0%

66.7%

66.5%

64.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

12.3% 3.4% 4.0% 16.0% 8.0% 21.0% 35.2%

10.7% 4.7% 3.5% 17.7% 10.3% 24.6% 28.6%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

11.5%

11.9%

4.0%

5.2%

4.2%

3.9%

15.4%

18.2%

10.5%

10.9%

24.6%

22.5%

29.8%

27.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

68.0%

5.08

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 11


Q119 // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on: Age





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

324

1,678

536

4,128

MEAN

4.93

4.97

4.99

4.88

STD

DEV

2.00

1.96

1.93

1.97

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.12

4.12

5.21

5.21

4.12

5.21

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

65.5%

66.2%

66.5%

64.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

10.5% 4.9% 5.6% 20.7% 8.3% 18.8% 31.2%

10.7% 4.7% 4.0% 17.5% 11.1% 23.9% 28.1%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

10.3%

11.0%

4.9%

5.3%

4.7%

4.2%

18.0%

19.6%

10.1%

11.1%

23.7%

22.0%

28.3%

26.9%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

65.4%

4.93

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 12


Q120 // To what degree have your experiences within your work environment helped you work more effectively with people who differ from you based on: Financial standing





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

322

1,655

528

4,086

MEAN

4.60

4.79

4.85

4.63

STD

DEV

2.18

2.05

2.02

2.09

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.12

4.12

5.09

5.09

4.12

5.09

RANK

--

5/7

4/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

60.0%

63.2%

64.2%

60.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

17.4% 5.3% 3.4% 21.1% 7.5% 17.4% 28.0%

13.5% 4.8% 4.2% 18.8% 10.3% 22.1% 26.3%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

14.5%

15.2%

5.3%

6.0%

3.8%

4.2%

18.5%

19.6%

9.3%

10.4%

22.4%

20.0%

26.4%

24.6%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

50%

Performance

Mean

2012

60.0%

4.60

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 13 // 13



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Impact of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others, in this section of reports.




Impact of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing:


Q122 // Genders





Q127 // Age


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Impact of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others and its scaled questions.



Factor 14 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others

N

314

MEAN

5.07

STD

DEV

1.29

PERFORMANCE

67.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




Q122 // Genders

Q127 // Age





311

312

307

N

313

313

311

308

313

MEAN

5.24

5.17

5.06

5.06

5.05

5.05

4.97

4.97

1.36

1.42

1.39

STD

DEV

1.35

PERFORMANCE

70.7%

1.37

1.36

1.36

1.39

69.5%

67.7%

67.7%

67.5%

67.5%

66.2%

66.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 2







SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

All others

75

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

White

275

% TOTAL

21.4%

78.6%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

5 years or less

126 36.6%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

187

125

MEAN

5.20

4.87

STD

DEV

1.27

1.29

PERFORMANCE

70.0%

64.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

65

249

MEAN

5.11

5.06

STD

DEV

1.32

1.28

PERFORMANCE

68.5%

67.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

45

268

MEAN

5.09

5.06

STD

DEV

1.31

1.28

PERFORMANCE

68.2%

67.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

197

115

MEAN

5.22

4.83

STD

DEV

1.30

1.24

PERFORMANCE

70.3%

63.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

314

1,674

531

4,112

MEAN

5.07

5.10

5.10

5.06

STD

DEV

1.29

1.26

1.28

1.28

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.88

4.88

4.81

5.18

5.18

5.36

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

67.8%

68.3%

68.3%

67.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




Q122 // Genders

Q127 // Age





SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

313

313

311

308

313

311

312

307

MEAN

5.24

5.17

5.06

5.06

5.05

5.05

4.97

4.97

1.39

1.36

1.42

1.39

STD

DEV

1.35

1.37

PERFORMANCE

70.7%

69.5%

1.36

1.36

67.7%

67.7%

67.5%

67.5%

66.2%

66.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 4






70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

67.8%

5.07

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 5

FACTOR 14 // Impact of Organizational Diversity: Changing Attitudes of Others // Q121

Q121 // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing: Races / ethnicities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

313

1,671

530

4,101

MEAN

5.05

5.15

5.12

5.13

STD

DEV

1.39

1.33

1.34

1.35

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.00

5.00

5.21

5.21

4.86

5.48

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

67.5%

69.2%

68.7%

68.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




MUCH LESS ACCEPTING ------------------------------ ------------------------------ MUCH MORE ACCEPTING

1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.3% 1.0% 1.6% 46.3% 11.5% 14.1% 24.3%

0.8% 0.7% 1.3% 42.1% 13.5% 18.2% 23.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.9%

1.2%

1.3%

0.9%

1.9%

1.4%

42.9%

41.6%

11.9%

14.4%

18.5%

17.1%

22.5%

23.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

67.5%

5.05

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 6


Q122 // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing: Genders





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

311

1,663

528

4,080

MEAN

5.06

5.08

5.08

5.04

STD

DEV

1.36

1.31

1.32

1.34

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.65

4.65

5.15

5.15

4.65

5.38

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

67.7%

68.0%

68.0%

67.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.0% 0.6% 1.0% 49.2% 9.3% 14.8% 24.1%

0.8% 0.5% 1.2% 45.7% 12.7% 17.3% 21.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.8%

1.2%

0.8%

0.6%

1.4%

1.5%

46.1%

46.0%

10.7%

12.8%

17.9%

16.1%

22.2%

21.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

67.7%

5.06

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 7


Q123 // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing: Religious identifications





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

311

1,660

528

4,076

MEAN

5.05

5.06

5.08

5.06

STD

DEV

1.36

1.32

1.34

1.34

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.88

4.88

5.18

5.18

4.82

5.35

RANK

--

4/7

2/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

67.5%

67.7%

68.0%

67.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.3% 0.6% 0.3% 48.9% 10.9% 14.5% 23.5%

1.0% 0.7% 1.1% 45.1% 14.1% 16.2% 21.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.0%

1.3%

1.1%

0.8%

1.3%

1.2%

45.1%

44.6%

12.2%

13.8%

17.3%

16.5%

22.2%

21.8%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

67.5%

5.05

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 8


Q124 // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing: Sexual orientations





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

313

1,664

527

4,075

MEAN

5.17

5.16

5.15

5.13

STD

DEV

1.37

1.32

1.33

1.35

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

5.05

5.05

5.25

5.25

4.85

5.45

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

69.5%

69.3%

69.2%

68.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.0% 0.6% 1.3% 43.5% 11.2% 16.6% 25.9%

0.7% 0.6% 1.3% 42.1% 13.5% 18.1% 23.7%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.8%

1.2%

0.8%

0.7%

1.7%

1.3%

42.0%

42.1%

11.3%

13.4%

19.6%

17.3%

23.7%

23.9%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

69.4%

5.17

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 9


Q125 // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing: Political / social ideologies





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

312

1,658

527

4,064

MEAN

4.97

5.01

5.02

4.98

STD

DEV

1.42

1.32

1.33

1.34

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.82

4.82

5.14

5.14

4.75

5.35

RANK

--

4/7

2/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

66.2%

66.8%

67.0%

66.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.2% 1.0% 1.3% 48.1% 9.0% 17.0% 21.5%

1.1% 0.7% 2.2% 45.0% 14.2% 16.6% 20.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.4%

1.4%

1.1%

1.0%

2.1%

2.1%

45.5%

45.2%

11.1%

14.2%

18.6%

15.9%

20.1%

20.2%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

66.2%

4.97

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 10


Q126 // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing: Disabilities / Abilities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

313

1,660

527

4,071

MEAN

5.24

5.15

5.18

5.13

STD

DEV

1.35

1.32

1.33

1.35

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.94

4.94

5.24

5.24

4.89

5.41

RANK

--

3/7

3/5

5/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

70.7%

69.2%

69.7%

68.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.0% 0.3% 0.6% 42.2% 11.2% 17.6% 27.2%

0.7% 0.6% 0.7% 43.9% 13.0% 16.9% 24.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.7%

1.1%

0.8%

0.7%

1.2%

1.0%

41.3%

43.2%

11.7%

13.3%

19.4%

16.6%

24.9%

24.2%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

70.6%

5.24

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 11


Q127 // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing: Age





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

308

1,651

525

4,045

MEAN

5.06

5.09

5.10

5.05

STD

DEV

1.36

1.33

1.34

1.35

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.82

4.82

5.20

5.20

4.78

5.38

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

67.7%

68.2%

68.3%

67.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.0% 0.6% 1.3% 48.7% 9.4% 14.9% 24.0%

0.8% 0.8% 1.2% 45.2% 12.2% 17.4% 22.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

0.8%

1.1%

1.0%

0.9%

1.6%

1.4%

45.5%

45.0%

10.3%

13.0%

18.2%

16.1%

22.6%

22.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

67.6%

5.06

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 12


Q128 // Since becoming an employee of this organization, to what degree have your attitudes changed about people of differing: Financial standing





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

307

1,622

511

4,003

MEAN

4.97

5.04

5.06

4.98

STD

DEV

1.39

1.32

1.33

1.36

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.57

4.57

5.14

5.14

4.57

5.29

RANK

--

6/7

4/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

66.2%

67.3%

67.7%

66.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.6% 0.7% 1.3% 51.5% 8.1% 14.3% 22.5%

0.9% 0.7% 1.2% 46.9% 12.8% 15.9% 21.6%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1.1%

1.4%

0.9%

1.0%

1.5%

1.6%

47.8%

47.4%

10.1%

12.5%

16.9%

14.8%

21.8%

21.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

66.1%

4.97

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 14 // 13



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility, in this section of reports.




Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility // Based on your disability, rate the accessibility of your organization in the following areas:



Q133 // Web sites


Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility //


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.



N

27

MEAN

4.90

STD

DEV

2.13

PERFORMANCE

65.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




Q133 // Web sites



26

26

N

10

25

27

MEAN

5.50

5.40

5.04

4.85

4.81

STD

DEV

2.16

1.92

PERFORMANCE

75.0%

73.3%

2.19

2.23

2.19

67.3%

64.2%

63.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 2







SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

Full-time employee

293

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

52

84.9%

15.1%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

NR

STAT

SIG

NR

STAT

SIG

N

10

17

N

22

5

N

22

5

N

7

20

MEAN

5.28

4.68

STD

DEV

1.88

2.24

PERFORMANCE

71.3%

61.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

MEAN

5.30

NR

STD

DEV

2.10

NR

PERFORMANCE

71.7%

NR

NR

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

MEAN

4.71

NR

STD

DEV

2.11

NR

PERFORMANCE

61.8%

NR

NR

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

MEAN

6.14

4.47

STD

DEV

0.99

2.25

PERFORMANCE

85.7%

57.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

27

83

16

211

MEAN

4.90

4.37

NR

4.49

STD

DEV

2.13

2.03

NR

1.95

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.26

NR

3.93

4.90

NR

5.10

RANK

--

1/4

NR

2/10

STAT SIG

--

--

PERFORMANCE

65.0%

56.2%

--

58.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%



Q134 // Audio Visual presentations (i.e.

PowerPoint, overheads, videos)

Q133 // Web sites



SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

10

25

26

26

27

MEAN

5.50

STD

DEV

2.16

PERFORMANCE

75.0%

5.40

1.92

73.3%

5.04

4.85

4.81

2.19

2.23

2.19

67.3%

64.2%

63.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 4






70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

65.1%

4.90

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 5

FACTOR 15 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Accessibility // Q131

Q131 // Based on your disability, rate the accessibility of your organization in the following areas: Training programs





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

80

16

N

27

202

MEAN

4.81

4.16

NR

4.36

STD

DEV

2.19

2.28

NR

2.19

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.98

NR

4.81

NR

2.91

5.17

RANK

--

1/4

NR

3/10

STAT SIG

--

--

PERFORMANCE

63.5%

52.7%

--

56.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




VERY POOR -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- VERY GOOD

1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

11.1% 11.1% 7.4% 14.8% 3.7% 14.8% 37.0%

23.8% 3.8% 10.0% 20.0% 6.2% 10.0% 26.2%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

18.6%

16.2%

7.0%

7.4%

7.0%

10.9%

14.0%

19.2%

9.3%

6.6%

14.0%

10.5%

30.2%

29.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

63.6%

4.81

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 6


Q132 // Based on your disability, rate the accessibility of your organization in the following areas:

Documentation / Manuals





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

80

16

N

26

205

MEAN

4.85

4.31

NR

4.45

STD

DEV

2.23

2.21

NR

2.12

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.07

NR

4.85

NR

4.07

5.17

RANK

--

1/4

NR

2/10

STAT SIG

--

--

PERFORMANCE

64.2%

55.2%

--

57.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

11.5% 11.5% 7.7% 11.5% 3.8% 15.4% 38.5%

17.5% 6.2% 12.5% 22.5% 3.8% 7.5% 30.0%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

16.7%

13.4%

9.5%

8.2%

4.8%

10.4%

11.9%

20.3%

4.8%

8.7%

16.7%

8.7%

35.7%

30.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

64.1%

4.85

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 7


Q133 // Based on your disability, rate the accessibility of your organization in the following areas: Web sites




N

26

MEAN

5.04

STD

DEV

2.19

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

80

16

205

4.40

NR

4.58

2.25

NR

2.16

4.26

NR

4.26

5.04

NR

5.09

1/4

NR

2/10

--

56.7%

--

59.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

11.5% 7.7% 7.7% 11.5% 3.8% 15.4% 42.3%

Select 6 18.8% 6.2% 7.5% 22.5% 5.0% 8.8% 31.2%

Carnegie Class 19.0% 4.8% 4.8% 11.9% 7.1% 16.7% 35.7%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

67.3%

5.04

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 8


Q134 // Based on your disability, rate the accessibility of your organization in the following areas: Audio

Visual presentations (i.e. PowerPoint, overheads, videos)





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

78

16

N

25

202

MEAN

5.40

4.40

NR

4.54

STD

DEV

1.92

2.27

NR

2.14

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.00

NR

5.40

NR

4.00

5.40

RANK

--

1/4

NR

1/10

STAT SIG

--

--

PERFORMANCE

73.3%

56.7%

--

59.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

4.0% 12.0% 4.0% 8.0% 4.0% 28.0% 40.0%

20.5% 3.8% 9.0% 20.5% 5.1% 10.3% 30.8%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

14.6%

13.7%

7.3%

6.6%

4.9%

8.8%

9.8%

18.9%

7.3%

8.4%

22.0%

12.8%

34.1%

30.8%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

73.3%

5.40

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 9


Q135 // Please rate the physical accessibility of your organization




N

10

MEAN

5.50

STD

DEV

2.16

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

26

3

51

NR

NR

5.24

NR

NR

1.65

NR

NR

4.33

NR

NR

5.79

NR

NR

2/5

--

--

--

--

70.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

10.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 60.0%

Select 6 7.7% 0.0% 3.8% 7.7% 19.2% 30.8% 30.8%

Carnegie Class 15.4% 0.0% 15.4% 0.0% 7.7% 7.7% 53.8%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

75.0%

5.50

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 15 // 10



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity, in this section of reports.




Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity // To what degree does the leadership in your department:








Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity and its scaled questions.



Factor 16 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity

N

325

MEAN

4.57

STD

DEV

1.70

PERFORMANCE

59.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%









N

319

320

323

318

324

322

320

MEAN

5.06

STD

DEV

1.83

PERFORMANCE

67.7%

4.84

4.54

4.48

4.45

4.35

4.29

1.95

1.85

1.98

1.96

1.94

1.98

64.0%

59.0%

58.0%

57.5%

55.8%

54.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 2







SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

5 years or less

126 36.6%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

196

126

MEAN

4.66

4.45

STD

DEV

1.76

1.61

PERFORMANCE

61.0%

57.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

256

69

MEAN

4.63

4.34

STD

DEV

1.67

1.82

PERFORMANCE

60.5%

55.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

44

279

MEAN

4.85

4.52

STD

DEV

1.68

1.70

PERFORMANCE

64.2%

58.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

203

119

MEAN

4.68

4.41

STD

DEV

1.70

1.70

PERFORMANCE

61.3%

56.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

325

1,700

542

4,203

MEAN

4.57

4.55

4.45

4.66

STD

DEV

1.70

1.68

1.62

1.66

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.37

3.37

3.37

4.68

4.68

5.73

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

59.5%

59.2%

57.5%

61.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%









SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

319

MEAN

5.06

STD

DEV

1.83

PERFORMANCE

67.7%

320

323

318

324

322

320

4.84

1.95

64.0%

4.54

1.85

59.0%

4.48

1.98

58.0%

4.45

1.96

57.5%

4.35

1.94

55.8%

4.29

1.98

54.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 4






60%

50%

Performance

Mean

2012

59.5%

4.57

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 5

FACTOR 16 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Leadership Impacting Diversity //

Q137

Q137 // Elements of Organizational Diversity // To what degree does the leadership in your department:

Challenge you to consider diversity in your daily activities





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

323

1,693

541

4,172

MEAN

4.54

4.66

4.68

4.67

STD

DEV

1.85

1.81

1.72

1.82

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.76

3.76

4.82

4.82

3.76

5.43

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

59.0%

61.0%

61.3%

61.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

8.4% 8.7% 7.1% 26.9% 16.1% 11.1% 21.7%

7.6% 7.9% 6.7% 23.7% 16.8% 18.0% 19.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

6.6%

7.3%

8.6%

8.0%

6.8%

7.5%

25.9%

23.8%

17.5%

15.9%

15.0%

16.8%

19.6%

20.7%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



60%

50%

Performance

Mean

2012

59.0%

4.54

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 6


Q138

Q138 // Elements of Organizational Diversity // To what degree does the leadership in your department: Have a plan to incorporate diversity in your work environment





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

324

1,684

538

4,159

MEAN

4.45

4.60

4.52

4.61

STD

DEV

1.96

1.82

1.77

1.84

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.41

3.41

4.79

4.79

3.41

5.46

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

10/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

57.5%

60.0%

58.7%

60.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

10.8% 10.5% 5.2% 25.0% 15.4% 10.5% 22.5%

7.8% 8.5% 7.2% 25.1% 15.3% 16.7% 19.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

8.4%

8.1%

10.0%

8.5%

6.8%

7.9%

25.8%

23.9%

15.9%

15.0%

14.3%

16.2%

18.9%

20.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



60%

50%

Performance

Mean

2012

57.6%

4.45

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 7


Q139


Regularly communicate the importance of diversity





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

322

1,677

535

4,156

MEAN

4.35

4.53

4.47

4.61

STD

DEV

1.94

1.88

1.86

1.89

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.24

3.24

4.68

4.68

3.24

5.61

RANK

--

5/7

3/5

11/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

55.8%

58.8%

57.8%

60.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

11.2% 9.9% 7.1% 28.0% 13.4% 9.3% 21.1%

9.4% 8.6% 7.6% 23.1% 15.4% 16.7% 19.1%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

9.5%

8.8%

10.2%

8.8%

7.8%

8.0%

25.3%

22.5%

14.9%

14.0%

12.8%

16.6%

19.5%

21.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



60%

50%

Performance

Mean

2012

55.8%

4.35

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 8


Q140


Include diverse people (i.e. people of differing races, genders, religious affiliations, etc.) on committees and teams





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

319

1,684

536

4,159

MEAN

5.06

5.11

5.14

5.12

STD

DEV

1.83

1.81

1.79

1.78

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.53

4.53

4.43

5.35

5.35

5.72

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

67.7%

68.5%

69.0%

68.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%




1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //


Select 6 5.9%

5.1%

5.6%

6.2%

5.3%

6.5%

19.4%

18.4%

13.2%

13.0%

19.5%

19.6%

31.0%

31.1%

Carnegie Class


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

67.7%

5.06

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 9


Q141


Provide you with diversity training





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

320

1,683

538

4,154

MEAN

4.29

4.15

3.92

4.42

STD

DEV

1.98

1.95

1.88

1.98

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.00

3.00

4.29

4.29

3.00

6.22

RANK

--

1/7

1/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

54.8%

52.5%

48.7%

57.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

12.5% 10.0% 9.1% 23.1% 15.0% 10.0% 20.3%

13.5% 11.1% 8.7% 24.6% 13.7% 12.6% 15.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

13.3%

11.3%

12.4%

10.3%

10.0%

8.0%

24.4%

22.4%

14.8%

13.2%

10.0%

13.9%

15.2%

20.8%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



60%

50%

Performance

Mean

2012

54.9%

4.29

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 10


Q142


Provide you with training to recognize harassment





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

320

1,674

538

4,152

MEAN

4.84

4.36

4.17

4.62

STD

DEV

1.95

1.97

1.98

1.98

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

2.65

2.65

4.84

4.84

2.65

5.87

RANK

--

1/7

1/5

4/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

64.0%

56.0%

52.8%

60.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

9.7% 6.9% 6.2% 16.9% 14.1% 19.7% 26.6%

12.0% 10.7% 7.3% 21.9% 14.2% 15.1% 18.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

11.8%

9.8%

10.4%

9.5%

7.9%

6.6%

20.6%

19.8%

13.1%

13.4%

15.9%

16.5%

20.4%

24.2%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

64.0%

4.84

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 11


Q143


Commit resources to enhance the diversity of the organization





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

318

1,655

528

4,104

MEAN

4.48

4.38

4.19

4.57

STD

DEV

1.98

1.91

1.87

1.92

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.00

3.00

4.49

4.48

3.00

5.84

RANK

--

2/7

1/5

5/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

58.0%

56.3%

53.2%

59.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

11.6% 8.5% 7.5% 23.6% 12.9% 13.2% 22.6%

11.4% 9.1% 8.1% 24.2% 14.1% 15.9% 17.3%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

11.5%

10.1%

10.2%

8.6%

9.0%

7.1%

24.2%

22.6%

14.2%

14.0%

13.6%

16.3%

17.4%

21.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



60%

50%

Performance

Mean

2012

58.0%

4.48

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 16 // 12



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Elements of Organizational Diversity: Established Procedures, in this section of reports.




Elements of Organizational Diversity: Established Procedures // To what degree are there established procedures for addressing instances of:

Q145 // Harassment



Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 17 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Elements of Organizational Diversity: Established Procedures and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 17 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Established Procedures

N

324

MEAN

5.82

STD

DEV

1.46

PERFORMANCE

80.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%


Q145 // Harassment



N

324

323

320

MEAN

5.86

5.82

5.78

STD

DEV

1.49

1.50

PERFORMANCE

81.0%

80.3%

1.54

79.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 17 // 2







SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

5 years or less

126 36.6%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

126

196

MEAN

5.84

5.82

STD

DEV

1.35

1.50

PERFORMANCE

80.7%

80.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

259

65

MEAN

5.92

5.42

STD

DEV

1.38

1.68

PERFORMANCE

82.0%

73.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

48

275

MEAN

6.04

5.78

STD

DEV

1.39

1.47

PERFORMANCE

84.0%

79.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

204

118

MEAN

5.95

5.60

STD

DEV

1.38

1.57

PERFORMANCE

82.5%

76.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 17 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

324

1,691

536

4,171

MEAN

5.82

5.53

5.23

5.62

STD

DEV

1.46

1.60

1.71

1.56

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.57

4.57

4.57

5.82

5.82

5.98

RANK

--

1/7

1/5

3/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

80.3%

75.5%

70.5%

77.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%


Q145 // Harassment



SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

324

323

320

MEAN

5.86

5.82

5.78

STD

DEV

1.49

1.50

PERFORMANCE

81.0%

80.3%

1.54

79.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 17 // 4






90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

80.3%

5.82

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 17 // 5

FACTOR 17 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Established Procedures // Q145

Q145 // To what degree are there established procedures for addressing instances of: Harassment




N

324

MEAN

5.86

STD

DEV

1.49

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,690

535

4,167

5.62

5.32

5.69

1.60

1.73

1.58

4.53

4.53

4.53

5.95

5.86

6.14

2/7

1/5

5/15

77.0%

72.0%

78.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 4.3% 2.8% 9.9% 10.2% 23.8% 47.8%

Select 6 4.0% 2.4% 2.3% 15.5% 10.6% 25.2% 40.0%

Carnegie Class 4.1% 3.8% 2.6% 15.4% 11.8% 24.0% 38.4%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

81.0%

5.86

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 17 // 6


Q146 // To what degree are there established procedures for addressing instances of: Discrimination




N

323

MEAN

5.82

STD

DEV

1.50

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,686

535

4,152

5.56

5.25

5.64

1.63

1.72

1.60

4.53

4.53

4.53

5.82

5.82

5.97

1/7

1/5

3/15

76.0%

70.8%

77.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.2% 4.0% 3.4% 11.1% 9.9% 23.2% 47.1%

Select 6 4.0% 2.7% 3.2% 15.9% 10.4% 25.3% 38.6%

Carnegie Class 4.0% 3.6% 3.5% 17.1% 11.4% 23.2% 37.2%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

80.4%

5.82

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 17 // 7


Q147 // To what degree are there established procedures for addressing instances of: Hate incidents




N

320

MEAN

5.78

STD

DEV

1.54

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,669

526

4,128

5.42

5.11

5.52

1.72

1.84

1.67

4.65

4.65

4.65

5.78

5.78

5.96

1/7

1/5

3/15

73.7%

68.5%

75.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.6% 5.0% 2.8% 10.3% 10.6% 23.8% 45.9%

Select 6 5.3% 3.4% 3.2% 16.7% 11.3% 24.4% 35.8%

Carnegie Class 5.3% 5.1% 2.6% 16.1% 12.2% 22.9% 35.8%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

79.7%

5.78

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 17 // 8

FACTOR 18 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create

Celebrations


Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create Celebrations, in this section of reports.




Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create Celebrations // To what degree does your organization:





Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 1


Celebrations




Below is your institution's current performance for Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create Celebrations and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 18 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Publicize Efforts and Create

Celebrations

N

329

MEAN

5.32

STD

DEV

1.48

PERFORMANCE

72.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%


Q149 // Publicly recognize their commitment to diversity through celebrations (e.g.

cultural dinners, special history months)




N

327

326

325

326

MEAN

5.62

STD

DEV

1.59

PERFORMANCE

77.0%

5.50

5.22

1.57

1.77

75.0%

70.3%

4.92

1.83

65.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 2


Celebrations






SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

5 years or less

126 36.6%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

198

129

MEAN

5.36

5.27

STD

DEV

1.51

1.40

PERFORMANCE

72.7%

71.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

262

67

MEAN

5.53

4.48

STD

DEV

1.33

1.71

PERFORMANCE

75.5%

58.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

49

279

MEAN

5.80

5.23

STD

DEV

1.17

1.51

PERFORMANCE

80.0%

70.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

206

121

MEAN

5.46

5.09

STD

DEV

1.44

1.51

PERFORMANCE

74.3%

68.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 3


Celebrations





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

329

1,697

542

4,198

MEAN

5.32

5.05

4.67

5.14

STD

DEV

1.48

1.60

1.64

1.57

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.88

3.88

3.88

5.32

5.32

5.79

RANK

--

1/7

1/5

3/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

72.0%

67.5%

61.2%

69.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%



Q150 // Reflect diversity in their publications (i.e.

inclusive language, photos, graphics)



SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

327

MEAN

5.62

STD

DEV

1.59

PERFORMANCE

77.0%

326

325

326

5.50

1.57

75.0%

5.22

1.77

70.3%

4.92

1.83

65.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 4


Celebrations





80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

72.0%

5.32

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 5


Celebrations // Q148

Q148 // To what degree does your organization: Publicly post diversity policies and standards in prominent places





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

326

1,682

537

4,159

MEAN

4.92

4.58

4.16

4.67

STD

DEV

1.83

1.92

1.95

1.91

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

2.82

2.82

4.92

4.92

2.82

5.61

RANK

--

1/7

1/5

3/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

65.3%

59.7%

52.7%

61.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

6.7% 6.4% 6.7% 19.9% 12.6% 23.0% 24.5%

10.3% 8.0% 6.4% 22.5% 15.2% 16.8% 20.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

11.5%

9.1%

8.9%

7.9%

6.7%

6.6%

23.5%

20.9%

14.1%

14.5%

16.2%

18.6%

19.0%

22.4%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



70%

60%

Performance

Mean

2012

65.4%

4.92

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 6



Q149 // To what degree does your organization: Publicly recognize their commitment to diversity through celebrations (e.g. cultural dinners, special history months)





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

327

1,687

541

4,175

MEAN

5.62

5.22

4.78

5.31

STD

DEV

1.59

1.80

1.87

1.77

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.21

4.21

5.62

5.62

4.21

5.97

RANK

--

1/7

1/5

3/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

77.0%

70.3%

63.0%

71.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.7% 3.1% 3.1% 12.2% 11.6% 28.1% 38.2%

6.0% 4.4% 5.2% 17.5% 11.9% 22.3% 32.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

6.6%

5.4%

5.0%

4.5%

5.5%

4.3%

18.7%

15.6%

12.8%

11.6%

22.1%

24.3%

29.4%

34.3%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.1%

5.62

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 7



Q150 // To what degree does your organization: Reflect diversity in their publications (i.e. inclusive language, photos, graphics)





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

326

1,680

540

4,162

MEAN

5.50

5.39

5.08

5.45

STD

DEV

1.57

1.64

1.68

1.61

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.47

4.47

5.56

5.50

4.44

5.82

RANK

--

3/7

1/5

6/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

75.0%

73.2%

68.0%

74.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.8% 2.8% 4.9% 16.9% 12.6% 24.5% 35.6%

3.7% 3.4% 4.9% 17.0% 13.5% 24.1% 33.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

3.8%

3.4%

3.8%

3.2%

5.9%

4.5%

20.2%

16.0%

13.5%

12.9%

23.4%

26.0%

29.3%

34.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

74.9%

5.50

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 8



Q151 // To what degree does your organization: Communicate expectations regarding appropriate behaviors in support of diversity





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

325

1,666

538

4,120

MEAN

5.22

5.00

4.63

5.11

STD

DEV

1.77

1.81

1.87

1.78

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.71

3.71

5.22

5.22

3.71

5.86

RANK

--

1/7

1/5

5/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

70.3%

66.7%

60.5%

68.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

4.9% 5.8% 5.2% 16.0% 13.8% 22.2% 32.0%

6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 20.6% 13.0% 20.8% 27.4%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

7.9%

5.5%

6.1%

5.6%

6.5%

5.6%

21.0%

18.6%

14.3%

13.3%

19.5%

22.3%

24.8%

29.0%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

70.4%

5.22

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 18 // 9



Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity, in this section of reports.




Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity //


Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity // To what degree are you encouraged to provide feedback regarding diversity:



Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 19 // 1





Below is your institution's current performance for Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity and its scaled questions.



Factor 19 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity

N

332

MEAN

3.93

STD

DEV

1.93

PERFORMANCE

48.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





N

323

327

322

MEAN

4.17

STD

DEV

2.14

PERFORMANCE

52.8%

3.89

3.68

2.15

2.21

48.2%

44.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 19 // 2







SEX:

N

Female

212

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Male

132


% TOTAL

61.6%

38.4%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

5 years or less

126 36.6%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

202

128

MEAN

3.99

3.85

STD

DEV

1.93

1.93

PERFORMANCE

49.8%

47.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

264

68

MEAN

3.99

3.69

STD

DEV

1.89

2.04

PERFORMANCE

49.8%

44.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

48

283

MEAN

4.12

3.90

STD

DEV

1.93

1.92

PERFORMANCE

52.0%

48.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

209

121

MEAN

4.07

3.73

STD

DEV

1.88

1.96

PERFORMANCE

51.2%

45.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 19 // 3






Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

332

1,703

543

4,211

MEAN

3.93

3.89

3.79

3.96

STD

DEV

1.93

1.92

1.94

1.91

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.38

3.38

3.38

4.14

4.14

5.23

RANK

--

3/7

2/5

7/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

48.8%

48.2%

46.5%

49.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

N

323

MEAN

4.17

STD

DEV

2.14

PERFORMANCE

52.8%

327

322

3.89

3.68

2.15

2.21

48.2%

44.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 19 // 4






50%

40%

Performance

Mean

2012

48.8%

3.93

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 19 // 5

FACTOR 19 // Elements of Organizational Diversity: Feedback Regarding Diversity // Q152

Q152 // To what degree is your commitment to diversity part of your overall performance evaluation as an employee?





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

323

1,668

526

4,045

MEAN

4.17

4.08

3.97

4.11

STD

DEV

2.14

2.16

2.20

2.15

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.31

3.31

4.28

4.28

3.31

5.48

RANK

--

4/7

3/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

52.8%

51.3%

49.5%

51.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

18.9% 8.4% 8.7% 19.2% 10.2% 14.9% 19.8%

21.6% 8.7% 4.7% 21.2% 11.0% 14.3% 18.5%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

21.7%

20.3%

9.0%

8.9%

6.7%

6.3%

20.5%

19.6%

9.1%

11.8%

13.9%

14.5%

19.2%

18.6%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



60%

50%

Performance

Mean

2012

52.9%

4.17

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 19 // 6


Q153 // To what degree are you encouraged to provide feedback regarding diversity: On the organization as a whole





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

327

1,687

540

4,176

MEAN

3.89

3.82

3.66

3.93

STD

DEV

2.15

2.06

2.05

2.07

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

3.24

3.24

4.01

4.01

3.21

5.14

RANK

--

3/7

2/5

8/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

48.2%

47.0%

44.3%

48.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

22.3% 11.3% 5.8% 22.0% 10.4% 10.4% 17.7%

22.6% 9.1% 8.4% 22.6% 10.7% 13.6% 12.9%

Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

24.0%

20.8%

10.3%

10.2%

7.6%

7.2%

22.4%

22.4%

10.1%

11.3%

12.1%

13.4%

13.5%

14.8%

0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



50%

40%

Performance

Mean

2012

48.2%

3.89

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 19 // 7


Q154 // To what degree are you encouraged to provide feedback regarding diversity: Your direct supervisor




N

322

MEAN

3.68

STD

DEV

2.21

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,677

536

4,141

3.75

3.71

3.81

2.14

2.12

2.15

3.37

3.37

3.16

4.11

4.11

5.06

6/7

4/5

11/15

45.8%

45.2%

46.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

27.6% 11.2% 6.2% 18.9% 8.7% 10.9% 16.5%

Select 6 25.5% 9.5% 7.3% 21.1% 9.5% 12.7% 14.4%

Carnegie Class 26.6% 10.0% 7.1% 20.4% 9.3% 12.1% 14.5%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



50%

40%

Performance

Mean

2012

44.7%

3.68

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 19 // 8

FACTOR PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 20 // Overall Evaluation of Organization

EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS FACTOR COMPOSITION

Factors, a composite of scaled questions that explain a larger concept, are utilized in EBI’s reporting to reduce complexity and strengthen the analysis. EBI provides an in-depth analysis of the factor, Overall Evaluation, in this section of reports.




Overall Evaluation // Within your organization, to what degree do you feel:



Q161 // Valued



Overall Evaluation // To what degree:


Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 1



EXTERNAL BENCHMARKING LONGITUDINAL TRENDS FACTOR COMPOSITION



Below is your institution's current performance for Overall Evaluation and its scaled questions. While this factor might be difficult to improve directly, improving its scaled questions will likely be easier and will result in an improvement in the factor.


Factor 20 // Overall Evaluation of Organization

N

338

MEAN

5.65

STD

DEV

1.41

PERFORMANCE

77.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





Q161 // Valued



N

332

335

334

334

333

325

MEAN

5.97

5.79

5.62

5.60

5.57

5.36

STD

DEV

1.31

1.45

PERFORMANCE

82.8%

79.8%

1.58

1.56

77.0%

76.7%

1.62

1.80

76.2%

72.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 2








SEX:

N

Male

132

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Female

212


% TOTAL

38.4%

61.6%

N

White

275

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

All others

75

% TOTAL

78.6%

21.4%

EMPLOYEE TYPE:

N % TOTAL

All others

52 15.1%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

Full-time employee

293 84.9%


N % TOTAL

5 years or less

126 36.6%

100% ---------- % TOTAL ---------- 0

More than 5 years

218 63.4%

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

STAT

SIG

N

132

203

MEAN

5.71

5.65

STD

DEV

1.33

1.44

PERFORMANCE

78.5%

77.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

270

68

MEAN

5.72

5.35

STD

DEV

1.36

1.57

PERFORMANCE

78.7%

72.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

50

286

MEAN

5.96

5.60

STD

DEV

1.16

1.44

PERFORMANCE

82.7%

76.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

N

122

213

MEAN

5.71

5.63

STD

DEV

1.36

1.42

PERFORMANCE

78.5%

77.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 3

FACTOR 20 // Overall Evaluation





Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

N

338

1,722

543

4,249

MEAN

5.65

5.74

5.81

5.67

STD

DEV

1.41

1.38

1.26

1.39

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

4.63

4.63

4.63

5.93

5.93

5.93

RANK

--

5/7

4/5

9/15

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE

77.5%

79.0%

80.2%

77.8%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





Q161 // Valued



SELECT 6

CARNEGIE

CLASS

ALL

INST.

334

334

333

325

N

332

335

MEAN

5.97

5.79

STD

DEV

1.31

1.45

PERFORMANCE

82.8%

79.8%

5.62

5.60

5.57

5.36

1.58

1.56

1.62

1.80

77.0%

76.7%

76.2%

72.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 4

FACTOR PERFORMANCE






80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.4%

5.65

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 5

FACTOR 20 // Overall Evaluation of Organization // Q159

Q159 // Within your organization, to what degree do you feel: Accepted by others




N

332

MEAN

5.97

STD

DEV

1.31

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,707

540

4,213

5.99

6.06

5.93

1.30

1.20

1.30

4.53

4.53

4.53

6.23

6.23

6.23

5/7

4/5

7/15

83.2%

84.3%

82.2%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

0.9% 2.1% 2.7% 9.0% 9.0% 31.3% 44.9%

Select 6 0.9% 2.2% 1.9% 9.6% 10.3% 28.1% 47.0%

Carnegie Class 0.6% 1.6% 2.3% 9.5% 9.2% 29.9% 46.9%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

82.8%

5.97

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 6


Q160 // Within your organization, to what degree do you feel: That you have been treated fairly




N

334

MEAN

5.62

STD

DEV

1.58

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,705

539

4,211

5.82

5.88

5.74

1.48

1.36

1.49

4.59

4.59

4.59

5.99

5.99

5.99

6/7

4/5

11/15

80.3%

81.3%

79.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.8% 4.8% 4.5% 12.0% 12.6% 24.0% 40.4%

Select 6 2.1% 2.8% 4.0% 8.7% 11.2% 27.6% 43.6%

Carnegie Class 1.4% 3.0% 4.5% 10.1% 11.6% 27.4% 42.2%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

77.0%

5.62

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 7


Q161 // Within your organization, to what degree do you feel: Valued




N

334

MEAN

5.60

STD

DEV

1.56

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,705

538

4,205

5.66

5.74

5.59

1.59

1.47

1.59

4.47

4.47

4.47

5.92

5.92

5.92

5/7

4/5

9/15

77.7%

79.0%

76.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.1% 3.3% 6.3% 10.8% 14.4% 24.3% 38.9%

Select 6 2.5% 4.1% 5.0% 9.5% 12.3% 25.3% 41.2%

Carnegie Class 1.5% 3.3% 5.4% 10.8% 13.5% 24.7% 40.8%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

76.7%

5.60

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 8


Q162 // Within your organization, to what degree do you feel: That your ideas are respected




N

333

MEAN

5.57

STD

DEV

1.62

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,698

535

4,195

5.64

5.73

5.56

1.58

1.45

1.59

4.71

4.71

4.71

5.84

5.84

5.84

5/7

4/5

9/15

77.3%

78.8%

76.0%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

3.0% 3.0% 7.2% 10.2% 12.9% 24.3% 39.3%

Select 6 2.4% 4.2% 5.4% 9.2% 12.8% 26.4% 39.6%

Carnegie Class 1.5% 3.2% 6.5% 10.5% 12.7% 25.2% 40.4%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

76.2%

5.57

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 9


Q163 // Within your organization, to what degree do you feel: That you are appreciated for your differences




N

325

MEAN

5.36

STD

DEV

1.80

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,670

531

4,142

5.52

5.63

5.42

1.65

1.55

1.67

4.35

4.35

4.35

5.74

5.74

5.74

5/7

4/5

10/15

75.3%

77.2%

73.7%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

5.2% 4.0% 8.0% 12.6% 11.4% 20.3% 38.5%

Select 6 3.4% 4.0% 4.9% 12.8% 12.3% 24.9% 37.7%

Carnegie Class 3.0% 3.9% 6.5% 12.6% 11.0% 24.2% 38.8%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

72.6%

5.36

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 10


Q164 // To what degree: Would you recommend this organization to friends as a good place to work




N

335

MEAN

5.79

STD

DEV

1.45

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,705

539

4,204

5.81

5.81

5.76

1.49

1.38

1.51

5.12

5.12

5.12

5.94

5.94

6.01

4/7

3/5

6/15

80.2%

80.2%

79.3%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

1.5% 3.6% 2.1% 11.9% 12.2% 26.0% 42.7%

Select 6 2.6% 2.3% 3.0% 9.5% 13.1% 25.2% 44.3%

Carnegie Class 1.4% 2.6% 2.4% 11.9% 14.2% 24.9% 42.6%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



80%

70%

Performance

Mean

2012

79.8%

5.79

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Factor 20 // 11

Non-Factor Questions // Q059

Q059 // To what degree: Do you find workplace humor to be offensive




N

341

MEAN

6.17

STD

DEV

1.36

MEAN RANGE

MIN MAX

---

RANK

--

STAT SIG

--

PERFORMANCE


Select 6

Carnegie Class

All Institutions

1,745

557

4,313

6.27

6.29

6.25

1.18

1.19

1.18

4.18

4.18

4.18

6.45

6.45

6.60

5/7

4/5

10/15

87.8%

88.2%

87.5%

0 ------ PERFORMANCE ------ 100%





1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 //

2.1% 1.8% 2.9% 4.1% 6.7% 24.0% 58.4%

Select 6 0.7% 1.4% 1.8% 5.8% 6.6% 23.6% 60.1%

Carnegie Class 1.3% 1.6% 2.3% 4.7% 5.8% 24.5% 59.8%


0 ----- % RESPONDENTS ----- 100%



90%

80%

Performance

Mean

2012

86.2%

6.17

Issue

0%-70%

Needs Work

71%-74%

Good

75%-100%

NR Not Reported




Lower Equal Higher

Non-Factor Questions // 1

Related documents

Products

Support

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib