Xavier University
of Louisiana
UNIVERSITY
SUMMARY
Institutional Effectiveness
2009 Survey Results
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
Xavier Overview ..................................................................................................................... 3
Office of the President ............................................................................................................ 7
VP Area Overview ................................................................................................................ 11
Summary by VP Area ........................................................................................................... 19
Summary for Individual Units & Offices .............................................................................104
Introduction
Institutional Effectiveness
2009 Survey Results
–1–
Xavier University of Louisiana
OFFICE
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OF
PLANNING
AND INSTITUTIONAL
RESEARCH
Ronald Durnford
August 28, 2009
Institutional Effectiveness 2009 Survey Results
In April/May of 2009, faculty and staff were asked to complete an on-line survey on institutional
effectiveness. Respondents were given an opportunity to evaluate sixty-eight offices and units, and rate
them in six different areas of performance. They were asked to evaluate only those offices with which
they routinely interacted in the previous year, and were asked not to evaluate their own unit.
DEMOGRAPHICS



One hundred thirty-seven staff (26% of 533 surveyed) and 101 faculty (41% of 248 surveyed)
participated in the survey. There were 238 total respondents (30% of 781 surveyed).
Among staff, 68% were female, compared to 60% of those surveyed. Among faculty, 51% were
female, compared to 47% of those surveyed.
Among staff, 87% were African-American, compared to 89% of those surveyed. Among faculty,
23% were African-American, compared to 35% of those surveyed.
GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Please be advised of the following:

The first table (Interact With?) contains the response to the question of whether or not
respondents have interacted with the unit. The “Yes” total should agree with the Grand Total of
all subsequent tables.

The second table (Frequency of Use) gives information by level of the respondent’s interaction
with the unit within past year, and by type of respondent (faculty or staff):
 light (less than 5 interactions)
 moderate (5–10 interactions)
 heavy (more than 10 interactions)
All graphs show aggregate response (faculty and staff combined).
Beginning on the second page, responses to the individual questions that were used to evaluate
the units are found. Responses are shown for faculty and staff.
For each question (beginning on second page), the first (left) table gives number of respondents
by type(faculty or staff, and total); the second table gives percentages for same.




Below the second table, weighted average response (by status, and aggregate) is shown in blue.

Highlighted in gold is the Xavier collective (all departments combined) averaged response for the
same question (by status, and aggregate). Below that, the difference between each unit’s averaged
response and Xavier combined average is shown. If the unit has a lower average than Xavier’s,
the difference is shown in red within parentheses, like this: (0.60)
–2–
Xavier Overview
Institutional Effectiveness
2009 Survey Results
–3–
XULA (aggregated)
I have interacted with the Office of ... within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
4784
9971
1429
16184
Percent
29.6%
61.6%
8.8%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
1871
1492
1168
253
4784
100%
Faculty
872
491
289
47
1699
Staff
999
1001
879
206
3085
Faculty
51.3%
28.9%
17.0%
2.8%
100%
Staff
32.4%
32.4%
28.5%
6.7%
100%
Total
39.1%
31.2%
24.4%
5.3%
100%
XULA (All Units)
Frequency of Use
80%
62%
60%
Total
1871
1492
1168
253
4784
100%
XULA (All Units)
Interact With?
80%
40%
Percent
39.1%
31.2%
24.4%
5.3%
100%
60%
40%
30%
39%
31%
24%
20%
9%
0%
20%
5%
0%
Yes
XULA (aggregated results)
No
(blank)
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
–4–
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
XULA (aggregated)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
38
41
69
186
414
841
1589
64
46
1699
Staff
9
51
109
441
1188
1186
2984
52
49
3085
Total
47
92
178
627
1602
2027
4573
116
95
4784
Average:
Faculty
2.4%
2.6%
4.3%
11.7%
26.1%
52.9%
100%
Staff
0.3%
1.7%
3.7%
14.8%
39.8%
39.7%
100%
Total
1.0%
2.0%
3.9%
13.7%
35.0%
44.3%
100%
4.15
4.11
4.13
100%
XULA (All Units)
TIMELINESS
80%
60%
44%
40%
35%
20%
0%
14%
1%
2%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
31
29
65
163
390
884
1562
87
50
1699
Staff
11
32
84
354
1164
1298
2943
91
51
3085
Total
42
61
149
517
1554
2182
4505
178
101
4784
Average:
Faculty
2.0%
1.9%
4.2%
10.4%
25.0%
56.6%
100%
Staff
0.4%
1.1%
2.9%
12.0%
39.6%
44.1%
100%
Total
0.9%
1.4%
3.3%
11.5%
34.5%
48.4%
100%
4.24
4.22
4.23
100%
XULA (All Units)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
48%
40%
34%
20%
0%
11%
1%
1%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
38
46
79
175
377
848
1563
88
48
1699
Staff
18
59
114
432
1177
1156
2956
79
50
3085
Total
56
105
193
607
1554
2004
4519
167
98
4784
Average:
Faculty
2.4%
2.9%
5.1%
11.2%
24.1%
54.3%
100%
Staff
0.6%
2.0%
3.9%
14.6%
39.8%
39.1%
100%
Total
1.2%
2.3%
4.3%
13.4%
34.4%
44.3%
100%
4.14
4.08
4.10
100%
60%
44%
40%
34%
20%
0%
XULA (aggregated results)
XULA (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
80%
13%
1%
2%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
–5–
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2 of 3
XULA (aggregated)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
28
21
50
126
338
1062
1625
24
50
1699
Staff
14
27
75
338
1052
1494
3000
23
62
3085
Total
42
48
125
464
1390
2556
4625
47
112
4784
Average:
Faculty
1.7%
1.3%
3.1%
7.8%
20.8%
65.4%
100%
Staff
0.5%
0.9%
2.5%
11.3%
35.1%
49.8%
100%
Total
0.9%
1.0%
2.7%
10.0%
30.1%
55.3%
100%
4.41
4.29
4.33
100%
XULA (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
60%
55%
40%
30%
20%
0%
10%
1%
1%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
45
58
83
203
420
787
1596
46
57
1699
Staff
12
55
107
412
1136
1220
2942
83
60
3085
Total
57
113
190
615
1556
2007
4538
129
117
4784
Average:
Faculty
2.8%
3.6%
5.2%
12.7%
26.3%
49.3%
100%
Staff
0.4%
1.9%
3.6%
14.0%
38.6%
41.5%
100%
Total
1.3%
2.5%
4.2%
13.6%
34.3%
44.2%
100%
4.04
4.13
4.10
100%
XULA (All Units)
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
44%
40%
34%
20%
0%
14%
1%
2%
4%
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
48
55
108
193
636
614
1654
45
1699
Staff
17
47
101
398
1628
821
3012
73
3085
Total
65
102
209
591
2264
1435
4666
118
4784
Average:
Faculty
2.9%
3.3%
6.5%
11.7%
38.5%
37.1%
100%
Staff
0.6%
1.6%
3.4%
13.2%
54.1%
27.3%
100%
Total
1.4%
2.2%
4.5%
12.7%
48.5%
30.8%
100%
3.91
4.00
3.97
100%
60%
49%
40%
31%
20%
0%
XULA (aggregated results)
XULA (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
13%
1%
2%
4%
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
–6–
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
Office of
the President
Institutional Effectiveness
2009 Survey Results
–7–
President
I have interacted with the Office of the President within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
106
131
1
238
Percent
44.5%
55.0%
0.4%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
58
28
17
3
106
100%
Percent
54.7%
26.4%
16.0%
2.8%
100%
Faculty
21
2
2
Staff
37
26
15
3
81
25
Total
58
28
17
3
106
Faculty
84.0%
8.0%
8.0%
100%
Staff
45.7%
32.1%
18.5%
3.7%
100%
100%
Interact With?
80%
Total
54.7%
26.4%
16.0%
2.8%
100%
Frequency of Use
80%
60%
60%
55%
55%
45%
40%
40%
20%
20%
26%
0%
0%
Yes
President
No
16%
3%
0%
(blank)
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
–8–
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
President
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
Grand Total
Faculty
1
1
4
18
24
1
25
Staff
7
25
48
80
1
81
Total
1
8
29
66
104
2
106
Faculty
Average:
XU:
Staff
Total
4.2%
4.2%
16.7%
75.0%
100%
8.8%
31.3%
60.0%
100%
1.0%
7.7%
27.9%
63.5%
100%
4.63
4.15
0.47
4.51
4.11
0.40
4.54
4.13
0.41
100%
TIMELINESS
80%
63%
60%
40%
28%
20%
0%
8%
0%
0%
1%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
1
1
3
16
21
4
25
3
21
55
79
2
81
Total
Faculty
Staff
Total
1
4.8%
100%
80%
4.8%
14.3%
76.2%
100%
3.8%
26.6%
69.6%
100%
1.0%
0.0%
4.0%
24.0%
71.0%
100%
4
24
71
100
6
106
4.57
4.24
0.33
4.66
4.22
0.44
4.64
4.23
0.41
20%
KNOWLEDGEABLE
71%
60%
40%
24%
Average:
XU:
0%
0%
1%
0%
0-Poor
1
2
4%
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
Grand Total
President
Faculty
1
Staff
Total
1
Faculty
4.2%
Staff
Total
1.0%
100%
ACCESSIBLE
80%
2
2
19
24
1
25
2
24
53
79
2
81
4
26
72
103
3
106
8.3%
8.3%
79.2%
100%
2.5%
30.4%
67.1%
100%
3.9%
25.2%
69.9%
100%
4.54
4.14
0.40
4.65
4.08
0.56
4.62
4.10
0.52
70%
60%
40%
25%
Average:
XU:
20%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
–9–
4%
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2 of 3
President
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Grand Total
Faculty
1
3
21
25
Staff
1
5
23
52
81
Total
Faculty
1
6
26
73
106
Staff
Total
4.0%
12.0%
84.0%
100%
1.2%
6.2%
28.4%
64.2%
100%
0.9%
5.7%
24.5%
68.9%
100%
4.80
4.41
0.39
4.56
4.29
0.27
4.61
4.33
0.28
100%
COURTEOUS
80%
69%
60%
40%
25%
Average:
XU:
20%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0-Poor
1
2
6%
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
1
Staff
Total
1
Faculty
4.8%
Staff
Total
1.0%
100%
EFFICIENT
80%
2
2
16
21
3
1
25
4
23
50
77
4
81
6
25
66
98
7
1
106
9.5%
9.5%
76.2%
100%
5.2%
29.9%
64.9%
100%
6.1%
25.5%
67.3%
100%
4.48
4.04
0.44
4.60
4.13
0.47
4.57
4.10
0.47
67%
60%
40%
26%
Average:
XU:
20%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0-Poor
1
2
6%
3
4
5-Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
Total
Faculty
Total
100%
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
1
8
16
25
3
40
38
81
4
48
54
106
Average:
XU:
President
Staff
4.0%
32.0%
64.0%
100%
3.7%
49.4%
46.9%
100%
3.8%
45.3%
50.9%
100%
4.60
3.91
0.69
4.43
4.00
0.43
4.47
3.97
0.50
60%
45%
40%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 10 –
51%
4%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
VP Area Overview
Institutional Effectiveness
2009 Survey Results
– 11 –
APPENDIX A: ORGANIZATION CHARTS
Office of the President
Senior Vice
President,
Academic
Affairs
Vice President,
Fiscal Services
Senior Vice
President,
Administration
Vice President,
Student
Services
Vice
Vice President,
President,
Technology
Planning and Administration
Institutional
Research
Vice President, Facilities
Planning and Management
Office of the President
– 12 –
Special Assistant to the
President, Community Affairs
Senior Vice
President,
Resource
Development
Vice
President,
Institutional
Advancement
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
By VP Area
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 3.97
0.5
0.18 0.12 0.12 Planning & Institutional Research
Academic Affairs
0.09 0.10 0.09 Institutional Advancement
Auxiliary Support
0.0
Resource Development
Student Services
Administration
Fiscal Services
(0.13)
(0.14)
Facility Planning
Technology Administration
(0.18)
(0.21)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 13 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
By VP Area
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.5
0.16 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.0
Auxiliary Support
Academic Affairs
Planning & Institutional Research
Student Services
Resource Development
Institutional Advancement
Administration
Fiscal Services
(0.07)
Technology Administration
Facility Planning
(0.12)
(0.20)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 14 –
(0.24)
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
By VP Area
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
0.5
0.14 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.02 0.0
Planning & Institutional Research
Academic Affairs
Institutional Advancement
Auxiliary Support
Resource Development
Student Services
(0.00)
Fiscal Services
Administration
(0.08)
(0.09)
Facility Planning
Technology Administration
(0.16)
(0.21)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 15 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
By VP Area
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.29 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.0
Planning & Institutional Research
Auxiliary Support
Resource Development
Academic Affairs
Student Services
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 16 –
Institutional Advancement
Technology Administration
Fiscal Services
(0.18)
(0.19)
Administration
Facility Planning
(0.21)
(0.21)
1.0
COURTEOUS
By VP Area
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.21 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 Resource Development
Student Services
0.0
Planning & Institutional Research
Academic Affairs
Institutional Advancement
Auxiliary Support
Administration
(0.02)
Fiscal Services
Facility Planning
(0.08)
(0.08)
Technology Administration
(0.29)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 17 –
1.0
EFFICIENT
By VP Area
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.17 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.0
Planning & Institutional Research
Academic Affairs
Auxiliary Support
Institutional Advancement
Resource Development
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 18 –
Student Services
Fiscal Services
Administration
(0.11)
(0.11)
Facility Planning
Technology Administration
(0.21)
(0.22)
Summary by
VP Area
Institutional Effectiveness
2009 Survey Results
– 19 –
Under Senior VP Academic Affairs (all units)
I have interacted with ... within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
1119
2606
321
4046
Percent
27.7%
64.4%
7.9%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
Count
499
351
227
42
1119
Percent
44.6%
31.4%
20.3%
3.8%
100%
Faculty
274
181
111
16
582
Staff
225
170
116
26
537
Interact With?
60%
Faculty
47.1%
31.1%
19.1%
2.7%
100%
Staff
41.9%
31.7%
21.6%
4.8%
100%
100%
SVP Academic Affairs (All Units)
80%
Total
499
351
227
42
1119
Total
44.6%
31.4%
20.3%
3.8%
100%
SVP Academic Affairs (All Units)
Frequency of Use
80%
60%
64%
45%
40%
40%
20%
8%
0%
Under SVP Academic Affairs (all units)
20%
20%
28%
Yes
31%
No
4%
0%
1 (Light)
(blank)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 20 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1of 3
Under Senior VP Academic Affairs (all units)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
8
18
64
137
326
558
18
6
582
Staff
5
17
75
201
216
514
16
7
537
Total
5
13
35
139
338
542
1072
34
13
1119
Average:
XU:
Faculty
0.9%
1.4%
3.2%
11.5%
24.6%
58.4%
100%
Staff
1.0%
3.3%
14.6%
39.1%
42.0%
100%
Total
0.5%
1.2%
3.3%
13.0%
31.5%
50.6%
100%
4.33
4.15
0.17
4.18
4.11
0.07
4.26
4.13
0.13
100%
SVP Academic Affairs (All Units)
TIMELINESS
80%
60%
51%
40%
32%
20%
0%
13%
0%
1%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
4
9
11
52
137
340
553
23
6
582
Staff
2
9
65
191
242
509
20
8
537
Total
4
11
20
117
328
582
1062
43
14
1119
Average:
XU:
Faculty
0.7%
1.6%
2.0%
9.4%
24.8%
61.5%
100%
Staff
0.4%
1.8%
12.8%
37.5%
47.5%
100%
Total
0.4%
1.0%
1.9%
11.0%
30.9%
54.8%
100%
4.40
4.24
0.16
4.30
4.22
0.08
4.35
4.23
0.13
100%
SVP Academic Affairs (All Units)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
55%
40%
31%
20%
0%
11%
0%
1%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
8
13
15
63
130
321
550
27
5
582
Under SVP Academic Affairs (all units)
Staff
8
18
72
200
218
516
13
8
537
Total
8
21
33
135
330
539
1066
40
13
1119
Average:
XU:
Faculty
1.5%
2.4%
2.7%
11.5%
23.6%
58.4%
100%
Staff
1.6%
3.5%
14.0%
38.8%
42.2%
100%
Total
0.8%
2.0%
3.1%
12.7%
31.0%
50.6%
100%
4.29
4.14
0.14
4.17
4.08
0.08
4.23
4.10
0.12
100%
SVP Academic Affairs (All Units) ACCESSIBLE
80%
60%
51%
40%
31%
20%
0%
13%
1%
2%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 21 –
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2of 3
Under Senior VP Academic Affairs (all units)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
4
12
36
108
405
570
7
5
582
Staff
3
9
63
172
274
521
4
12
537
Total
5
7
21
99
280
679
1091
11
17
1119
Faculty
0.9%
0.7%
2.1%
6.3%
18.9%
71.1%
100%
Staff
0.6%
1.7%
12.1%
33.0%
52.6%
100%
Total
0.5%
0.6%
1.9%
9.1%
25.7%
62.2%
100%
4.55
4.41
0.14
4.35
4.29
0.06
4.46
4.33
0.12
100%
SVP Academic Affairs (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
62%
60%
40%
26%
Average:
XU:
20%
0%
9%
0%
1%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
6
18
22
66
144
299
555
18
9
582
Staff
6
14
64
184
232
500
29
8
537
Total
6
24
36
130
328
531
1055
47
17
1119
Average:
XU:
Faculty
1.1%
3.2%
4.0%
11.9%
25.9%
53.9%
100%
Staff
1.2%
2.8%
12.8%
36.8%
46.4%
100%
Total
0.6%
2.3%
3.4%
12.3%
31.1%
50.3%
100%
4.20
4.04
0.16
4.24
4.13
0.11
4.22
4.10
0.12
100%
SVP Academic Affairs (All Units) EFFICIENT
80%
60%
50%
40%
31%
20%
0%
12%
1%
2%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
13
11
31
51
215
249
570
12
582
Under SVP Academic Affairs (all units)
Staff
3
4
7
63
300
144
521
16
537
Total
16
15
38
114
515
393
1091
28
1119
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.3%
1.9%
5.4%
8.9%
37.7%
43.7%
100%
Staff
0.6%
0.8%
1.3%
12.1%
57.6%
27.6%
100%
Total
1.5%
1.4%
3.5%
10.4%
47.2%
36.0%
100%
4.09
3.91
0.18
4.08
4.00
0.08
4.09
3.97
0.12
100%
80%
SVP Academic Affairs (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
60%
47%
36%
40%
20%
0%
1%
3%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 22 –
1%
10%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
(Under Senior VP—Academic Affairs)
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0.5
0.41 0.38 0.35 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.0
CAT
MEDIA
INTLIB
DCAS
ARCV
REF
VPAA
STAR
PRERX
VPAA‐Aggr
CUR
LIB
ADMIS
REG
AE
(0.04)
(0.04)
(0.05)
CIRC
DCOP
CIIP
(0.16)
(0.41)
(0.5)
(0.47)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 23 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
Under Senior VP—Academic Affairs
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.56 0.48 0.5
0.41 0.40 0.31 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.0
CAT
MEDIA
REF
ARCV
CIRC
VPAA
DCAS
STAR
LIB
CUR
INTLIB
VPAA‐Aggr
PRERX
REG
AE
ADMIS
DCOP
CIIP
(0.03)
(0.13)
(0.24)
(0.5)
(0.47)
KEY
(1.0)
ADMIS
AE
ARCV
CAT
CIIP
CIRC
CUR
DCAS
DCOP
INTLIB
LIB
MEDIA
PRERX
REF
REG
STAR
VPAA
Admissions
Office of Academic Enhancement
Archives & Special Collections
Center for the Advancement of Teaching Center for Intercultural & International Programs Circulation & Reserve
Center for Undergraduate Research
Office of the Dean‐ College of Arts & Sciences
Office of the Dean‐ College of Pharmacy
Interlibrary Loan
Library
Instructional Media Services
Pre–Pharmacy Advising
Reference Services
Registrar
Graduate Placement (GradStar)
Office of the Senior VP for Academic Affairs
(1.5)
– 24 –
(0.65)
1.5
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Under Senior VP—Academic Affairs
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
1.0
0.5
0.44 0.42 0.41 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.10 PRERX
LIB
CIRC
0.08 0.0
CAT
ARCV
MEDIA
DCAS
INTLIB
VPAA
REF
CUR
VPAA‐Aggr
STAR
REG
ADMIS
(0.07)
(0.09)
AE
(0.17)
CIIP
DCOP
(0.19)
(0.32)
(0.5)
KEY
(1.0)
ADMIS
AE
ARCV
CAT
CIIP
CIRC
CUR
DCAS
DCOP
INTLIB
LIB
MEDIA
PRERX
REF
REG
STAR
VPAA
Admissions
Office of Academic Enhancement
Archives & Special Collections
Center for the Advancement of Teaching Center for Intercultural & International Programs Circulation & Reserve
Center for Undergraduate Research
Office of the Dean‐ College of Arts & Sciences
Office of the Dean‐ College of Pharmacy
Interlibrary Loan
Library
Instructional Media Services
Pre–Pharmacy Advising
Reference Services
Registrar
Graduate Placement (GradStar)
Office of the Senior VP for Academic Affairs
(1.5)
– 25 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
Under Senior VP—Academic Affairs
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.56 0.5
0.48 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.24 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.00 STAR
PRERX
0.0
CAT
REF
CIRC
ARCV
MEDIA
LIB
DCAS
VPAA
INTLIB
VPAA‐Aggr
CUR
AE
REG
(0.08)
ADMIS
DCOP
CIIP
(0.10)
(0.36)
(0.5)
(0.55)
KEY
(1.0)
ADMIS
AE
ARCV
CAT
CIIP
CIRC
CUR
DCAS
DCOP
INTLIB
LIB
MEDIA
PRERX
REF
REG
STAR
VPAA
Admissions
Office of Academic Enhancement
Archives & Special Collections
Center for the Advancement of Teaching Center for Intercultural & International Programs Circulation & Reserve
Center for Undergraduate Research
Office of the Dean‐ College of Arts & Sciences
Office of the Dean‐ College of Pharmacy
Interlibrary Loan
Library
Instructional Media Services
Pre–Pharmacy Advising
Reference Services
Registrar
Graduate Placement (GradStar)
Office of the Senior VP for Academic Affairs
(1.5)
– 26 –
1.0
COURTEOUS
Under Senior VP—Academic Affairs
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.43 0.36 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.05 STAR
REG
PRERX
0.0
CAT
MEDIA
ARCV
DCAS
REF
INTLIB
VPAA
CUR
VPAA‐Aggr
LIB
CIRC
AE
ADMIS
CIIP
DCOP
(0.06)
(0.23)
(0.43)
(0.5)
KEY
(1.0)
ADMIS
AE
ARCV
CAT
CIIP
CIRC
CUR
DCAS
DCOP
INTLIB
LIB
MEDIA
PRERX
REF
REG
STAR
VPAA
Admissions
Office of Academic Enhancement
Archives & Special Collections
Center for the Advancement of Teaching Center for Intercultural & International Programs Circulation & Reserve
Center for Undergraduate Research
Office of the Dean‐ College of Arts & Sciences
Office of the Dean‐ College of Pharmacy
Interlibrary Loan
Library
Instructional Media Services
Pre–Pharmacy Advising
Reference Services
Registrar
Graduate Placement (GradStar)
Office of the Senior VP for Academic Affairs
(1.5)
– 27 –
1.0
EFFICIENT
Under Senior VP—Academic Affairs
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.50 0.43 0.43 0.35 0.33 0.27 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.0
CAT
MEDIA
ARCV
DCAS
VPAA
STAR
INTLIB
REF
PRERX
VPAA‐Aggr
LIB
CUR
AE
CIRC
ADMIS
REG
DCOP
CIIP
(0.00)
(0.10)
(0.15)
(0.42)
(0.5)
(0.51)
KEY
(1.0)
ADMIS
AE
ARCV
CAT
CIIP
CIRC
CUR
DCAS
DCOP
INTLIB
LIB
MEDIA
PRERX
REF
REG
STAR
VPAA
Admissions
Office of Academic Enhancement
Archives & Special Collections
Center for the Advancement of Teaching Center for Intercultural & International Programs Circulation & Reserve
Center for Undergraduate Research
Office of the Dean‐ College of Arts & Sciences
Office of the Dean‐ College of Pharmacy
Interlibrary Loan
Library
Instructional Media Services
Pre–Pharmacy Advising
Reference Services
Registrar
Graduate Placement (GradStar)
Office of the Senior VP for Academic Affairs
(1.5)
– 28 –
Under Senior VP Administration (all units)
I have interacted with ... within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
442
673
75
1190
Percent
37.1%
56.6%
6.3%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
Count
165
141
104
32
442
Percent
37.3%
31.9%
23.5%
7.2%
100%
Faculty
68
23
11
3
105
Staff
97
118
93
29
337
Faculty
Staff
Grand Total
64.8%
28.8%
37.3%
21.9%
35.0%
31.9%
10.5%
27.6%
23.5%
2.9%
8.6%
7.2%
100%
100%
100%
100%
SVP Administration (All Units)
Interact With?
80%
Total
165
141
104
32
442
SVP Administration (All Units)
Frequency of Use
80%
60%
60%
57%
40%
40%
37%
32%
24%
37%
20%
20%
6%
0%
Yes
Under SVP Administration (all units)
No
7%
0%
1 (Light)
(blank)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 29 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Under Senior VP Administration (all units)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
2
3
6
14
25
50
100
3
2
105
Staff
1
11
13
57
113
137
332
3
2
337
Total
3
14
19
71
138
187
432
6
4
442
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.0%
3.0%
6.0%
14.0%
25.0%
50.0%
100%
Staff
0.3%
3.3%
3.9%
17.2%
34.0%
41.3%
100%
Total
0.7%
3.2%
4.4%
16.4%
31.9%
43.3%
100%
100%
4.07
4.15
(0.08)
4.05
4.11
(0.06)
4.06
4.13
(0.07)
20%
SVP Administration (All Units)
TIMELINESS
80%
60%
43%
40%
0%
32%
16%
1%
3%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Row Labels
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
3
2
6
13
24
51
99
3
3
105
Staff
2
9
13
41
112
150
327
7
3
337
Grand Total
5
11
19
54
136
201
426
10
6
442
Average:
XU:
Faculty
3.0%
2.0%
6.1%
13.1%
24.2%
51.5%
100%
Staff
0.6%
2.8%
4.0%
12.5%
34.3%
45.9%
100%
Total
1.2%
2.6%
4.5%
12.7%
31.9%
47.2%
100%
100%
4.08
4.24
(0.16)
4.15
4.22
(0.07)
4.13
4.23
(0.09)
20%
SVP Administration (All Units)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
47%
40%
0%
32%
13%
1%
3%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
4
5
5
16
22
49
101
2
2
105
Under SVP Administration (all units)
Staff
5
16
15
57
119
119
331
3
3
337
Total
9
21
20
73
141
168
432
5
5
442
Average:
XU:
Faculty
4.0%
5.0%
5.0%
15.8%
21.8%
48.5%
100%
Staff
1.5%
4.8%
4.5%
17.2%
36.0%
36.0%
100%
Total
2.1%
4.9%
4.6%
16.9%
32.6%
38.9%
100%
100%
3.92
4.14
(0.22)
3.89
4.08
(0.19)
3.90
4.10
(0.21)
20%
SVP Administration (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
80%
60%
40%
0%
33%
17%
2%
5%
5%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 30 –
39%
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2 of 3
Under Senior VP Administration (all units)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
1
3
6
6
19
64
99
4
2
105
Staff
1
2
10
40
103
171
327
5
5
337
Total
2
5
16
46
122
235
426
9
7
442
Average:
XU:
Faculty
1.0%
3.0%
6.1%
6.1%
19.2%
64.6%
100%
Staff
0.3%
0.6%
3.1%
12.2%
31.5%
52.3%
100%
Total
0.5%
1.2%
3.8%
10.8%
28.6%
55.2%
100%
100%
4.33
4.41
(0.07)
4.31
4.29
0.02
4.31
4.33
(0.02)
20%
SVP Administration (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
60%
55%
40%
0%
29%
11%
0%
1%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
2
5
7
17
23
45
99
3
3
105
Staff
3
11
20
47
109
136
326
8
3
337
Total
5
16
27
64
132
181
425
11
6
442
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.0%
5.1%
7.1%
17.2%
23.2%
45.5%
100%
Staff
0.9%
3.4%
6.1%
14.4%
33.4%
41.7%
100%
Total
1.2%
3.8%
6.4%
15.1%
31.1%
42.6%
100%
100%
3.91
4.04
(0.13)
4.01
4.13
(0.12)
3.99
4.10
(0.11)
20%
SVP Administration (All Units)
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
43%
40%
0%
31%
15%
1%
4%
6%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
3
7
9
14
39
31
103
2
105
Under SVP Administration (all units)
Staff
3
12
15
55
149
97
331
6
337
Total
6
19
24
69
188
128
434
8
442
Faculty
2.9%
6.8%
8.7%
13.6%
37.9%
30.1%
100%
Average:
XU:
3.67
3.91
(0.24)
Staff
0.9%
3.6%
4.5%
16.6%
45.0%
29.3%
100%
3.89
4.00
(0.11)
Total
1.4%
4.4%
5.5%
15.9%
43.3%
29.5%
100%
3.84
3.97
(0.13)
100%
SVP Administration (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
60%
43%
40%
29%
16%
20%
0%
1%
6%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 31 –
4%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Under Senior VP—Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 3.97
0.5
0.48 0.41 0.0
CRED
VPADMIN
VPADMIN‐Aggr
HR
FINAID
WS
(0.13)
(0.31)
(0.5)
(0.53)
(0.70)
(1.0)
KEY
CRED
FINAID
HR
VPADMIN
WS
Credit Union
Financial Aid
Human Resources
Office of the Senior VP for Administration
Work/Study
(1.5)
– 32 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
Under Senior VP—Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.57 0.5
0.34 0.0
CRED
VPADMIN
VPADMIN‐Aggr
HR
FINAID
WS
(0.07)
(0.25)
(0.5)
(0.48)
(0.53)
(1.0)
KEY
CRED
FINAID
HR
VPADMIN
WS
Credit Union
Financial Aid
Human Resources
Office of the Senior VP for Administration
Work/Study
(1.5)
– 33 –
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Under Senior VP—Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
0.52 0.5
0.42 0.0
CRED
VPADMIN
VPADMIN‐Aggr
HR
FINAID
WS
(0.09)
(0.34)
(0.38)
(0.5)
(0.51)
(1.0)
KEY
CRED
FINAID
HR
VPADMIN
WS
Credit Union
Financial Aid
Human Resources
Office of the Senior VP for Administration
Work/Study
(1.5)
– 34 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
Under Senior VP—Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.42 0.39 0.0
VPADMIN
CRED
VPADMIN‐Aggr
HR
WS
FINAID
(0.21)
(0.34)
(0.5)
(0.64)
(0.92)
(1.0)
KEY
CRED
FINAID
HR
VPADMIN
WS
Credit Union
Financial Aid
Human Resources
Office of the Senior VP for Administration
Work/Study
(1.5)
– 35 –
1.0
COURTEOUS
Under Senior VP—Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.36 0.23 0.0
VPADMIN
CRED
HR
VPADMIN‐Aggr
(0.01)
(0.02)
WS
FINAID
(0.42)
(0.5)
(0.47)
(1.0)
KEY
CRED
FINAID
HR
VPADMIN
WS
Credit Union
Financial Aid
Human Resources
Office of the Senior VP for Administration
Work/Study
(1.5)
– 36 –
1.0
EFFICIENT
Under Senior VP—Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.57 0.5
0.42 0.0
CRED
VPADMIN
VPADMIN‐Aggr
HR
FINAID
WS
(0.11)
(0.35)
(0.5)
(0.48)
(0.61)
(1.0)
KEY
CRED
FINAID
HR
VPADMIN
WS
Credit Union
Financial Aid
Human Resources
Office of the Senior VP for Administration
Work/Study
(1.5)
– 37 –
Under VP Fiscal Services (all units)
I have interacted with ... within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
580
1149
175
1904
Percent
30.5%
60.3%
9.2%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
209
167
173
31
580
100%
Percent
36.0%
28.8%
29.8%
5.3%
100%
Faculty
100
46
29
2
177
Staff
109
121
144
29
403
Interact With?
60%
40%
30%
VP Fiscal Services (All Units)
Frequency of Use
36%
29%
30%
20%
9%
0%
Under VP Fiscal Services (all units)
Total
36.0%
28.8%
29.8%
5.3%
100%
60%
60%
Yes
Staff
27.0%
30.0%
35.7%
7.2%
100%
80%
40%
20%
Faculty
56.5%
26.0%
16.4%
1.1%
100%
100%
VP Fiscal Services (All Units)
80%
Total
209
167
173
31
580
No
5%
0%
(blank)
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 38 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Under VP Fiscal Services (all units)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
8
13
9
23
46
71
170
3
4
177
Staff
7
15
60
154
155
391
6
6
403
Total
8
20
24
83
200
226
561
9
10
580
Average:
XU:
Faculty
4.7%
7.6%
5.3%
13.5%
27.1%
41.8%
100%
3.76
4.15
(0.39)
Staff
100%
1.8%
3.8%
15.3%
39.4%
39.6%
100%
Total
1.4%
3.6%
4.3%
14.8%
35.7%
40.3%
100%
4.11
4.11
(0.00)
4.01
4.13
(0.12)
20%
VP Fiscal Services (All Units)
TIMELINESS
80%
60%
40%
0%
36%
40%
15%
1%
4%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
6
6
14
21
39
79
165
8
4
177
Staff
3
11
44
155
168
381
17
5
403
Total
6
9
25
65
194
247
546
25
9
580
Average:
XU:
Faculty
3.6%
3.6%
8.5%
12.7%
23.6%
47.9%
100%
3.93
4.24
(0.32)
Staff
100%
0.8%
2.9%
11.5%
40.7%
44.1%
100%
Total
1.1%
1.6%
4.6%
11.9%
35.5%
45.2%
100%
4.24
4.22
0.03
4.15
4.23
(0.08)
20%
VP Fiscal Services (All Units)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
45%
40%
0%
36%
12%
1%
2%
5%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
35%
38%
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
7
10
15
28
36
71
167
6
4
177
Under VP Fiscal Services (all units)
Staff
3
11
19
57
160
138
388
8
7
403
Total
10
21
34
85
196
209
555
14
11
580
Average:
XU:
Faculty
4.2%
6.0%
9.0%
16.8%
21.6%
42.5%
100%
Staff
0.8%
2.8%
4.9%
14.7%
41.2%
35.6%
100%
Total
1.8%
3.8%
6.1%
15.3%
35.3%
37.7%
100%
100%
3.73
4.14
(0.41)
3.99
4.08
(0.09)
3.92
4.10
(0.19)
20%
VP Fiscal Services (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
80%
60%
40%
0%
15%
2%
4%
6%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 39 –
3
Page 2 of 3
Under VP Fiscal Services (all units)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
6
3
8
19
37
99
172
1
4
177
Staff
1
5
10
43
143
193
395
3
5
403
Total
7
8
18
62
180
292
567
4
9
580
Average:
XU:
Faculty
3.5%
1.7%
4.7%
11.0%
21.5%
57.6%
100%
Staff
0.3%
1.3%
2.5%
10.9%
36.2%
48.9%
100%
Total
1.2%
1.4%
3.2%
10.9%
31.7%
51.5%
100%
100%
4.18
4.41
(0.23)
4.28
4.29
(0.01)
4.25
4.33
(0.08)
20%
VP Fiscal Services (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
60%
51%
40%
0%
32%
11%
1%
1%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
11
11
10
30
41
66
169
1
7
177
Staff
1
7
11
57
151
161
388
8
7
403
Total
12
18
21
87
192
227
557
9
14
580
Average:
XU:
Faculty
6.5%
6.5%
5.9%
17.8%
24.3%
39.1%
100%
Staff
0.3%
1.8%
2.8%
14.7%
38.9%
41.5%
100%
Total
2.2%
3.2%
3.8%
15.6%
34.5%
40.8%
100%
100%
3.64
4.04
(0.40)
4.15
4.13
0.02
3.99
4.10
(0.11)
20%
VP Fiscal Services (All Units)
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
40%
0%
34%
41%
16%
2%
3%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
9
8
14
31
62
45
169
8
177
Under VP Fiscal Services (all units)
Staff
3
4
16
71
200
104
398
5
403
Total
12
12
30
102
262
149
567
13
580
Faculty
5.3%
4.7%
8.3%
18.3%
36.7%
26.6%
100%
Average:
XU:
3.56
3.91
(0.35)
Staff
0.8%
1.0%
4.0%
17.8%
50.3%
26.1%
100%
3.94
4.00
(0.06)
Total
2.1%
2.1%
5.3%
18.0%
46.2%
26.3%
100%
3.83
3.97
(0.14)
100%
VP Fiscal Services (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
60%
46%
40%
26%
18%
20%
0%
2%
5%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 40 –
2%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Under VP-Fiscal Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 3.97
0.5
0.22 0.19 0.0
STACC
CASH
PAY
VPFISC‐Aggr
BUDGT
(0.14)
(0.15)
PURCH
ACCPAY
GRANT
(0.36)
(0.37)
VPFISC
(0.02)
(0.21)
(0.45)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
ACCPAY
BUDGT
CASH
GRANT
PAY
PURCH
STACC
VPFISC
Accounts Payable
Budget Office
Cashier
Grants & Contracts Accounting
Payroll
Purchasing (Requisitions & Purchase Orders)
Student Accounts
Office of the VP for Fiscal Services
(1.5)
– 41 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
Under VP-Fiscal Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.5
0.23 0.18 0.05 0.0
CASH
STACC
PAY
BUDGT
(0.08)
VPFISC‐Aggr
PURCH
ACCPAY
VPFISC
GRANT
(0.12)
(0.18)
(0.36)
(0.41)
(0.5)
(0.47)
(1.0)
KEY
ACCPAY
BUDGT
CASH
GRANT
PAY
PURCH
STACC
VPFISC
Accounts Payable
Budget Office
Cashier
Grants & Contracts Accounting
Payroll
Purchasing (Requisitions & Purchase Orders)
Student Accounts
Office of the VP for Fiscal Services
(1.5)
– 42 –
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Under VP-Fiscal Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
0.5
0.24 0.08 0.02 0.0
CASH
STACC
PAY
BUDGT
VPFISC‐Aggr
(0.05)
ACCPAY
PURCH
(0.20)
(0.21)
VPFISC
GRANT
(0.08)
(0.29)
(0.36)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
ACCPAY
BUDGT
CASH
GRANT
PAY
PURCH
STACC
VPFISC
Accounts Payable
Budget Office
Cashier
Grants & Contracts Accounting
Payroll
Purchasing (Requisitions & Purchase Orders)
Student Accounts
Office of the VP for Fiscal Services
(1.5)
– 43 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
Under VP-Fiscal Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.21 0.09 0.0
CASH
STACC
PAY
BUDGT
PURCH
VPFISC‐Aggr
(0.18)
(0.19)
GRANT
ACCPAY
VPFISC
(0.04)
(0.10)
(0.5)
(0.46)
(0.48)
(0.57)
(1.0)
KEY
ACCPAY
BUDGT
CASH
GRANT
PAY
PURCH
STACC
VPFISC
Accounts Payable
Budget Office
Cashier
Grants & Contracts Accounting
Payroll
Purchasing (Requisitions & Purchase Orders)
Student Accounts
Office of the VP for Fiscal Services
(1.5)
– 44 –
1.0
COURTEOUS
Under VP-Fiscal Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.17 0.15 0.05 0.0
CASH
BUDGT
STACC
VPFISC‐Aggr
PAY
GRANT
(0.08)
(0.10)
(0.11)
ACCPAY
PURCH
VPFISC
(0.25)
(0.26)
(0.19)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
ACCPAY
BUDGT
CASH
GRANT
PAY
PURCH
STACC
VPFISC
Accounts Payable
Budget Office
Cashier
Grants & Contracts Accounting
Payroll
Purchasing (Requisitions & Purchase Orders)
Student Accounts
Office of the VP for Fiscal Services
(1.5)
– 45 –
1.0
EFFICIENT
Under VP-Fiscal Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.27 0.13 0.08 0.0
CASH
STACC
PAY
VPFISC‐Aggr
PURCH
(0.11)
(0.12)
BUDGT
ACCPAY
VPFISC
(0.39)
(0.40)
GRANT
(0.14)
(0.5)
(0.51)
(1.0)
KEY
ACCPAY
BUDGT
CASH
GRANT
PAY
PURCH
STACC
VPFISC
Accounts Payable
Budget Office
Cashier
Grants & Contracts Accounting
Payroll
Purchasing (Requisitions & Purchase Orders)
Student Accounts
Office of the VP for Fiscal Services
(1.5)
– 46 –
Under VP Facility Planning & Management (all units)
I have interacted with the Help Desk within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
504
600
86
1190
Percent
42.4%
50.4%
7.2%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
Count
125
172
172
35
504
Percent
24.8%
34.1%
34.1%
6.9%
100%
Faculty
42
54
39
6
141
Staff
83
118
133
29
363
Interact With?
Staff
22.9%
32.5%
36.6%
8.0%
100%
Total
24.8%
34.1%
34.1%
6.9%
100%
VP Facility Planning (All Units) Frequency of Use
80%
60%
60%
40%
Faculty
29.8%
38.3%
27.7%
4.3%
100%
100%
VP Facility Planning (All Units)
80%
Total
125
172
172
35
504
50%
40%
42%
34%
34%
25%
20%
20%
7%
0%
Yes
No
Under VP Facility Planning & Management (all units)
7%
0%
1 (Light)
(blank)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 47 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Under VP Facility Planning & Management (all units)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
6
5
13
19
28
60
131
4
6
141
Staff
6
7
17
69
139
117
355
3
5
363
Total
12
12
30
88
167
177
486
7
11
504
Average:
XU:
Faculty
4.6%
3.8%
9.9%
14.5%
21.4%
45.8%
100%
Staff
1.7%
2.0%
4.8%
19.4%
39.2%
33.0%
100%
Total
2.5%
2.5%
6.2%
18.1%
34.4%
36.4%
100%
100%
3.82
4.15
(0.34)
3.91
4.11
(0.20)
3.89
4.13
(0.24)
20%
VP Facility Planning (All Units)
TIMELINESS
80%
60%
40%
34%
36%
4
5-Excellent
18%
2%
2%
0-Poor
1
6%
0%
2
3
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5 E ll t
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
6
2
8
17
23
69
125
10
6
141
Staff
5
4
13
44
149
125
340
16
7
363
Total
11
6
21
61
172
194
465
26
13
504
Average:
XU:
Faculty
4.8%
1.6%
6.4%
13.6%
18.4%
55
55.2%
2%
100%
Staff
1.5%
1.2%
3.8%
12.9%
43.8%
36
36.8%
8%
100%
Total
2.4%
1.3%
4.5%
13.1%
37.0%
41
41.7%
7%
100%
100%
4.05
4.24
(0.20)
4.07
4.22
(0.15)
4.06
4.23
(0.16)
20%
VP Facility Planning (All Units)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
37%
40%
42%
13%
2%
1%
0-Poor
1
0%
5%
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
8
10
16
23
58
120
14
7
141
Staff
5
8
18
63
133
117
344
14
5
363
Under VP Facility Planning & Management (all units)
Total
10
16
28
79
156
175
464
28
12
504
Average:
XU:
Faculty
4.2%
6.7%
8.3%
13.3%
19.2%
48.3%
100%
Staff
1.5%
2.3%
5.2%
18.3%
38.7%
34.0%
100%
Total
2.2%
3.4%
6.0%
17.0%
33.6%
37.7%
100%
100%
3.82
4.14
(0.33)
3.92
4.08
(0.16)
3.90
4.10
(0.21)
20%
VP Facility Planning (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
80%
60%
40%
0%
34%
17%
2%
3%
6%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 48 –
38%
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2 of 3
Under VP Facility Planning & Management (all units)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
4
14
27
81
131
3
7
141
Staff
5
2
10
37
134
164
352
3
8
363
Total
10
2
14
51
161
245
483
6
15
504
Faculty
3.8%
Average:
XU:
Total
2.1%
0.4%
2.9%
10.6%
33.3%
50.7%
100%
100%
3.1%
10.7%
20.6%
61.8%
100%
Staff
1.4%
0.6%
2.8%
10.5%
38.1%
46.6%
100%
4.30
4.41
(0.11)
4.23
4.29
(0.06)
4.25
4.33
(0.08)
20%
VP Facility Planning (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
60%
51%
40%
0%
33%
11%
2%
0%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5 E ll t
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Response
Faculty
6
8
12
22
26
58
132
2
7
Faculty
Staff
4
10
16
60
141
121
352
4
7
Staff
Total
10
18
28
82
167
179
484
6
14
Total
Average:
XU:
Faculty
4.5%
6.1%
9.1%
16.7%
19.7%
43
43.9%
9%
100%
Staff
1.1%
2.8%
4.5%
17.0%
40.1%
34
34.4%
4%
100%
Total
2.1%
3.7%
5.8%
16.9%
34.5%
37
37.0%
0%
100%
100%
3.73
4.04
(0.31)
3.95
4.13
(0.18)
3.89
4.10
(0.21)
20%
VP Facility Planning (All Units)
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
40%
0%
35%
37%
4
5-Excellent
17%
2%
4%
6%
0-Poor
1
2
3
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
7
6
18
21
45
43
140
1
141
Staff
3
7
12
61
195
75
353
10
363
Under VP Facility Planning & Management (all units)
Total
10
13
30
82
240
118
493
11
504
Faculty
5.0%
4.3%
12.9%
15.0%
32.1%
30.7%
100%
Average:
XU:
3.57
3.91
(0.34)
Staff
0.8%
2.0%
3.4%
17.3%
55.2%
21.2%
100%
3.88
4.00
(0.13)
Total
2.0%
2.6%
6.1%
16.6%
48.7%
23.9%
100%
3.79
3.97
(0.18)
100%
VP Facility Planning (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
60%
49%
40%
24%
17%
20%
0%
2%
6%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 49 –
3%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Under VP-Facility Planning & Management
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 3.97
0.5
0.06 0.0
REC
FPLAN
(0.02)
VPFPLAN‐Aggr
PHYS
JANI
CENT
(0.27)
(0.27)
(0 28)
(0.28)
(0.18)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
CENT
FPLAN
JANI
PHYS
REC
Central Plant (heating, A/C)
Office of VP—Facility Planning & Management
Housekeeping (JaniKing)
Physical Plant/Building Services (carpenters/movers/plumbing, etc.)
Receiving
(1.5)
– 50 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
Under VP-Facility Planning & Management
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.5
0.06 0.0
REC
JANI
FPLAN
VPFPLAN‐Aggr
(0.23)
(0.24)
(0.24)
CENT
PHYS
(0 28)
(0.28)
(0.44)
(0.5)
(1.0)
CENT
FPLAN
JANI
PHYS
REC
KEY
Central Plant (heating, A/C)
Office of VP—Facility Planning & Management
Housekeeping (JaniKing)
Physical Plant/Building Services (carpenters/movers/plumbing, etc.)
Receiving
(1.5)
– 51 –
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Under VP-Facility Planning & Management
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
0.5
0.03 0.0
FPLAN
REC
VPFPLAN‐Aggr
PHYS
CENT
JANI
(0.01)
(0.16)
(0.19)
(0.21)
(0.31)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
CENT
FPLAN
JANI
PHYS
REC
Central Plant (heating, A/C)
Office of VP—Facility Planning & Management
Housekeeping (JaniKing)
Physical Plant/Building Services (carpenters/movers/plumbing, etc.)
Receiving
(1.5)
– 52 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
Under VP-Facility Planning & Management
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.16 0.0
REC
FPLAN
VPFPLAN‐Aggr
PHYS
(0.21)
(0.21)
CENT
JANI
(0.10)
(0.35)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
CENT
FPLAN
JANI
PHYS
REC
Central Plant (heating, A/C)
Office of VP—Facility Planning & Management
Housekeeping (JaniKing)
Physical Plant/Building Services (carpenters/movers/plumbing, etc.)
Receiving
(1.5)
– 53 –
(0.38)
1.0
COURTEOUS
Under VP-Facility Planning & Management
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.15 0.0
FPLAN
PHYS
REC
VPFPLAN‐Aggr
(0.06)
(0.08)
(0.08)
CENT
JANI
(0.12)
(0.22)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
CENT
FPLAN
JANI
PHYS
REC
Central Plant (heating, A/C)
Office of VP—Facility Planning & Management
Housekeeping (JaniKing)
Physical Plant/Building Services (carpenters/movers/plumbing, etc.)
Receiving
(1.5)
– 54 –
1.0
EFFICIENT
Under VP-Facility Planning & Management
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.01 0.0
REC
FPLAN
VPFPLAN‐Aggr
CENT
PHYS
JANI
(0.31)
(0.31)
(0.04)
(0.21)
(0.28)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
CENT
FPLAN
JANI
PHYS
REC
Central Plant (heating, A/C)
Office of VP—Facility Planning & Management
Housekeeping (JaniKing)
Physical Plant/Building Services (carpenters/movers/plumbing, etc.)
Receiving
(1.5)
– 55 –
Under Assoc. VP Auxiliary & Support Services (all units)
I have interacted with ... within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
545
768
115
1428
Percent
38.2%
53.8%
8.1%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
Count
227
153
132
33
545
Percent
41.7%
28.1%
24.2%
6.1%
100%
Staff
121
102
108
27
358
Faculty
106
51
24
6
187
Faculty
56.7%
27.3%
12.8%
3.2%
100%
100%
AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (All Units)
Interact With?
80%
Total
227
153
132
33
545
Staff
33.8%
28.5%
30.2%
7.5%
100%
Total
41.7%
28.1%
24.2%
6.1%
100%
AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (All Units)
Frequency of Use
80%
60%
60%
54%
40%
40%
42%
28%
38%
24%
20%
20%
6%
8%
0%
Yes
No
Under AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (all units)
0%
1 (Light)
(blank)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 56 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Under Assoc. VP Auxiliary & Support Services (all units)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
4
1
4
12
54
93
168
10
9
187
Staff
1
2
10
35
136
157
341
8
9
358
Total
5
3
14
47
190
250
509
18
18
545
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.4%
0.6%
2.4%
7.1%
32.1%
55.4%
100%
Staff
0.3%
0.6%
2.9%
10.3%
39.9%
46.0%
100%
Total
1.0%
0.6%
2.8%
9.2%
37.3%
49.1%
100%
4.32
4.15
0.17
4.27
4.11
0.16
4.29
4.13
0.16
100%
AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (All Units)
TIMELINESS
80%
60%
49%
37%
40%
20%
0%
9%
1%
1%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
3
1
5
12
52
90
163
13
11
187
Staff
1
2
8
35
125
168
339
11
8
358
Total
4
3
13
47
177
258
502
24
19
545
Average:
XU:
Faculty
1.8%
0.6%
3.1%
7.4%
31.9%
55.2%
55
.2%
100%
Staff
0.3%
0.6%
2.4%
10.3%
36.9%
49.6%
49
.6%
100%
Total
0.8%
0.6%
2.6%
9.4%
35.3%
51.4%
51
.4%
100%
4.33
4.24
0.08
4.32
4.22
0.10
4.32
4.23
0.09
100%
AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (All Units) KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
2
6
9
48
95
160
15
12
187
Staff
2
4
11
38
126
146
327
24
7
358
Under AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (all units)
Total
4
4
17
47
174
241
487
39
19
545
3.8%
5.6%
30.0%
59.4%
100%
Staff
0.6%
1.2%
3.4%
11.6%
38.5%
44.6%
100%
Total
0.8%
0.8%
3.5%
9.7%
35.7%
49.5%
100%
4.41
4.14
0.27
4.20
4.08
0.12
4.27
4.10
0.17
Faculty
1.3%
Average:
XU:
100%
AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
80%
60%
49%
40%
36%
20%
0%
1%
1%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 57 –
10%
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2 of 3
Under Assoc. VP Auxiliary & Support Services (all units)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
1
6
12
40
111
170
5
12
187
Staff
2
2
9
40
108
184
345
4
9
358
Total
3
2
15
52
148
295
515
9
21
545
3.5%
7.1%
23.5%
65.3%
100%
Staff
0.6%
0.6%
2.6%
11.6%
31.3%
53.3%
100%
Total
0.6%
0.4%
2.9%
10.1%
28.7%
57.3%
100%
4.49
4.41
0.08
4.32
4.29
0.03
4.38
4.33
0.05
Faculty
0.6%
Average:
XU:
100%
AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
57%
60%
40%
29%
20%
0%
10%
1%
0%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
3
6
16
51
92
173
4
10
187
Staff
1
3
13
44
121
159
341
8
9
358
Total
6
6
19
60
172
251
514
12
19
545
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.9%
1.7%
3.5%
9.2%
29.5%
53.2%
53
.2%
100%
Staff
0.3%
0.9%
3.8%
12.9%
35.5%
46.6%
46
.6%
100%
Total
1.2%
1.2%
3.7%
11.7%
33.5%
48.8%
48
.8%
100%
4.20
4.04
0.16
4.22
4.13
0.09
4.22
4.10
0.12
100%
AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (All Units)
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
49%
40%
33%
20%
0%
12%
1%
1%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
4
5
5
18
81
68
181
6
187
Staff
3
13
42
190
102
350
8
358
Under AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (all units)
Total
4
8
18
60
271
170
531
14
545
Average:
XU:
Staff
Faculty
2.2%
2.8%
2.8%
9.9%
44.8%
37.6%
100%
0.9%
3.7%
12.0%
54.3%
29.1%
100%
Total
0.8%
1.5%
3.4%
11.3%
51.0%
32.0%
100%
4.05
3.91
0.14
4.07
4.00
0.07
4.06
3.97
0.09
100%
AVP Auxiliary & Support Services (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
60%
51%
40%
32%
20%
0%
11%
1%
3%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 58 –
2%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Under Assoc. VP—Auxiliary & Support Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 3.97
0.5
0.30 0.25 0.20 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.0
PO
XCARD
XEROX
BOOK
AUXSUPP
AVP AUXSUPP‐Aggr
FOOD
(0.39)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
AUXSUPP
BOOK
FOOD
PO
XCARD
XEROX
Office of Auxiliary & Support Services
Bookstore (Barnes & Noble)
Food Services (Sodexho)
Post Office
XCard Office
Document Centre
(1.5)
– 59 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
Under Assoc. VP—Auxiliary & Support Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.5
0.36 0.31 0.27 0.16 0.14 0.0
PO
XCARD
BOOK
AVP AUXSUPP‐Aggr
XEROX
AUXSUPP
FOOD
(0.00)
(0.17)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
AUXSUPP
BOOK
FOOD
PO
XCARD
XEROX
Office of Auxiliary & Support Services
Bookstore (Barnes & Noble)
Food Services (Sodexho)
Post Office
XCard Office
Document Centre
(1.5)
– 60 –
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Under Assoc. VP—Auxiliary & Support Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
0.5
0.32 0.23 0.16 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.0
XCARD
PO
XEROX
BOOK
AVP AUXSUPP‐Aggr
AUXSUPP
FOOD
(0.21)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
AUXSUPP
BOOK
FOOD
PO
XCARD
XEROX
Office of Auxiliary & Support Services
Bookstore (Barnes & Noble)
Food Services (Sodexho)
Post Office
XCard Office
Document Centre
(1.5)
– 61 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
Under Assoc. VP—Auxiliary & Support Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.45 0.38 0.36 0.26 0.17 0.0
PO
XCARD
BOOK
XEROX
AVP AUXSUPP‐Aggr
AUXSUPP
FOOD
(0.08)
(0.43)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
AUXSUPP
BOOK
FOOD
PO
XCARD
XEROX
(1.5)
Office of Auxiliary & Support Services
Bookstore (Barnes & Noble)
Food Services (Sodexho)
Post Office
XCard Office
Document Centre
1.0
COURTEOUS
Under Assoc. VP—Auxiliary & Support Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.26 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.05 0.0
PO
XCARD
BOOK
AUXSUPP
AVP AUXSUPP‐Aggr
XEROX
FOOD
(0.12)
(0 28)
(0.28)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
AUXSUPP
BOOK
FOOD
PO
XCARD
XEROX
Office of Auxiliary & Support Services
Bookstore (Barnes & Noble)
Food Services (Sodexho)
Post Office
XCard Office
Document Centre
(1.5)
– 63 –
1.0
EFFICIENT
Under Assoc. VP—Auxiliary & Support Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.37 0.29 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.03 0.0
XCARD
PO
BOOK
XEROX
AVP AUXSUPP‐Aggr
AUXSUPP
FOOD
(0.26)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
AUXSUPP
BOOK
FOOD
PO
XCARD
XEROX
Office of Auxiliary & Support Services
Bookstore (Barnes & Noble)
Food Services (Sodexho)
Post Office
XCard Office
Document Centre
(1.5)
– 64 –
Under VP Student Services (all units)
I have interacted with ... within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
567
2160
367
3094
Percent
18.3%
69.8%
11.9%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
Count
250
152
139
26
567
Percent
44.1%
26.8%
24.5%
4.6%
100%
Faculty
111
31
24
3
169
Staff
139
121
115
23
398
Interact With?
Staff
34.9%
30.4%
28.9%
5.8%
100%
Total
44.1%
26.8%
24.5%
4.6%
100%
VP Student Services (All Units)
Frequency of Use
80%
60%
70%
60%
Faculty
65.7%
18.3%
14.2%
1.8%
100%
100%
VP Student Services (All Units)
80%
Total
250
152
139
26
567
44%
40%
40%
27%
25%
20%
20%
5%
18%
12%
0%
Yes
Under VP Student Services (all units)
No
0%
1 (Light)
(blank)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 65 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Under VP Student Services (all units)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
3
3
4
14
43
86
153
13
3
169
Staff
4
10
50
181
143
388
3
7
398
Total
3
7
14
64
224
229
541
16
10
567
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.0%
2.0%
2.6%
9.2%
28.1%
56.2%
100%
Staff
1.0%
2.6%
12.9%
46.6%
36.9%
100%
Total
0.6%
1.3%
2.6%
11.8%
41.4%
42.3%
100%
4.28
4.15
0.13
4.16
4.11
0.04
4.19
4.13
0.07
100%
VP Student Services (All Units)
TIMELINESS
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
41%
42%
4
5-Excellent
12%
1%
1%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5 E ll t
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
3
3
7
16
34
91
154
12
3
169
Staff
5
6
44
180
152
387
3
8
398
Total
3
8
13
60
214
243
541
15
11
567
Average:
XU:
Faculty
1.9%
1.9%
4.5%
10.4%
22.1%
59
59.1%
1%
100%
4.26
4.24
0.02
Staff
100%
1.3%
1.6%
11.4%
46.5%
39
39.3%
3%
100%
Total
0.6%
1.5%
2.4%
11.1%
39.6%
44
44.9%
9%
100%
4.21
4.22
(0.01)
4.22
4.23
(0.00)
20%
VP Student Services (All Units)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
40%
40%
0%
45%
11%
1%
1%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
4
3
10
6
37
93
153
13
3
169
Under VP Student Services (all units)
Staff
3
7
52
173
150
385
6
7
398
Total
4
6
17
58
210
243
538
19
10
567
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.6%
2.0%
6.5%
3.9%
24.2%
60.8%
100%
Staff
0.8%
1.8%
13.5%
44.9%
39.0%
100%
Total
0.7%
1.1%
3.2%
10.8%
39.0%
45.2%
100%
4.27
4.14
0.13
4.19
4.08
0.11
4.22
4.10
0.11
100%
VP Student Services (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
80%
60%
39%
40%
20%
0%
11%
1%
1%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 66 –
45%
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2 of 3
Under VP Student Services (all units)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
3
6
13
29
107
163
2
4
169
Staff
3
6
32
158
189
388
2
8
398
Total
5
6
12
45
187
296
551
4
12
567
Average:
XU:
Faculty
3.1%
1.8%
3.7%
8.0%
17.8%
65.6%
100%
Staff
0.8%
1.5%
8.2%
40.7%
48.7%
100%
Total
0.9%
1.1%
2.2%
8.2%
33.9%
53.7%
100%
4.33
4.41
(0.08)
4.35
4.29
0.06
4.34
4.33
0.01
100%
VP Student Services (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
60%
54%
40%
34%
20%
0%
1%
1%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
8%
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5 E ll t
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
3
6
15
46
82
157
8
4
169
Staff
6
9
51
173
144
383
5
10
398
Total
5
9
15
66
219
226
540
13
14
567
Average:
XU:
Faculty
3.2%
1.9%
3.8%
9.6%
29.3%
52
52.2%
2%
100%
Staff
1.6%
2.3%
13.3%
45.2%
37
37.6%
6%
100%
Total
0.9%
1.7%
2.8%
12.2%
40.6%
41
41.9%
9%
100%
4.17
4.04
0.13
4.15
4.13
0.02
4.15
4.10
0.06
100%
VP Student Services (All Units)
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
41%
42%
4
5-Excellent
12%
1%
2%
3%
0-Poor
1
2
3
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
6
5
10
19
63
61
164
5
169
Under VP Student Services (all units)
Staff
5
8
36
223
118
390
8
398
Total
6
10
18
55
286
179
554
13
567
Average:
XU:
Faculty
3.7%
3.0%
6.1%
11.6%
38.4%
37.2%
100%
Staff
1.3%
2.1%
9.2%
57.2%
30.3%
100%
Total
1.1%
1.8%
3.2%
9.9%
51.6%
32.3%
100%
3.90
3.91
(0.01)
4.13
4.00
0.13
4.06
3.97
0.09
100%
VP Student Services (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
60%
52%
40%
32%
20%
0%
1%
3%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 67 –
2%
10%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Under VP-Student Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 3.97
0.5
0.30 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.17 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.0
CAR
COUN
STHLT
CAMPMIN
SVCLRN
UCMGT
VP SS‐Aggr
VPSS
HOUSE
CAMPACT
UNIVPOL
(0.01)
ORIENT
ATHLET
VOLSVC
(0.23)
(0.27)
(0.40)
(0.5)
KEY
(1.0)
ATHLET
CAMPACT
CAMPMIN
CAR
COUN
HOUSE
ORIENT
STHLT
SVCLRN
UCMGT
UNIVPOL
VOLSVC
Athletics & Campus Recreational Sports
Campus Activities
Campus Ministry
Career Services
Counseling & Wellness Center
Residential Life (Housing)
New Student Orientation & Leadership Programs
Student Health Services
Service Learning
University Center Management
University Police
Volunteer Services
(1.5)
– 68 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
Under VP-Student Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.5
0.29 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.0
COUN
CAMPMIN
STHLT
CAR
SVCLRN
VP SS‐Aggr
UNIVPOL
VPSS
0.01 UCMGT
HOUSE
(0.16)
CAMPACT
(0.19)
ATHLET
VOLSVC
ORIENT
(0.22)
(0 27)
(0.27)
(0.5)
(0.50)
KEY
(1.0)
ATHLET
CAMPACT
CAMPMIN
CAR
COUN
HOUSE
ORIENT
STHLT
SVCLRN
UCMGT
UNIVPOL
VOLSVC
VPSS
Athletics & Campus Recreational Sports
Campus Activities
Campus Ministry
Career Services
Counseling & Wellness Center
Residential Life (Housing)
New Student Orientation & Leadership Programs
Student Health Services
Service Learning
University Center Management
University Police
Volunteer Services
Office of the VP for Student Services
(1.5)
– 69 –
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Under VP-Student Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
0.5
0.29 0.23 0.20 0.02 0.0
CAMPMIN
COUN
STHLT
SVCLRN
0.01 0.00 CAR
VPSS
VP SS‐Aggr
UNIVPOL
(0.00)
(0.07)
HOUSE
CAMPACT
(0.13)
(0.13)
UCMGT
VOLSVC
ATHLET
ORIENT
(0.16)
(0.23)
(0.26)
(0.40)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
ATHLET
CAMPACT
CAMPMIN
CAR
COUN
HOUSE
ORIENT
STHLT
SVCLRN
UCMGT
UNIVPOL
VOLSVC
VPSS
Athletics & Campus Recreational Sports
Campus Activities
Campus Ministry
Career Services
Counseling & Wellness Center
Residential Life (Housing)
New Student Orientation & Leadership Programs
Student Health Services
Service Learning
University Center Management
University Police
Volunteer Services
Office of the VP for Student Services
(1.5)
– 70 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
Under VP-Student Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.36 0.28 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.12 0.11 VPSS
VP SS‐Aggr
0.0
CAMPMIN
COUN
UNIVPOL
STHLT
CAR
SVCLRN
HOUSE
(0.07)
UCMGT
CAMPACT
(0.10)
(0.10)
VOLSVC
ORIENT
ATHLET
(0.25)
(0.40)
(0.44)
(0.5)
KEY
(1.0)
ATHLET
CAMPACT
CAMPMIN
CAR
COUN
HOUSE
ORIENT
STHLT
SVCLRN
UCMGT
UNIVPOL
VOLSVC
Athletics & Campus Recreational Sports
Campus Activities
Campus Ministry
Career Services
Counseling & Wellness Center
Residential Life (Housing)
New Student Orientation & Leadership Programs
Student Health Services
Service Learning
University Center Management
University Police
Volunteer Services
(1.5)
– 71 –
1.0
COURTEOUS
Under VP-Student Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.34 0.26 0.21 0.15 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 ORIENT
UCMGT
VP SS‐Aggr
STHLT
0.0
SVCLRN
CAMPMIN
COUN
CAR
VOLSVC
VPSS
CAMPACT
HOUSE
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.04)
UNIVPOL
(0.18)
(0.5)
KEY
(1.0)
ATHLET
CAMPACT
CAMPMIN
CAR
COUN
HOUSE
ORIENT
STHLT
SVCLRN
UCMGT
UNIVPOL
VOLSVC
VPSS
Athletics & Campus Recreational Sports
Campus Activities
Campus Ministry
Career Services
Counseling & Wellness Center
Residential Life (Housing)
New Student Orientation & Leadership Programs
Student Health Services
Service Learning
University Center Management
University Police
Volunteer Services
Office of the VP for Student Services
(1.5)
– 72 –
ATHLET
(0.21)
1.0
EFFICIENT
Under VP-Student Services
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.35 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.0
CAMPMIN
SVCLRN
STHLT
CAR
COUN
VP SS‐Aggr
0.01 0.00 UCMGT
VPSS
UNIVPOL
(0.02)
CAMPACT
HOUSE
ATHLET
VOLSVC
ORIENT
(0.07)
(0.10)
(0.13)
(0.24)
(0 29)
(0.29)
(0.5)
KEY
(1.0)
ATHLET
CAMPACT
CAMPMIN
CAR
COUN
HOUSE
ORIENT
STHLT
SVCLRN
UCMGT
UNIVPOL
VOLSVC
VPSS
Athletics & Campus Recreational Sports
Campus Activities
Campus Ministry
Career Services
Counseling & Wellness Center
Residential Life (Housing)
New Student Orientation & Leadership Programs
Student Health Services
Service Learning
University Center Management
University Police
Volunteer Services
Office of the VP for Student Services
(1.5)
– 73 –
Planning & Institutional Research
I have interacted with the Office Planning & Institutional Research within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
93
135
10
238
Percent
39.1%
56.7%
4.2%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
Count
53
25
10
5
93
Percent
57.0%
26.9%
10.8%
5.4%
100%
Faculty
22
11
2
3
38
Staff
31
14
8
2
55
Total
53
25
10
5
93
Faculty
57.9%
28.9%
5.3%
7.9%
100%
Staff
56.4%
25.5%
14.5%
3.6%
100%
100%
Interact With?
Total
57.0%
26.9%
10.8%
5.4%
100%
Frequency of Use
80%
80%
60%
60%
57%
57%
40%
40%
27%
39%
20%
20%
4%
0%
Yes
Office of Planning & Institutional Research
No
11%
5%
0%
1 (Light)
(blank)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 74 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Planning & Institutional Research
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
1
1
4
11
17
34
2
2
38
1
10
16
26
53
2
55
Total
Faculty
1
2
14
27
43
87
4
2
93
Average:
XU:
Staff
Total
100%
2.9%
2.9%
11.8%
32.4%
50.0%
100%
1.9%
18.9%
30.2%
49.1%
100%
1.1%
2.3%
16.1%
31.0%
49.4%
100%
80%
4.24
4.15
0.08
4.26
4.11
0.15
4.25
4.13
0.13
20%
TIMELINESS
60%
49%
40%
0%
31%
16%
0%
1%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
Faculty
0‐Poor
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
15
5 E ll t
5‐Excellent
15
Sub
33
No Opinion
3
(blank)
2
Grand Total
38
Staff
Total
Faculty
6
19
29
54
1
1
1
7
34
44
87
4
2
93
55
Average:
XU:
Staff
Total
100%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
45.5%
45.5%
45 5%
100%
80%
11.1%
35.2%
53.7%
53 7%
100%
1.1%
1.1%
8.0%
39.1%
50.6%
50 6%
100%
4.27
4.24
0.03
4.43
4.22
0.21
4.37
4.23
0.14
20%
KNOWLEDGEABLE
60%
51%
39%
40%
0%
8%
0%
1%
1%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
Total
Faculty
Staff
Total
100%
ACCESSIBLE
80%
2
14
17
33
3
2
38
Office of Planning & Institutional Research
6
23
26
55
55
8
37
43
88
3
2
93
Average:
XU:
6.1%
42.4%
51.5%
100%
10.9%
41.8%
47.3%
100%
9.1%
42.0%
48.9%
100%
4.45
4.14
0.31
4.36
4.08
0.28
4.40
4.10
0.29
60%
49%
42%
40%
20%
0%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 75 –
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2 of 3
Planning & Institutional Research
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
1
1
9
25
36
2
38
3
21
30
54
1
55
Total
1
4
30
55
90
3
93
Faculty
Average:
XU:
Staff
Total
2.8%
2.8%
25.0%
69.4%
100%
5.6%
38.9%
55.6%
100%
1.1%
4.4%
33.3%
61.1%
100%
4.61
4.41
0.20
4.50
4.29
0.21
4.54
4.33
0.21
100%
COURTEOUS
80%
61%
60%
40%
33%
20%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0-Poor
1
2
4%
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5 E ll t
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
2
4
14
14
34
2
2
38
8
20
25
53
2
55
Total
2
12
34
39
87
4
2
93
Faculty
Average:
XU:
Staff
Total
5.9%
11.8%
41.2%
41.2%
41 2%
100%
15.1%
37.7%
47.2%
47 2%
100%
2.3%
13.8%
39.1%
44.8%
44 8%
100%
4.18
4.04
0.14
4.32
4.13
0.19
4.26
4.10
0.17
100%
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
39%
40%
20%
0%
45%
14%
0%
0%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
1
1
3
3
16
13
36
2
38
Office of Planning & Institutional Research
6
31
17
55
55
Total
1
1
3
9
47
30
91
2
93
Faculty
Average:
XU:
Staff
1.8%
2.8%
8.3%
8.3%
44.4%
36.1%
100%
10.9%
56.4%
30.9%
100%
Total
1.1%
1.1%
3.3%
9.9%
51.6%
33.0%
100%
4.03
3.91
0.12
4.13
4.00
0.12
4.09
3.97
0.12
100%
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
60%
52%
40%
33%
20%
0%
1%
3%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 76 –
1%
10%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
Under VP Technology Administration (all units)
I have interacted with … within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
514
577
99
1190
Percent
43.2%
48.5%
8.3%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
Count
153
202
129
30
514
Percent
29.8%
39.3%
25.1%
5.8%
100%
Faculty
77
63
34
7
181
Staff
76
139
95
23
333
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
Interact With?
80%
Faculty
42.5%
34.8%
18.8%
3.9%
100%
100%
Staff
22.8%
41.7%
28.5%
6.9%
100%
Total
29.8%
39.3%
25.1%
5.8%
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
Frequency of Use
80%
60%
40%
Total
153
202
129
30
514
60%
43%
40%
48%
20%
39%
30%
25%
20%
8%
0%
Yes
Under VP Technology Administration (all units)
No
6%
0%
(blank)
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 77 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Under VP Technology Administration (all units)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
8
4
11
26
49
66
164
7
10
181
Staff
1
10
17
54
126
111
319
7
7
333
Total
9
14
28
80
175
177
483
14
17
514
Faculty
4.9%
2.4%
6.7%
15.9%
29.9%
40.2%
100%
Staff
0.3%
3.1%
5.3%
16.9%
39.5%
34.8%
100%
Total
1.9%
2.9%
5.8%
16.6%
36.2%
36.6%
100%
3.84
4.15
(0.31)
3.97
4.11
(0.15)
3.92
4.13
(0.20)
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
TIMELINESS
80%
60%
40%
0%
37%
4
5-Excellent
17%
20%
Average:
XU:
36%
2%
3%
6%
0-Poor
1
2
3
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
5
E ll t
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
4
3
10
22
45
78
162
8
11
181
Staff
3
7
17
50
128
113
318
9
6
333
Total
7
10
27
72
173
191
480
17
17
514
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.5%
1.9%
6.2%
13.6%
27.8%
48.1%
48
1%
100%
4.07
4.24
(0.18)
Staff
0.9%
2.2%
5.3%
15.7%
40.3%
35.5%
35
5%
100%
3.99
4.22
(0.23)
Total
1.5%
2.1%
5.6%
15.0%
36.0%
39.8%
39
8%
100%
4.01
4.23
(0.21)
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units) KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
20%
0%
40%
36%
40%
15%
1%
2%
0-Poor
1
6%
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
4
13
25
50
70
167
5
9
181
Staff
3
8
19
59
123
107
319
7
7
333
Under VP Technology Administration (all units)
Total
8
12
32
84
173
177
486
12
16
514
Average:
XU:
Faculty
3.0%
2.4%
7.8%
15.0%
29.9%
41.9%
100%
3.92
4.14
(0.22)
Staff
0.9%
2.5%
6.0%
18.5%
38.6%
33.5%
100%
3.92
4.08
(0.17)
Total
1.6%
2.5%
6.6%
17.3%
35.6%
36.4%
100%
3.92
4.10
(0.18)
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
80%
60%
40%
2%
2%
0-Poor
1
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 78 –
36%
4
5-Excellent
17%
20%
0%
36%
7%
2
3
Page 2 of 3
Under VP Technology Administration (all units)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
4
7
6
15
49
89
170
1
10
181
Staff
5
10
14
52
119
125
325
1
7
333
Total
9
17
20
67
168
214
495
2
17
514
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.4%
4.1%
3.5%
8.8%
28.8%
52.4%
100%
4.15
4.41
(0.26)
Staff
1.5%
3.1%
4.3%
16.0%
36.6%
38.5%
100%
3.98
4.29
(0.31)
Total
1.8%
3.4%
4.0%
13.5%
33.9%
43.2%
100%
4.04
4.33
(0.29)
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
60%
43%
40%
34%
20%
0%
14%
2%
3%
4%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
5
10
13
22
53
66
169
2
10
181
Staff
3
9
17
56
128
104
317
6
10
333
Total
8
19
30
78
181
170
486
8
20
514
Average:
XU:
Faculty
3.0%
5.9%
7.7%
13.0%
31.4%
31
4%
39.1%
100%
3.81
4.04
(0.23)
Staff
0.9%
2.8%
5.4%
17.7%
40.4%
40
4%
32.8%
100%
3.92
4.13
(0.21)
Total
1.6%
3.9%
6.2%
16.0%
37.2%
37
2%
35.0%
100%
3.88
4.10
(0.22)
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units) EFFICIENT
80%
60%
40%
35%
4
5-Excellent
16%
20%
0%
37%
2%
4%
6%
0-Poor
1
2
3
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Faculty
Extremely Dissatisfied
4
Dissatisfied
9
Somewhat Dissatisfied
14
Somewhat Satisfied
27
Satisfied
73
Extremely Satisfied
48
Sub
175
(blank)
6
Grand Total
181
Staff
2
9
24
49
178
61
323
10
333
Under VP Technology Administration (all units)
Total
6
18
38
76
251
109
498
16
514
Average:
XU:
Faculty
2.3%
5.1%
8.0%
15.4%
41.7%
27.4%
100%
3.71
3.91
(0.19)
Staff
0.6%
2.8%
7.4%
15.2%
55.1%
18.9%
100%
3.78
4.00
(0.22)
Total
1.2%
3.6%
7.6%
15.3%
50.4%
21.9%
100%
3.76
3.97
(0.21)
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units) OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
60%
50%
40%
20%
0%
1%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 79 –
4%
8%
22%
15%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Under VP-Technology Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 3.97
0.5
0.36 0.0
WEB
DESUPP
HELP
VP Tech Adm‐Aggr
OTA
SWBRD
(0.10)
(0.15)
(0.21)
(0.27))
(0.27
(0.5)
(0.81)
(1.0)
KEY
DESUPP
HELP
OTA
SWBRD
WEB
Desktop Support
Help Desk
Office of Technology Administration Switchboard
Web Master
(1.5)
– 80 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
Under VP-Technology Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.5
0.30 0.0
WEB
HELP
VP Tech Adm‐Aggr
DESUPP
(0.20)
(0.21)
OTA
SWBRD
(0.09)
(0.37)
(0.5)
(0.56)
(1.0)
KEY
DESUPP
HELP
OTA
SWBRD
WEB
Desktop Support
Help Desk
Office of Technology Administration Switchboard
Web Master
(1.5)
– 81 –
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Under VP-Technology Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
0.5
0.38 0.0
WEB
HELP
DESUPP
OTA
(0.14)
(0.14)
(0.14)
VP Tech Adm‐Aggr
SWBRD
(0.21)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.06)
KEY
DESUPP
HELP
OTA
SWBRD
WEB
Desktop Support
Help Desk
Office of Technology Administration Switchboard
Web Master
(1.5)
– 82 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
Under VP-Technology Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.27 0.0
WEB
HELP
VP Tech Adm‐Aggr
DESUPP
(0.18)
(0.21)
OTA
SWBRD
(0.05)
(0.37)
(0.5)
(0.49)
(1.0)
KEY
DESUPP
HELP
OTA
SWBRD
WEB
Desktop Support
Help Desk
Office of Technology Administration Switchboard
Web Master
(1.5)
– 83 –
1.0
COURTEOUS
Under VP-Technology Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.27 0.0
WEB
OTA
(0.18)
DESUPP
HELP
(0.21)
(0.22)
VP Tech Adm‐Aggr
SWBRD
(0.29)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
DESUPP
HELP
OTA
SWBRD
WEB
Desktop Support
Help Desk
Office of Technology Administration Switchboard
Web Master
(1.5)
– 84 –
(1.17)
1.0
EFFICIENT
Under VP-Technology Administration
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.25 0.0
WEB
DESUPP
HELP
(0.11)
VP Tech Adm‐Aggr
OTA
SWBRD
(0.13)
(0.22)
(0.23)
(0.5)
(0.93)
(1.0)
KEY
DESUPP
HELP
OTA
SWBRD
WEB
Desktop Support
Help Desk
Office of Technology Administration Switchboard
Web Master
(1.5)
– 85 –
Under Senior VP Resource Development
I have interacted with ... within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
130
514
70
714
Percent
18.2%
72.0%
9.8%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
80%
Count
46
40
39
5
130
Percent
35.4%
30.8%
30.0%
3.8%
100%
Faculty
18
16
10
Staff
28
24
29
5
86
44
Faculty
40.9%
36.4%
22.7%
100%
100%
VP Resource Development (All Units)
Interact With?
Staff
32.6%
27.9%
33.7%
5.8%
100%
Total
35.4%
30.8%
30.0%
3.8%
100%
VP Resource Development (All Units)
Frequency of Use
80%
72%
60%
Total
46
40
39
5
130
60%
40%
40%
35%
31%
30%
20%
20%
18%
10%
0%
Yes
Under SVP Resource Development (all units)
No
4%
0%
1 (Light)
(blank)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 86 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Under Senior VP Resource Development
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
Total
Faculty
Staff
Total
100%
1
1
6
12
22
42
2
2
9
41
29
83
1
2
86
3
3
15
53
51
125
1
4
130
2.4%
2.4%
14.3%
28.6%
52.4%
100%
2.4%
2.4%
10.8%
49.4%
34.9%
100%
2.4%
2.4%
12.0%
42.4%
40.8%
100%
80%
4.26
4.15
0.11
4.12
4.11
0.01
4.17
4.13
0.04
20%
2
44
Average:
XU:
VP Resource Development (All Units)
TIMELINESS
60%
42%
41%
4
5-Excellent
40%
0%
12%
0%
2%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
2
1
5
11
23
42
2
44
Staff
2
7
40
33
82
2
2
86
Total
2
3
12
51
56
124
2
4
130
Faculty
4.8%
Average:
XU:
Staff
Total
1.6%
2.4%
11.9%
26.2%
54.8%
100%
2.4%
8.5%
48.8%
40.2%
100%
2.4%
9.7%
41.1%
45.2%
100%
4.19
4.24
(0.05)
4.27
4.22
0.05
4.24
4.23
0.02
100%
VP Resource Development (All Units)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
80%
60%
41%
40%
20%
0%
45%
10%
2%
0%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
1
3
4
12
22
42
2
44
Under SVP Resource Development (all units)
Staff
Total
100%
2.4%
7.1%
9.5%
28.6%
52.4%
100%
1.2%
9.6%
49.4%
39.8%
100%
0.8%
3.2%
9.6%
42.4%
44.0%
100%
80%
4.21
4.14
0.07
4.28
4.08
0.19
4.26
4.10
0.15
Staff
Total
Faculty
1
8
41
33
83
1
2
86
1
4
12
53
55
125
1
4
130
Average:
XU:
VP Resource Development (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
60%
20%
44%
0%
4
5‐Excellent
10%
0%
1%
3%
0‐Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 87 –
42%
40%
3
Page 2 of 3
Under Senior VP Resource Development
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
1
1
4
12
24
42
2
44
Staff
2
7
33
40
82
1
3
86
Total
1
3
11
45
64
124
1
5
130
Faculty
2.4%
Average:
XU:
Staff
Total
0.8%
2.4%
9.5%
28.6%
57.1%
100%
2.4%
8.5%
40.2%
48.8%
100%
2.4%
8.9%
36.3%
51.6%
100%
4.33
4.41
(0.07)
4.35
4.29
0.06
4.35
4.33
0.02
100%
VP Resource Development (All Units)
COURTEOUS
80%
60%
52%
36%
40%
20%
0%
1%
0%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
9%
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
2
2
5
13
20
42
2
44
Staff
1
1
8
37
34
81
3
2
86
Total
2
1
3
13
50
54
123
3
4
130
Faculty
4.8%
Average:
XU:
Staff
4.8%
11.9%
31.0%
47.6%
100%
1.2%
1.2%
9.9%
45.7%
42.0%
100%
Total
1.6%
0.8%
2.4%
10.6%
40.7%
43.9%
100%
4.07
4.04
0.03
4.26
4.13
0.13
4.20
4.10
0.10
100%
VP Resource Development (All Units)
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
41%
40%
20%
0%
44%
11%
2%
1%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
1
Staff
1
Total
2
Faculty
2.3%
Staff
1.2%
Total
1.6%
100%
VP Resource Development (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
2
2
25
13
43
1
44
Under SVP Resource Development (all units)
2
6
44
30
83
3
86
4
8
69
43
126
4
130
Average:
XU:
4.7%
4.7%
58.1%
30.2%
100%
2.4%
7.2%
53.0%
36.1%
100%
3.2%
6.3%
54.8%
34.1%
100%
4.07
3.91
0.16
4.19
4.00
0.19
4.15
3.97
0.18
60%
55%
40%
34%
20%
0%
2%
3%
Extremely Dissatisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 88 –
0%
6%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Under Senior VP—Resource Development
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 3.97
0.5
0.39 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.0
TIII
SVP RESDEV‐Aggr
RESDEV
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
RESDEV
SPON
TIII
Office of the Senior VP for Resource Development
Sponsored Programs
Title III
(1.5)
– 89 –
SPON
1.0
TIMELINESS
Under Senior VP—Resource Development
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.13
0.5
0.24 0.04 0.03 SVP RESDEV‐Aggr
SPON
0.0
TIII
RESDEV
(0.07)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
RESDEV
SPON
TIII
Office of the Senior VP for Resource Development
Sponsored Programs
Title III
(1.5)
– 90 –
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Under Senior VP—Resource Development
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.23
0.5
0.18 0.03 0.02 SPON
SVP RESDEV‐Aggr
0.0
TIII
RESDEV
(0.11)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
RESDEV
SPON
TIII
Office of the Senior VP for Resource Development
Sponsored Programs
Title III
(1.5)
– 91 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
Under Senior VP—Resource Development
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.26 0.16 0.15 0.07 0.0
TIII
SPON
SVP RESDEV‐Aggr
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
RESDEV
SPON
TIII
Office of the Senior VP for Resource Development
Sponsored Programs
Title III
(1.5)
– 92 –
RESDEV
1.0
COURTEOUS
Under Senior VP—Resource Development
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.33
0.5
0.21 0.02 0.01 SVP RESDEV‐Aggr
SPON
0.0
TIII
RESDEV
(0.10)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
RESDEV
SPON
TIII
Office of the Senior VP for Resource Development
Sponsored Programs
Title III
(1.5)
– 93 –
1.0
EFFICIENT
Under Senior VP—Resource Development
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0 point = XU average = 4.10
0.5
0.27 0.10 0.10 SPON
SVP RESDEV‐Aggr
0.0
TIII
RESDEV
(0.01)
(0.5)
(1.0)
KEY
RESDEV
SPON
TIII
Office of the Senior VP for Resource Development
Sponsored Programs
Title III
(1.5)
– 94 –
Under VP-Institutional Advancement (all units)
I have interacted with … within the last year.
Interact With?
Response
Yes
No
(blank)
Grand Total
Count
184
658
110
952
Percent
19.3%
69.1%
11.6%
100%
Please indicate the FREQUENCY of your contact with this office OVER THE LAST YEAR:
Frequency of Use
Response
1 (Light)
2 (Moderate)
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Grand Total
100%
Count
86
61
26
11
184
Percent
46.7%
33.2%
14.1%
6.0%
100%
Faculty
33
13
3
1
50
Staff
53
48
23
10
134
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
Interact With?
80%
Faculty
66.0%
26.0%
6.0%
2.0%
100%
100%
Staff
39.6%
35.8%
17.2%
7.5%
100%
Total
46.7%
33.2%
14.1%
6.0%
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
Frequency of Use
80%
60%
69%
60%
Total
86
61
26
11
184
47%
40%
40%
33%
20%
20%
14%
6%
19%
12%
0%
Yes
Under VP Institutional Advancement (all units)
No
0%
1 (Light)
(blank)
2 (Moderate)
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 95 –
3 (Heavy)
(blank)
Page 1 of 3
Under VP-Institutional Advancement (all units)
The staff of this office processes my service needs in a timely manner.
TIMELINESS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
2
2
1
3
5
32
45
3
2
50
Staff
3
7
15
56
47
128
2
4
134
Total
2
5
8
18
61
79
173
5
6
184
Faculty
Staff
Grand Total
4.4%
1.2%
4.4%
2.3%
2.9%
2.2%
5.5%
4.6%
6.7%
11.7%
10.4%
11.1%
43.8%
35.3%
71.1%
36.7%
45.7%
100%
100%
100%
Average:
XU:
4.29
4.15
0.14
4.07
4.11
(0.04)
4.13
4.13
0.00
100%
80%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
TIMELINESS
60%
46%
40%
35%
20%
0%
1%
3%
5%
0-Poor
1
2
10%
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is well-informed regarding their specific function within the university.
KNOWLEDGEABLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5 E ll t
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
1
2
3
7
32
45
3
2
50
Staff
Total
5
15
44
63
127
3
4
134
1
7
18
51
95
172
6
6
184
Faculty
Average:
XU:
2.2%
4.4%
6.7%
15.6%
71
71.1%
1%
100%
4.49
4.24
0.25
Staff
Grand Total
100%
3.9%
11.8%
34.6%
49.6%
49 6%
100%
0.6%
4.1%
10.5%
29.7%
55.2%
55 2%
100%
80%
4.30
4.22
0.08
4.35
4.23
0.12
20%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
60%
55%
40%
0%
30%
10%
0%
1%
0-Poor
1
4%
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office is easy to reach, either by phone or email, and if I leave a message, they get back in touch with me promptly.
ACCESSIBLE
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
2
2
2
4
3
33
46
2
2
50
Staff
1
6
18
55
49
129
1
4
134
Under VP Institutional Advancement (all units)
Total
2
3
8
22
58
82
175
3
6
184
Faculty
Staff
Grand Total
4.3%
1.1%
4.3%
0.8%
1.7%
4.3%
4.7%
4.6%
8.7%
14.0%
12.6%
6.5%
42.6%
33.1%
71.7%
38.0%
46.9%
100%
100%
100%
Average:
XU:
4.24
4.14
0.10
4.12
4.08
0.04
4.15
4.10
0.05
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
ACCESSIBLE
80%
60%
47%
40%
33%
20%
0%
13%
1%
2%
5%
0-Poor
1
2
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 96 –
3
4
5-Excellent
Page 2 of 3
Under VP-Institutional Advancement (all units)
The staff of this office is polite and gracious in their interactions with me.
COURTEOUS
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
Staff
1
5
5
36
47
1
2
50
4
16
38
72
130
4
134
Total
1
4
21
43
108
177
1
6
184
Faculty
Staff
Grand Total
2.1%
10.6%
10.6%
76.6%
100%
3.1%
12.3%
29.2%
55.4%
100%
0.6%
2.3%
11.9%
24.3%
61.0%
100%
4.60
4.41
0.19
4.37
4.29
0.08
4.43
4.33
0.10
100%
80%
20%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
COURTEOUS
61%
60%
40%
24%
Average:
XU:
0%
12%
0%
1%
2%
0-Poor
1
2
3
4
5-Excellent
The staff of this office perform their tasks competently and effectively.
EFFICIENT
Response
0‐Poor
1
2
3
4
5 E ll t
5‐Excellent
Sub
No Opinion
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
2
3
4
7
29
45
3
2
50
Staff
2
6
13
49
54
124
6
4
134
Total
2
2
9
17
56
83
169
9
6
184
Faculty
Staff
4.4%
Average:
XU:
6.7%
8.9%
15.6%
64
64.4%
4%
100%
1.6%
4.8%
10.5%
39.5%
43.5%
43 5%
100%
4.24
4.04
0.20
4.19
4.13
0.06
Grand Total
1.2%
1.2%
5.3%
10.1%
33.1%
49.1%
49 1%
100%
4.20
4.10
0.10
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
EFFICIENT
80%
60%
49%
40%
33%
20%
0%
1%
1%
0-Poor
1
5%
2
10%
3
4
5-Excellent
Please rate your OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL with this office.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Response
Extremely Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely Satisfied
Sub
(blank)
Grand Total
Faculty
1
3
2
6
9
27
48
2
50
Staff
1
3
4
6
78
35
127
7
134
Under VP Institutional Advancement (all units)
Total
2
6
6
12
87
62
175
9
184
Faculty
Staff
Grand Total
2.1%
0.8%
1.1%
6.3%
2.4%
3.4%
4.2%
3.1%
3.4%
12.5%
4.7%
6.9%
18.8%
61.4%
49.7%
56.3%
27.6%
35.4%
100%
100%
100%
Average:
XU:
4.08
3.91
0.18
4.06
4.00
0.06
4.07
3.97
0.10
100%
VP Institutional Advancement (All Units)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
80%
60%
50%
40%
35%
20%
0%
1%
3%
3%
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Results from 2009 Survey of Institutional Effectiveness and Efficiency
– 97 –
7%
Somewhat
Satisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Page 3 of 3
1.0
OVERALL SATISFACTION
(Under VP-Institutional Advancement)
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0.5
0.22 0.18 0.10 0.0
UMR
VPIA
VP IA‐Aggr
DEV
ALUM
(0.09)
(0.22)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 98 –
1.0
TIMELINESS
(Under VP-Institutional Advancement)
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0.5
0.14 0.06 0.00 0.0
VPIA
UMR
VP IA‐Aggr
DEV
ALUM
(0.00)
(0.35)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 99 –
1.0
KNOWLEDGEABLE
(Under VP-Institutional Advancement)
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0.5
0.21 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.0
UMR
DEV
VP IA‐Aggr
VPIA
ALUM
(0.07)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 100 –
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
(Under VP-Institutional Advancement)
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0.5
0.23 0.09 0.05 0.0
VPIA
UMR
VP IA‐Aggr
ALUM
DEV
(0.13)
(0 29)
(0.29)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 101 –
1.0
COURTEOUS
(Under VP-Institutional Advancement)
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0.5
0.18 0.14 0.10 0.0
VPIA
UMR
VP IA‐Aggr
ALUM
(0.03)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 102 –
DEV
(0.08)
1.0
EFFICIENT
(Under VP-Institutional Advancement)
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
0.5
0.23 0.15 0.10 0.0
UMR
VPIA
VP IA‐Aggr
DEV
ALUM
(0.10)
(0.16)
(0.5)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 103 –
Summary for
Individual
Units & Offices
Institutional Effectiveness
2009 Survey Results
– 104 –
Institutional Effectiveness 2009 Survey Results; August 26, 2009
2
Shown below are codes used in charts for units/offices:
ACCPAY ...... Accounts Payable
ADMIS .......... Admissions
AE ................ Office of Academic
ORIENT ....... New Student Orientation
& Leadership Programs
OTA ............. Office of Technology
Enhancement
Administration
ALUM ........... Alumni Relations
ARCV ........... Archives & Special Collections
ATHLET ....... Athletics & Campus
PAY.............. Payroll
PHYS ........... Physical Plant/Building Services
Recreational Sports
AUXSUPP .... Office of Auxiliary &
Support Services
BOOK .......... Bookstore (Barnes & Noble)
BUDGT ........ Budget Office
CAMPACT ... Campus Activities
CAMPMIN .... Campus Ministry
CAR ............. Career Services
CASH ........... Cashier
CAT .............. Center for the Advancement
of Teaching
CENT ........... Central Plant (heating, A/C)
CIIP .............. Center for Intercultural &
International Programs
CIRC ............ Circulation & Reserve
COUN ........... Counseling & Wellness Center
CRED ........... Credit Union
CUR ............. Center for Undergraduate
Research
DCAS ........... Office of the Dean—
College of Arts & Sciences
DCOP ........... Office of the Dean—
College of Pharmacy
DESUPP ...... Desktop Support
DEV .............. Development (Fundraising)
FINAID ......... Financial Aid
FOOD ........... Food Services (Sodexho)
FPLAN ......... Office of VP—Facility Planning
& Management
GRANT ........ Grants & Contracts Accounting
HELP ............ Help Desk
HOUSE ........ Residential Life (Housing)
HR ................ Human Resources
INTLIB .......... Interlibrary Loan
JANI ............. Housekeeping (JaniKing)
LIB................ Library
MEDIA .......... Instructional Media Services
PLANIR........ Office of VP for Planning &
(carpenters/movers/plumbing, etc.)
Institutional Research
PO ................ Post Office
PRERX......... Pre–Pharmacy Advising
PRES ........... Office of the President
PURCH ........ Purchasing (Requisitions
& Purchase Orders)
REC ............. Receiving
REF .............. Reference Services
REG ............. Registrar
RESDEV ...... Office of the Senior VP
for Resource Development
SPON ........... Sponsored Programs
STACC......... Student Accounts
STAR ........... Graduate Placement (GradStar)
STHLT ......... Student Health Services
SVCLRN ...... Service Learning
SWBRD ....... Switchboard
TIII ................ Title III
UCMGT ........ University Center Management
UMR ............. University & Media Relations
UNIVPOL ..... University Police
VOLSVC ...... Volunteer Services
VPAA ........... Office of the Senior VP
for Academic Affairs
VPADMIN .... Office of the Senior VP
for Administration
VPFISC ........ Office of the VP for
Fiscal Services
VPIA............. Office of the VP
for Institutional Advancement
VPSS ........... Office of the VP
for Student Services
WEB............. Web Master
WS ............... Work/Study
XCARD ........ XCard Office
XEROX ........ Document Centre (Xerox)
– 105 –
(0.81)
(0.70)
(0.53)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 106 –
VPIA
SVCLRN
DEV
(0.27)
27)
(0.45)
(0.41)
SWBRD
WS
FINAID
CIIP
VPFISC
DCOP
FOOD
VOLSVC
(0.40)
GRANT
(0.37)
HR
ACCPAY
(0.36)
(0.31)
CENT
JANI
ATHLET
(0.27)
27)
(0.28)
8)
OTA
PHYS
(0.27)
27)
27)
(0.27)
ORIENT
ALUM
(0.23)
(0.22)
CIRC
PURCH
(0.16)
(0.21)
HELP
BUDGT
(0.15)
(0.15)
(0.10) DESUPP
(0.09)
(0.05) AE
(0.04)REG
(0.04) ADMIS
(0.02) FPLAN
(0.02) PAY
(0.01) UNIVPOL
0.03 LIB
CAMPACT
0.06 0.05 REC
0.08 VPSS
0.06 CUR
HOUSE
0.10 0.09 UCMGT
0.12 0.11 PLANIR
SPON
AUXSUPP
0.14 0.13 BOOK
0.15 RESDEV
0.17 0.18 0.17 CASH
PRERX
0.20 0.19 XEROX
0.22 0.20 STAR
0.22 STACC
UMR
0.26 0.25 VPAA
XCARD
0.26 0.26 REF
0.29 0.29 ARCV
STHLT
CAMPMIN
0.30 0.29 CAR
PO
COUN
0.31 0.30 DCAS
0.36 0.35 WEB
0.39 0.38 TIII
MEDIA
INTLIB
0.41 0.41 CAT
0.0
VPADMIN
(0.39)
(0.5)
(0.47)
PRES
0.48 0.50 0.5
CRED
1.0
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
OVERALL SATISFACTION
0.0
(0.5)
0.41 0.41 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.48 0.5
CRED
CAT
MEDIA
REF
PRES
ARCV
PO
VPADMIN
XCARD
CIRC
WEB
COUN
CAMPMIN
BOOK
STHLT
VPAA
TIII
DCAS
STAR
CASH
CAR
SVCLRN
LIB
STACC
VPIA
XEROX
CUR
INTLIB
PLANIR
PRERX
UMR
REC
UNIVPOL
PAY
VPSS
SPON
UCMGT
(0.00) DEV
(0.00) AUXSUPP
(0.03) REG
(0.07) RESDEV
(0.08) BUDGT
(0.09) HELP
(0.13)
AE
HOUSE
(0.16)
FOOD
(0.17)
PURCH
(0.18)
(0.19) CAMPACT
DESUPP
(0.21)
ATHLET
(0.22)
JANI
(0.23)
(0.24)
FPLAN
0.24)
(0.24)
ADMIS
0.24)
(0.25)
HR
0.25)
(0.27)
VOLSVC
27)
(0.28)
CENT
8)
(0.35)
ALUM
(0.36)
ACCPAY
(0.37)
OTA
(0.41)
VPFISC
(0.44)
PHYS
(0.47)
DCOP
(0.47)
GRANT
(0.48)
FINAID
(0.50)
ORIENT
(0.53)
WS
(0.56)
SWBRD
(0.65)
CIIP
0.57 0.56 1.0
TIMELINESS
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 107 –
(1.5)
– 108 –
(1.06)
(0.51)
OTA
(0.14)
VOLSVC
(0.23)
SWBRD
WS
ORIENT
FINAID
GRANT
HR
JANI
DCOP
VPFISC
ATHLET
CENT
FOOD
(0.21)
PURCH
(0.21)
PHYS
ACCPAY
(0.19)
(0.20)
AE
CIIP
(0.19)
(0.17)
UCMGT
HELP
DESUPP
(0.14)
(0.14)
(0.32)
0.32)
(0.34)
4)
(0.38)
HOUSE
CAMPACT
(0.13)
(0.13)
(0.31)
0.31)
(0.36))
(0.40)
ADMIS
RESDEV
(0.09)
REG
ALUM
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.21)
(0.26)
(0.29)
(0.05) BUDGT
(0.01) REC
VPSS
CAR
PAY
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 SPON
SVCLRN
0.03 0.03 FPLAN
0.08 0.08 CIRC
STAR
0.10 0.10 BOOK
STACC
0.11 0.10 LIB
0.11 0.15 0.14 PLANIR
VPIA
0.15 AUXSUPP
(0.11)
0.18 DEV
PRERX
0.21 0.20 0.16 CUR
XEROX
TIII
STHLT
UMR
0.23 0.23 PO
REF
COUN
0.24 0.24 VPAA
0.29 0.24 CAMPMIN
CASH
0.29 0.29 DCAS
(0.07) UNIVPOL
(0.16)
0.32 INTLIB
XCARD
WEB
0.38 0.41 0.41 PRES
MEDIA
0.42 0.42 ARCV
0.0
VPADMIN
0.44 0.5
CAT
CRED
0.52 1.0
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
KNOWLEDGEABLE
(0.5)
(1.0)
(0.92)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 109 –
(0.64)
0.26 XEROX
FPLAN
ALUM
OTA
JANI
(0.38)
SWBRD
(0.49)
FINAID
WS
VPFISC
CIIP
ACCPAY
(0.48)
GRANT
(0.44)
(0.46)
FOOD
ATHLET
(0.43)
ORIENT
DCOP
(0.36)
(0.37)
HR
CENT
(0.35)
DEV
VOLSVC
PHYS
(0.25)
0.25)
DESUPP
(0.21)
PURCH
(0.21)
(0.18)
(0.13)
(0.10) ADMIS
(0.10) BUDGT
(0.10) CAMPACT
(0.10)
(0.10) UCMGT
(0.08) AUXSUPP
(0.08) REG
(0.07) HOUSE
(0.05)HELP
(0.04) PAY
PRERX
STAR
0.00 0.02 0.07 AE
RESDEV
0.09 0.08 STACC
0.12 0.09 UMR
CUR
0.16 REC
0.12 SPON
VPSS
0.16 0.16 INTLIB
0.18 0.18 CAR
CASH
VPAA
0.22 0.21 DCAS
SVCLRN
0.23 0.22 STHLT
0.24 0.23 LIB
VPIA
0.24 TIII
UNIVPOL
0.27 0.26 WEB
(0.34)
(0.40)
(0.5)
(0.57)
(0.55)
0.29 0.28 COUN
PLANIR
0.32 0.30 MEDIA
ARCV
0.34 0.36 CIRC
BOOK
0.38 0.36 XCARD
CAMPMIN
0.56 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.0
CRED
VPADMIN
PO
REF
0.5
(0.29)
9)
CAT
PRES
1.0
ACCESSIBLE
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
(1.17)
0.23 CRED
(1.5)
– 110 –
0.00 SPON
STHLT
PAY
CENT
JANI
CIIP
(0.22)
(0.23)
(0.47)
SWBRD
FINAID
WS
DCOP
FOOD
(0.43)
(0.28)
8)
VPFISC
HELP
(0.22)
(0.26)
26)
ATHLET
(0.21)
PURCH
DESUPP
(0.21)
(0.25)
.25)
OTA
ACCPAY
(0.18)
(0.19)
UNIVPOL
(0.18)
(0.12)
(0.12) XEROX
(0.11) GRANT
(0.10)
(0.10) RESDEV
(0.08) DEV
(0.08) REC
(0.06) ADMIS
(0.06) PHYS
(0.04) HOUSE
(0.03) ALUM
(0.02) CAMPACT
(0.01) VPSS
(0.01) HR
0.01 0.01 UCMGT
0.03 0.02 AE
(0.42)
(0.5)
ORIENT
0.05 0.05 STACC
REG
PRERX
0.07 0.07 STAR
0.11 0.10 CIRC
VOLSVC
0.13 AUXSUPP
0.11 UMR
LIB
0.15 0.14 BUDGT
0.15 0.15 CUR
CASH
CAR
0.17 0.17 VPAA
FPLAN
0.18 0.18 BOOK
0.18 0.18 REF
INTLIB
VPIA
0.21 0.20 COUN
XCARD
0.21 0.21 PLANIR
0.21 DCAS
TIII
0.25 0.24 ARCV
0.26 0.26 PO
WEB
CAMPMIN
0.28 0.27 PRES
0.34 0.36 SVCLRN
VPADMIN
0.0
0.36 CAT
0.43 0.5
MEDIA
1.0
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
COURTEOUS
(1.0)
(0.93)
(1.0)
(1.5)
– 111 –
(0.61)
0.15 0.15 REF
PRERX
0.00 FPLAN
(0.10)
REG
VPFISC
(0.40)
SWBRD
WS
CIIP
GRANT
(0.51)
FINAID
DCOP
ACCPAY
HR
JANI
(0.35)
PHYS
(0.31)
(0.31)
CENT
ORIENT
(0.29)
29)
FOOD
(0.28)
.28)
(0.26)
0.26)
OTA
VOLSVC
(0.23)
(0.24)
ALUM
(0.15)
HELP
(0.13)
BUDGT
(0.13)
(0.14)
PURCH
ATHLET
(0.12)
DESUPP
DEV
ADMIS
(0.10)
(0.11)
HOUSE
(0.10)
(0.07) CAMPACT
(0.04)
(0.02) UNIVPOL
(0.01) RESDEV
CIRC
VPSS
(0.00)
0.01 0.01 AE
0.01 UCMGT
REC
0.03 0.05 0.04 LIB
AUXSUPP
0.10 0.08 CUR
PAY
SPON
0.13 0.15 VPIA
STACC
0.17 0.16 BOOK
XEROX
0.18 0.18 COUN
PLANIR
0.19 CAR
(0.51)
(0.48)
UMR
0.20 0.24 0.23 STHLT
INTLIB
0.24 SVCLRN
0.25 0.27 WEB
0.27 TIII
STAR
(0.39)
(0.42)
(0.5)
(0.16)
0.37 0.35 0.33 0.29 0.27 CASH
PO
VPAA
DCAS
CAMPMIN
0.35 0.43 0.42 ARCV
VPADMIN
XCARD
0.43 PRES
0.0
MEDIA
0.47 0.50 0.5
CAT
CRED
0.57 1.0
(value difference from XU aggregate average)
EFFICIENT