C RAFTON H ILLS C OLLEGE FALL 2012
C AMPUS C LIMATE S URVEY R ESULTS
W HY C ONDUCT A C LIMATE
A SSESSMENT ?

To improve the environment for working and
learning on campus

Facilitate ongoing improvement and
organizational change

Identify needs and strengths

Provide a baseline and identify trends
N EXT S TEPS

Share results

Inform decision making and planning

Work together to address challenges and
continue to create a positive work environment
E XAMPLES
OF I MPROVEMENTS MADE
R ESULTS FROM THE FALL
2010 C AMPUS C LIMATE S URVEY
BASED ON

Examples of Progress on Implementing
Suggestions from the Fall 2010 Campus Climate
Survey
Suggestion
Progress
Make applause cards readily available for
use.
A link to the Applause Cards is available on
the Navigator Online Resource Web Site.
Training for managers on recognition
Training occurred on Friday, November 9th,
2012.
Committee chairs should be trained how to
run a committee.
Training occurred on August 22nd, 2012.
Future trainings will occur once every
primary term.
The ability to search the email database by
first name, department, or office.
Contacted DCS in Fall 2012. When click on
“To”, check “More columns” and enter first
name.
“Bring a friend” to committee meetings.
Where the friend can sit in on committee as
a guest.
Piloted in Spring 2012, and did not work well.
D URING THE P RESENTATION OF THE
R ESULTS , P LEASE THINK ABOUT
THE FOLLOWING :

What strikes you as positive?



What accounts for this and how can we continue?
Identify areas for improvement

Discuss strategies

Suggest solutions
What stands out overall?
M ETHODOLOGY /S AMPLE

Survey was available to all administrators, staff,
and full and part-time faculty from October 15,
2012 to December 3, 2012

121 valid surveys received

38% response rate (121/321)

89% response rate for managers (n = 16)

64% response rate for full-time faculty (n = 45)

45% response rate for classified staff (n = 43)
P ERC ENT
A GREED
OF
R ESPOND EN TS
86%
78%
81%
S TRONGLY
E AC H A REA
FALL 2 0 1 2
OR
S ATISFIE D WITH
B ELOW : FALL 2 0 1 0 TO
Fall 2010
58%
A GREED
THAT THEY WERE
L ISTED
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
WHO
Fall 2012
76%
92%
81%
81%
71%
63%
60%
49%
52%
50%
O PPORTUNITIES FOR I MPROVEMENT
I DENTIFIED IN FALL 2010

Recognition

Workload

Resource Allocation

Communication

Decision Making

Shared Governance
S ATISFACTION
WITH
INCREASED FROM

R ECOGNITION
FALL 2010 TO
FALL 2012
Being satisfied with receiving recognition for
good work substantially increased for Faculty and
Classified employees
I am recognized for my good work
% Agree/ Strongly Agree
85%
75%
65%
55%
45%
Managers
Faculty
Classified
81%
67%
63%
57%
47%
Fall 2010
Fall 2012
S ATISFACTION
INCREASED FROM

W ORKLOAD
FALL 2010 TO
FALL 2012
WITH
Being satisfied with the fair allocation of work
substantially increased for Faculty and slightly
increased for Classified employees
% Agree/ Strongly Agree
There is a fair allocation of work in my area
80%
80%
75%
70%
64%
60%
67%
59%
Managers
Faculty
Classified
50%
40%
44%
2010
2012
S ATISFACTION WITH R ESOURCE
A LLOCATION I NCREASED FROM FALL
2010 TO FALL 2012
Being satisfied with the resource allocation
process substantially increased for both Faculty
and Classified employees

% Agree/Strongly Agree
I am satisfied w/ the resource allocation processes at Crafton
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
71%
56%
72%
71%
65%
Managers
Faculty
29%
Fall 2010
Classified
Fall 2012
S ATISFACTION
WITH
C OMMUNICATION INCREASED FROM
FALL 2010 TO FALL 2012
Being satisfied with communication across
campus substantially increased for Classified
employees

Communication across campus is timely and accurate
% Agree/ Strongly Agree
75%
65%
55%
67%
58%
66%
63%
56%
45%
35%
25%
15%
20%
Fall 2010
Managers
Faculty
Classified
Fall 2012
S ATISFACTION WITH D ECISION
M AKING I NCREASED FROM FALL
2010 TO FALL 2012
Being satisfied with decision making substantially
increased for both Faculty and Classified
employees and slightly increased for managers.

% Agree/Strongly Agree
I am satisfied w/ the planning & decision-making processes at CHC
95%
75%
55%
80%
58%
Faculty
35%
15%
86%
78%
77%
Managers
21%
Fall 2010
Classified
Fall 2012
S ATISFACTION
WITH
S HARED
G OVERNANCE INCREASED FROM
FALL 2010 TO FALL 2012

Being satisfied with Shared Governance
substantially increased for both Faculty and
Classified employees and slightly increased for
managers.
% Agree/Strongly Agree
Overall, I am satisfied with shared governance at Crafton.
90%
80%
70%
71%
Managers
60%
50%
40%
79%
75%
71%
50%
44%
Fall 2010
Faculty
Classified
Fall 2012
O PPORTUNITIES
FOR I MPROVEMENT
IDENTIFIED IN
FALL 2012

Resource Allocation

Prioritizing Objectives

Outcomes Assessment Reporting

Communication
R ESOURCE A LLOCATION

76% of respondents disagree or strongly
disagree that the distribution of resources from
the District to CHC is adequate

71% of respondents disagree or strongly
disagree that the distribution of resources from
the District to CHC and Valley is equitable
R ESOURCE A LLOCATION
R ELATED C OMMENTS

“Not sure why it is still 70/30 with SBVC? I don't
feel that our facilities are maintained and
updated as needed (BC101, LADM304, CHS237,
LADM restrooms, faculty offices, etc.) We are
short staffed in maintenance and custodial.”

“The district should re-examine the allocation
process. The very notion that CHC has a
structural deficit even after sever cuts would
suggest that the budget, and not the college, is
the problem.”
P RIORITIZING O BJECTIVES –
FALL 2012
120%
Managers
Faculty
Classified
% Agree/Strongly Agree
100%
92%
80%
60%
69%
79%
73%
66%
97% 96%
83%
76%
64%
63%
55%
40%
20%
0%
The annual process of
prioritizing objectives is
transparent
The annual process of
CHC personnel contribute
prioritizing objectives at
to the annual process of
CHC is easy to understand
prioritizing objectives
The annual process of
prioritizing objectives is
integrated with the CHC
EMP
P RIORITIZING O BJECTIVES –
FALL 2010
100%
% Agree/Strongly Agree
90%
80%
Fall 2010
Fall 2012
97%
81%
70%
60%
50%
68%
64%
53%
80%
58%
40%
30%
38%
20%
10%
0%
The annual process The annual process
of prioritizing
of prioritizing
objectives is
objectives at CHC is
transparent
easy to understand
CHC personnel
contribute to the
annual process of
prioritizing
objectives
The annual process
of prioritizing
objectives is
integrated with the
CHC EMP
P RIORITIZING O BJECTIVES
R ELATED C OMMENTS

“The planning and program review process has made great
strides. The college should continue to do its best to make the
process accessible and user-friendly.”

“Compared to other institutions where I have served, the CHC
process isolates faculty members from shared assessment and
goal-setting by fragmenting program reviews. In many cases,
one full-time faculty member is the only one writing a
particular program review...”

“I am unclear as to how decisions are made with regards to
hiring new managers. How are those decisions being justified
using data driven decision-making?”

“The processes and procedures we have in place for decision
making are good. However, I don't believe that some of the
decisions that are made take into consideration the information
that is collected during the planning and program review
process.”
O UTCOMES A SSESSMENT
R EPORTING – FALL 2012
120%
Managers
110%
% Agree/Strongly Agree
100%
90%
80%
Faculty
Classified
100%
92%
90%
84%
86%
85%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CHC uses the results from the SLOs to CHC uses the results from the SLOs to
improve student learning
improve programs and services
O UTCOMES A SSESSMENT R EPORTING –
FALL 2010 TO FALL 2012
100%
% Agree/Strongly Agree
90%
80%
70%
Fall 2010
Fall 2012
91%
74%
89%
73%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CHC uses the results from the SLOs to
improve student learning
CHC uses the results from the SLOs to
improve programs and services
O UTCOMES A SSESSMENT
R EPORTING R ELATED C OMMENTS

“Create one central repository for all SLO's. Currently, I
have four locations to which each SLO is recorded.”

“Right now the procedure for submitting seems to be
whatever you want, however you want, wherever you
want. For faculty wanting direction, this is confusing.
For anyone wanting to review outcomes for the
institution, it is a barrier.”

“Streamlining outcomes assessment is the most
important part. As a faculty member, I am always
assessing my methods, and make changes accordingly.
The SLOs help with that, although they are extra work for
the most part.”

“The outcomes assessment process continues to grow
and improve; however, I think that we can continue to
make the reporting process easier.”
C OMMUNICATION – FALL
2012
100%
% Agree/Strongly Agree
90%
Managers
94%
Faculty
Classified
86%
80%
70%
60%
50%
66%
65%
57%
53%
49%
40%
36%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Communication across campus is
timely and accurate.
Communication & understanding
among the different employee
constituency groups at CHC is
sufficient.
Best practices are shared effectively
at CHC.
C OMMUNICATION – FALL
2010 TO FALL 2012
100%
% Agree/Strongly Agree
90%
80%
Fall 2010
Fall 2012
70%
66%
60%
50%
40%
52%
44%
30%
57%
49%
32%
20%
10%
0%
Communication across
campus is timely and
accurate.
Communication &
Best practices are shared
understanding among the
effectively at CHC.
different employee
constituency groups at CHC
is sufficient.
C OMMUNICATION R ELATED
C OMMENTS

“Although communication has improved
somewhat, there is still the feeling that any input
we may have really isn't taken into consideration
when decisions are being made, even when the
decision directly affects our job. There are also
times when we are told of a decision that was
made without seeking any input from the person
or area that will be affected the most.”

“Communication is improving.
T ELL
US WHAT YOU THINK

Additional
questions/comments

Thoughts

Suggestions for Improvement
C ONVERSATION
Resource Allocation

76% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree
that the distribution of resources from the
District to CHC is adequate

71% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree
that the distribution of resources from the
District to CHC and Valley is equitable
C ONVERSATION
Prioritizing Objectives – Fall 2012
80%
Managers
Faculty
% Agree/Strongly Agree
70%
73%
69%
60%
Classified
66%
64%
63%
55%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
The annual process of prioritizing
objectives is transparent
The annual process of prioritizing
objectives at CHC is easy to understand
C ONVERSATION
Outcomes Assessment Reporting Related Comments

“Create one central repository for all SLO's. Currently, I have
four locations to which each SLO is recorded.”

“Right now the procedure for submitting seems to be whatever
you want, however you want, wherever you want. For faculty
wanting direction, this is confusing. For anyone wanting to
review outcomes for the institution, it is a barrier.”

“Streamlining outcomes assessment is the most important part.
As a faculty member, I am always assessing my methods, and
make changes accordingly. The SLOs help with that, although
they are extra work for the most part.”

“The outcomes assessment process continues to grow and
improve; however, I think that we can continue to make the
reporting process easier.”
C ONVERSATION
Communication – Fall 2012
100%
% Agree/Strongly Agree
90%
Managers
94%
Faculty
Classified
86%
80%
70%
60%
50%
66%
65%
57%
53%
49%
40%
36%
30%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Communication across campus is
timely and accurate.
Communication & understanding
among the different employee
constituency groups at CHC is
sufficient.
Best practices are shared effectively
at CHC.