RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Table of Contents
HIGHLIGHT OF THE FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 1.............................................................................................................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................................5
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................................................6
INSTRUMENTATION ..............................................................................................................................................................................6
IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................................................................................6
ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................................................................................6
INTERPRETING THE RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................................................7
DEFINING CLIMATE .............................................................................................................................................................................7
DEFINING CLIMATE AT RIO HONDO COLLEGE ..................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2...........................................................................................................................................................................................11
DEMOGRAPHICS................................................................................................................................................................................11
SURVEY SAMPLE: STUDENTS .............................................................................................................................................................12
SURVEY SAMPLE: EMPLOYEES ..........................................................................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 3...........................................................................................................................................................................................16
RHC CAMPUS CLIMATE ..................................................................................................................................................................16
CAMPUS ATMOSPHERE: RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................................17
CAMPUS ATMOSPHERE: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................18
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY: RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................18
Physical Environment.....................................................................................................................................................................18
Safety ..............................................................................................................................................................................................20
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY: DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................................22
DIVERSITY & EQUITY: RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................22
DIVERSITY & EQUITY: DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................................24
CHAPTER 4...........................................................................................................................................................................................25
RHC CAMPUS CLIMATE: STUDENT TRACK ..............................................................................................................................25
STUDENT NEEDS: RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................26
STUDENT NEEDS: DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................................................................................29
CAMPUS RELATIONSHIPS: RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................29
CAMPUS RELATIONSHIPS: DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................................31
INCLUSIVENESS AND CAMPUS LIFE: RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................31
INCLUSIVENESS AND CAMPUS LIFE: DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................32
CHAPTER 5...........................................................................................................................................................................................34
RHC CAMPUS CLIMATE: EMPLOYEE TRACK ..........................................................................................................................34
JOB SATISFACTION: RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................35
JOB SATISFACTION: DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................................36
COMMUNICATION & CAMPUS RELATIONSHIPS: RESULTS ...............................................................................................................36
Communication ..............................................................................................................................................................................36
Campus Relationships ....................................................................................................................................................................38
COMMUNICATION & CAMPUS RELATIONSHIPS: DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................................38
GOVERNANCE: RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................................................38
GOVERNANCE: DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................................................42
CHAPTER 6...........................................................................................................................................................................................43
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................................................43
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................................................44
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................................................45
2
Highlight of the Findings

When student and employee survey respondents were asked to rate the campus based on characteristic
adjectives, the highest rated characterizations of the campus were ‘Friendly’ and ‘Comfortable’.

A majority of student (71.9%) and employee (58.2%) respondents were satisfied with the developing
appearance of the campus. Although there was less satisfaction found when employees were asked about
campus upkeep and the cleanliness of restrooms. Students and employees reported little satisfaction and
dissatisfaction, respectively, with the variety of food/drink options on campus.

Perceptions of safety decreased when students and employees were asked about their feelings of safety
on campus at night as opposed to during the day. Women on campus (students and employees) felt less
safe than men at night. Comments from employees regarding safety requested more of a security
presence on campus.

High proportions of students and employees disagreed with the statements that there were prejudice
issues among students or among employees on campus. Both groups responded that they were satisfied
with the ethnic diversity of faculty and staff on campus. Majorities of students agreed that they have
made friends with students from ethnic/racial backgrounds different from their own while on campus
(72.9%), and agreed that instructors have treated students of diverse backgrounds with equal respect
(77.4%).

Students reported being satisfied with their academic experiences and the quality of instruction and
teaching on campus. A high majority of students (80.4%) would recommend Rio Hondo College to a
friend. More than three-fourths of students (76.8%) recognized the value of their coursework in helping
them achieve their educational goals. Majorities of students were also satisfied with the variety of
coursework offered, and the times courses are scheduled.

Students rated their relationships with classmates highly. Students agreed that they have friends on
campus, met nice people while on campus, and enjoy talking to classmates outside of class. Students
thought highly of instructors, tending to agree with statements about instructor preparedness, effort
expended in helping students, and sensitivity to the needs of all students. Students also tended to agree
with the ease found talking to instructors, and the knowledge instructors have shown.

Students tended to agree with feeling a sense of belonging on campus, and that they like the RHC
environment and feel a sense of comfort on campus.

Employees were generally satisfied with their work and found their work was relevant for the college to
meet its mission. The lowest rated job satisfaction question in the survey pertained to whether
employees were satisfied with the opportunities for advancement at RHC; slightly more employees were
dissatisfied than satisfied with advancement opportunities.

Employees positively agreed with almost all campus communication indicators in the survey. Although
some employees expressed the need for information on campus to be more readily available, and more
opportunities for dialogue provided.
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009

High positive ratings were found when asking employees about their relationship with their supervisor.
High mean ratings were found when employees were asked whether their supervisor treats people fairly
without favoritism, acknowledges good work, encourages development and growth, is competent in
his/her job, and seeks/values opinions and ideas.

Very high mean ratings were found when employees were asked about their coworkers. Approximately
80% or more of respondents ‘Strongly Agreed’ or ‘Agreed’ with the statements on enjoying the people
they work with, having supportive coworkers, and on having competent coworkers.

Forty-six percent of employees (45.8%) agreed with feeling optimistic about what can be achieved
through participatory governance, and forty-one percent (40.5%) were satisfied with the opportunity
provided to participate in the governance process. Employee open response feedback was concerned
with more communication about governance and the lack of opportunities for participation.

A little over one-third (34.5%) of employees strongly agreed or agreed that decisions made on campus
were consistent with the college’s goals and mission.
4
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Chapter 1
Introduction
5
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Overview
Rio Hondo College administered a campus climate survey to students and employees during the final few weeks
of the spring 2009 semester. Two versions of the RHC Climate Survey were created and administered. One
version was the RHC Student Climate Survey and the other was the RHC Employee Climate Survey. The goal
of each survey was to provide insight into the overall campus climate. In the past decade, only students have
been asked about their perceptions of the campus. These previous survey projects were conducted by outside
agencies, i.e., the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey and the Community College Student Experiences
Questionnaire (CCSEQ). The purpose of this current research was to investigate overall perceptions about the
campus climate as reported by students and employees.
Instrumentation
Both the RHC Student Climate and the RHC Employee Climate Surveys were developed on campus by the
Institutional Research & Planning (IRP) Office. Specific campus climate dimensions were formulated for both
surveys and several example surveys were consulted. The format and structure of the RHC Climate Surveys
were modeled after example surveys from Cypress and San Bernardino Valley colleges, and previous climate
research conducted at Rio Hondo College during the mid 1990’s.
Since common issues, such as campus environment, safety, and diversity are thought to be perceived by both
students and employees, both groups answered several identical questions related to these issues. This provided
opportunities to compare perceptions between groups. However, since students and employees interact with the
campus in different ways, two distinct branches of the climate survey were created.
The majority of survey questions followed a 5-point Likert scale format with answer options: “Strongly
Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Neutral”, “Agree”, and “Strongly Agree.” A “Don’t Know” or not applicable (N/A)
option was available for some questions. In addition, the RHC Employee Climate Survey contained a few open
response questions which allowed employees to provide comments related to campus climate. Two versions of
the surveys were made available: online and paper.
Implementation
Prior to launching both the student and employee versions RHC Climate Survey, information about the surveys
and requests to participate were made to constituency groups on campus in meetings and to individuals through
campus email. Faculty and staff were asked to make announcements to students. Students were also notified of
the survey when they attempted to log-in to their RHC Blackboard account, and a pop-up window requesting
their input appeared along with a web-link to the survey. In addition, a table in the Upper Quad of campus was
set-up during the Associated Student Body elections, where students were provided the opportunity to fill out
the survey using one of three laptops, or the opportunity to fill out the survey on paper.
An “All-Staff” email was sent to employees requesting their participation in the RHC Climate Survey. In
addition to the online form of the survey, a paper version was created and distributed to college employees
without computer and/or internet access. Paper surveys were collected and inputted by the Institutional
Research & Planning Office. Fliers were created and distributed in Adjunct Faculty mailboxes, publicizing the
survey and providing directions to access the survey. Both electronic and paper versions were collected up to
three and a half weeks after making the surveys available.
Analysis
Analyses of rating data (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) along with percentage data are reported. These
analyses are relatively straightforward. The following section, Interpreting the Results, provides an overview on
how to interpret these results throughout the report. Analysis of open-ended feedback required a more thorough
6
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
analysis. First open-ended responses were read and categorized with other responses consisting of similar
content, a process referred to as content analysis. These “clusters” of similar entries formed themes that a
response entry would support. Such analysis is necessary to summarize the response entries of many individuals
and describe the most salient thoughts expressed by a group of respondents.
Interpreting the Results
Throughout this report, mean ratings and percentages are provided for specific survey questions. Mean ratings
(M) are average scores that correspond with the Likert scaling format with Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2,
Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, and Strongly Agree = 5 (Table 1.1). In this report, mean ratings will revolve around
3.00 (Neutral: neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with the statement). Agreement with the statement reflects
a mean rating of greater than 3.00. Disagreement with the statement reflects a mean rating of less than 3.00.
Table 1.1
Reference Points for Interpreting Mean Ratings
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 –Disagree
3 –Neutral
4 –Agree
5 –Strongly Agree
Percentages on how respondents answered survey questions are also provided. The entire survey along with the
percentages of responses is provided in the appendices. There are instances in this report when percentages for
‘Strongly Disagree’ and ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ and ‘Agree’ are added together to produce a percentage
of respondents who negatively or positively responded to a question. The numbers of respondents who
answered specific questions are reported and are indicated with an ‘N’. Verbatim comments from open-ended
response questions are displayed in textboxes and are integrated throughout the report to provide context and/or
validate survey data.
Defining Climate
Climate is an abstract concept. The term climate is often used interchangeably with the term culture, but there
are distinctions. Culture embodies norms, beliefs, and traditions in an organization. For example, a software
development company can have a culture where a t-shirt and tattered blue jeans are acceptable dress in the
office throughout the work week. A newcomer to the company would be more cognizant of the extremely
casual clothing customs than individuals who have been with the company for some time, but the newcomer
would eventually adjust to the environment and become unconsciously unaware of the casual clothing customs.
Culture is pervasive throughout an entire organization. Climate, on the other hand, is fostered and articulated
within an organization. A shared perception within an organization, group, or team is a necessary condition to
constitute a climate. If individuals in an organization are cognizant of an issue, but perceptions across
individuals diverge significantly, then a climate is not constituted. Climate in organizations are usually
multifaceted, meaning an organization embodies multiple “sub-climates”. For instance, using the software
development company example above, the company could conceivably embody a climate for creativity, a
climate for innovation, and climate for market dominance. And these “sub-climates” would be more or less
expressed in the company’s value system, policy, and practices.
7
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Defining Climate at Rio Hondo College
The value of any assessment of climate is how climate is defined. Insight into the mission, values, and goals of
the institution are necessary when determining the multifaceted nature of campus climate. Again using the
example of the software development company, they, and other companies like them, could conceivably
embody a climate for creativity, a climate for innovation, and climate for market dominance, but these “subclimates” would be poor representations of climate in a higher education setting. To identify which “subclimates” or dimensions of climate to assess at Rio Hondo College (RHC), a number of reference source
materials were examined, such as the RHC Mission and Value Statements, RHC Institutional Goals, and the
RHC Organization & Governance Structures Manual. A few “sub-climate” or dimensions were inferred and
thought to be mutually perceived by both students and employees on campus. These common dimensions were
identified as Campus Atmosphere, Physical Environment & Safety, and Diversity & Equity. From these
common dimensions, divergent branches of RHC climate were derived. Figure 1.1 displays a graphical
representation of how RHC Student Climate was defined. As can be seen in Figure 1.1, RHC Student Climate is
conceived as perceptions of: 1) Campus Atmosphere, 2) Physical Environment & Safety, 3) Diversity & Equity,
4) Student Academic Needs, 5) Campus Relationships, 6) and Inclusion & Campus Life. Similarly Figure 1.2
displays a graphical representation of how RHC Employee Climate was defined, and is conceived as
perceptions of: 1) Campus Atmosphere, 2) Physical Environment & Safety, 3) Diversity & Equity, 4) Job
Satisfaction, 5) Campus Relationships & Communication, 6) and Governance. Table 1.2 provides delineative
synopses of each climate dimension.
8
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 1.1 Dimensions of RHC Student Climate
Campus
Atmosphere
Inclusion
&
Campus Life
Physical
Environment
& Safety
RHC Student
Climate
Diversity
&
Equity
Campus
Relationships
Student
Academic
Needs
Figure 1.2
Dimensions of RHC Employee Climate
Campus
Atmosphere
Physical
Environment
& Safety
Governance
RHC
Employee
Climate
Campus
Relationships &
Communication
Diversity
&
Equity
Job Satisfaction
9
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Table 1.2
Synopses of RHC Climate Dimensions for Students and Employees
Campus
Atmosphere
Physical
Environment
& Safety
Diversity &
Equity
RHC Campus Climate
General perceptions of the campus environment were elicited. Survey respondents were provided diametrical
adjectives that could describe the campus, such as Uncomfortable and Comfortable, and respondents were asked to
rate the campus based on this continuum. Assessing Campus Atmosphere is useful for gauging context and how
individuals would characterize the campus as a whole.
Opinions of the physical environment and feelings of safety were also elicited. This dimension measures more
tangible aspects of the environment and helps to answer the question as to whether a comfortable setting is being
provided to students and employees on campus.
Diversity & Equity are essential concepts for any public educational institution and Rio Hondo College is no
different. RHC is an open campus and provides a wide range of academic and student services for a variety of
educational goals. This dimension measures perceptions of diversity on campus and whether campus members feel
they are treated fairly without prejudice.
RHC Campus Climate—Student
The academic and student services
provided to students are thought to
fulfill Student Needs. To this end,
Student Needs
students were asked about their
satisfaction with course offerings
and services provided on campus.
Campus
Relationships
Inclusion
&
Campus Life
RHC Campus Climate—Employee
Job Satisfaction can encompass an
entire research focus on its own, but
was included to examine its
Job Satisfaction
conjunction with campus climate.
This dimension essentially asked
whether employees on campus were
satisfied with their jobs.
Communication on campus was
assessed in conjunction with
Campus Relationships. Campus
Communication
Relationships questions asked about
&
Campus Relationships relationships between employees
and their supervisor and co-workers.
How individuals perceive their
environment is heavily influenced
by their social interactions within
the environment. Campus
Relationships examined student
impressions of their relationships
with peers, instructors, and noninstructional staff on campus.
Similar to Diversity & Equity, the
Inclusion & Campus Life
dimension was used to assess how
well the campus is fostering an
environment conducive for access
into higher education, gauging how
integrated students feel with the
campus community.
Governance
10
A Governance dimension was
included to assess perceptions of
campus operations. Clearly defined
roles and responsibilities are
essential not only in work positions,
but also roles within the entire
institution.
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Chapter 2
Demographics
11
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Survey Sample: Students
The headcount for the spring 2009 semester recorded 25,398 students attending Rio Hondo College. The
student sample of respondents began with 365 students beginning the survey and subsequently 320 students
completing the survey. The 320 completed surveys were used to calculate response rate. The student response
rate was low at 1.26%. The largest ethnic group of respondents were Hispanic students (60%, N = 216),
followed by Caucasian students (17%, N = 63), Asian/Pacific Islanders (15%, N = 55), Other Non-White (6%,
N = 20), and African American students (2%, N = 9). Thirty-four student respondents reported multiple
ethnicities. The ethnic composition of the survey sample was somewhat reflective to the student population for
the 2008/2009 academic year (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1
Student Sample to Population Comparison by Ethnicity
Survey Sample RHC Population
African American
2%
4%
Asian/ Pacific Islander
15%
11%
Caucasian Non-Hispanic
17%
15%
Hispanic
60%
68%
Other Non-White
6%
2%
The age ranges of the student sample followed a similar pattern to the student population in the 2008/2009
academic year. Table 2.2 provides the number of students for each age range in the respondent sample and the
percent comparison of the sample to the population.
Table 2.2
Student Sample to Population Comparison by Age Range
Age
Frequency Survey Sample RHC Population
19 or less
47
17%
19%
20 to 24
96
34%
25%
25 to 29
50
17%
14%
30 to 39
49
17%
18%
40 to 49
21
7%
13%
50+
20
7%
10%
Total
283
100%
100%
Of the students who reported their gender, the sample consisted of 163 female respondents (53%), and 145 male
respondents (47%). The annual measure of gender at RHC for 2008/2009 was 45% female and 55% male
(Table 2.3).
Table 2.3
Student Sample to Population Comparison by Gender
Gender
Frequency Survey Sample RHC Population
Women
163
53%
45%
Men
145
47%
55%
Students were also asked how many semesters they have attended Rio Hondo College (Figure 2.1).
Respondents most frequently reported completing six or more semesters at RHC (25.2%, N = 79). Other
responses varied ranging from zero semesters (first semester at RHC) to five semesters (more than two years) at
RHC.
12
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 2.1
Number of Completed Semesters at RHC
100
25.2%
(N =79)
80
60
12.7%
(N =40)
12.4%
(N =39)
0- This is
my first
semester
1
40
14.3%
(N =45)
16.6%
(N =52)
11.5%
(N =36)
7.3%
N
( =23)
20
0
2
3
4
5
6+
Survey Sample: Employees
The survey began with 269 employee respondents filling out the survey and 243 who completed the entire
survey. Classified/Confidential Employees were the most represented (35.7%, N = 86), followed by Full-Time
Faculty (33.2%, N = 80), Part-Time Faculty (12.0%, N = 29), Administration/Management (6.6%, N = 16), and
Part-Time Hourly employees (4.9%, N = 12). There were 18 Employees (7.5%) who preferred not to report
their job classification (Figure 2.2). Table 2.4 provides the response rate for each job classification on campus.
The “Employee Count” for each job classification were derived from RHC Human Resource Office reporting
and Chancellor’s Office reporting from the Fall 2008 semester.
Figure 2.2
RHC Employee Sample Job Classification
35.7%
(N =86)
100
33.2%
(N =80)
80
60
12.0%
(N =29)
40
20
4.9%
(N =12)
6.6%
(N =16)
7.5%
N
( =18)
Administration/
Management
Prefer not to
say
0
Part- Time
Hourly
Classified/
Confidential
Full- Time
Faculty
Part- Time
Faculty
Response rates were calculated by dividing the number of survey respondents by the employee count, thus
providing a proportion of how well each group was represented in the survey sample. For instance, 86
Classified/Confidential Employees responded to the survey, and there were 268 Classified/Confidential
Employees on campus for a response rate of 32%. Administration/Management had the highest response rate
13
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
(50%), followed by Full-Time Faculty (40%), and Classified/Confidential (32%). Part-Time Hourly Staff (19%)
and Part-Time Faculty had the lowest response rates (9%).
Table 2.4
Survey Response Rate by Job Classification
# Survey Respondents Employee Count Response Rate
Part- Time Hourly
12
63
19%
Classified/ Confidential
86
268
32%
Full- Time Faculty
80
201
40%
Part- Time Faculty
29
335
9%
Administration/ Management
16
32
50%
Prefer Not to Say
20
N/A
N/A
Women employees responded to the survey more than men. Table 2.5 provides the numbers for gender in the
respondent sample and the percent comparison of the sample to the population. There was a nine percent
difference for both women and men when comparing the survey sample to the RHC population.
Table 2.5
Comparison of Employee Sample to Population by Gender
Gender
Frequency Survey Sample RHC Population
Women
144
63%
54%
Men
85
37%
46%
Employee ethnicity was also collected. Caucasian Non-Hispanic (44%, N = 108) employees represented the
largest group, followed by Hispanic (35%, N = 87) employees, Asian/Pacific Islanders (13%, N = 31), Other
Non-White (6%, N = 16), and African Americans (2%, N = 6). See Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3
Ethnicity of Employee Sample
120
44%
(N =108)
35%
(N =87)
100
80
60
13%
(N =31)
40
6%
N
( =16)
2%
N
( =6)
20
0
Caucasian NonHispanic
Asian/ Pacific
Islander
African
American
Hispanic
Other Non-White
Employee survey respondents most frequently reported working at Rio Hondo College zero to five years (29%,
N = 69), followed by six to ten years (22%, N = 52), followed by respondents who have worked at the college
21 years or greater (19%, N = 45). See Figure 2.4. As a result, 70% of respondents have worked at the college
either 10 years or less or 21 years and greater.
14
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 2.4
Years Employed at Rio Hondo College
35%
30%
29%
(N =69)
22%
(N =53)
25%
19%
(N =45)
20%
11%
(N =25)
15%
10%
9%
(N =22)
9%
(N =22)
5%
0%
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years 21 years and
greater
15
Prefer not to
say
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Chapter 3
RHC Campus Climate
16
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Campus Atmosphere: Results
General perceptions of the campus environment were elicited. Survey respondents were asked to rate
characteristic adjectives that could describe the campus environment. Diametrical adjectives were provided
such as Hostile and Friendly, and respondents were asked to rate the campus environment on a continuum of
Hostile to Friendly. These dyads were measured by assigning a five-point scale to the continuum with the
negative adjective, Hostile, assigned the value of one. The response option between Hostile and Neutral was
assigned a rating value of two. A Neutral response was assigned a rating value of three. The response option
between Neutral and Friendly was assigned a rating value of four. And finally, the positive adjective, Friendly,
was assigned a point value of five. The same scoring structure was used for all Campus Atmosphere dyads.
These types of questions are useful for assessing context and how individuals would characterize the campus as
whole.
Campus Atmosphere was inquired from both students and employees. Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 display mean
ratings for both groups. Students tended to rate Campus Atmosphere positively. The highest ratings for students
were the Uncomfortable—Comfortable (Mstu = 4.29, N = 359) and Hostile—Friendly (Mstu = 4.22, N = 363)
dyads with a high majority of students rating the campus as more Friendly (72.4%) and more Comfortable
(75.5%). The lowest student ratings were the Turbulent—Harmonious (Mstu = 3.87, N = 359) and the
Competitive—Cooperative (Mstu = 3.92, N = 359) dyads, where a majority of students rated the campus as more
Harmonious (59.1%) and more Cooperative (57.1%).
Employee ratings for Campus Atmosphere varied more, but all ratings reflected more employees, who
responded positively toward each characteristic dyad than negatively. The highest ratings were for the
Intolerant—Tolerant (Memp = 3.91, N = 264), Hostile—Friendly (Memp = 3.94, N = 267), and Uncomfortable—
Comfortable (Memp = 3.94, N = 265) dyads, where a majority of employees responded that the campus was
more Tolerant (64.8%), more Friendly (66.3%), and more Comfortable (67.5%). The lowest ratings were for the
Turbulent—Harmonious (Memp = 3.23, N = 262) and Tense—Relaxed (Memp = 3.30, N = 260) dyads. For the
Turbulent—Harmonious dyad, 39.7% of employees rated the campus as more Harmonious, while 25.6% of
employees rated campus as more Turbulent. And for the Tense—Relaxed dyad, 43.4% of employees rated the
campus as more Relaxed, while 28.1% rated the campus as more Tense. There was some agreement between
students and employees. Both groups rated the Hostile—Friendly and Uncomfortable—Comfortable dyads the
highest, while rating the Turbulent—Harmonious dyad the lowest.
Figure 3.1
RHC Student and Employee Campus Atmosphere Ratings
Campus Atmosphere
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
Employee
17
Student
Sa
fe
on
io
us
Fa
ir
Ha
rm
O
pe
n
ax
ed
Re
l
To
le
ra
nt
Co
m
fo
r ta
bl
e
Re
sp
ec
tfu
l
Co
op
er
at
ive
Su
pp
or
t iv
e
Fr
ie
nd
ly
1.00
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Table 3.1
RHC Student and Employee Campus Atmosphere Ratings
Mstu
Nstu
Hostile—Friendly
4.22
363
Intolerant—Tolerant
4.10
361
Uncomfortable—Comfortable
4.29
359
Disrespectful—Respectful
4.18
357
Competitive—Cooperative
3.92
359
Unsupportive—Supportive
4.15
357
Tense—Relaxed
3.94
359
Closed—Open
4.19
357
Unfair—Fair
4.08
358
Turbulent—Harmonious
3.87
359
Unsafe—Safe
4.02
348
Memp
3.94
3.91
3.94
3.82
3.69
3.65
3.30
3.68
3.61
3.23
3.80
Nemp
267
264
265
266
262
262
260
260
261
262
263
One of the open-ended questions inquired of employees asked what one thing are they the most proud of as an
employee of Rio Hondo College. In answering this question, a few responses were identified (Textbox 3.1)
highlighting the ‘friendliness’ aspect related to Campus Atmosphere.
Textbox 3.1
Employee Comments Related to the Friendliness on Campus
What is the one thing you are most proud of as an employee of Rio Hondo College? (“Friendly” responses)
 “It's a Friendly Environment...”
 “The campus is friendly and we try to help students attain their goals.”
 “the friendliness of the employees.”
 “a very friendly environment”
Campus Atmosphere: Discussion
The finding that student and employee survey respondents would describe the atmosphere on campus positively
is encouraging. The highest positive mean ratings for both groups were the Hostile—Friendly (Mstu = 4.22, Memp
= 3.94) and Uncomfortable—Comfortable (Mstu = 4.29, Memp = 3.94) dyads indicating that students and
employees found the campus to be friendly and comfortable. The College could further investigate the lower
ratings reported by both groups: the Turbulent—Harmonious and Tense—Relaxed dyads. These specific
Campus Atmosphere questions have been used by other local college campuses and were used by Rio Hondo
College in the 1990’s. Since these questions require the most extrapolation on the part of the respondent, it
would be beneficial to study how students and employees interpret each dyad, and revise questions as needed.
Physical Environment & Safety: Results
Physical Environment
Opinions of the physical environment and feelings of safety at RHC were also elicited. This dimension provided
more tangible feedback about the campus environment, and examined whether a comfortable setting was being
provided to students and employees on campus. Again many common questions about the physical environment
and safety were asked of both students and employees (see Figure 3.2) with a few questions asked exclusively
of each group (see Table 3.2). A majority of students (71.9%) and employees (58.2%) were satisfied with the
developing appearance of the campus (Mstu = 3.91 and Memp = 3.49, respectively). Textbox 3.2 displays
employee comments related to the developing appearance of campus.
18
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 3.2
Student and Employee Satisfaction with RHC Physical Environment
5.00
4.00
3.91
3.70
3.49
3.00
3.48
3.17
3.19
2.98
2.36
2.00
1.00
I am satisfied with
the developing
appearance on the
campus.
I am satisfied with
the variety of
food/drink options
on campus.
Employee
Textbox 3.2
I am satisfied with
the availability of
restrooms on
campus.
I am satisfied with
the cleanliness of
restrooms on
campus.
Student
Employee Comments Related to the Developing Appearance of Campus
Employee responses to comments/suggestions/needs of campus (Developing Campus Appearance
responses):
 “Our new LRC is fantastic!”
 “RHC can be such a beautiful place given its natural habitat and surroundings. We need to be more
appreciative of its natural surroundings & beauty.”
 “…I look forward to having the construction projects finished so that we will look good too.”
 “the physical structure's on campus. these problems are currently being addressed with the new
building projects.”
More students reported being very satisfied or satisfied (42.2%) than dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (27.6%)
with food and drink options on campus (M= 3.19, N = 315). However, a majority of employees reported being
very dissatisfied or dissatisfied (56.1%) with food and drink options (M = 2.36, N = 234). Textbox 3.3 displays
employee comments related to food and drink options on campus.
Textbox 3.3
Employee Comments Related to Food & Drink Options on Campus
Employee responses to comments/suggestions/needs of campus (Food & Drink responses):
 “Starbucks!”
 “…provide a food court”
 “Food services. Allow more options in regards to on-campus vendors.”
 “…diversity of vendors in the campus inn”
Students were generally satisfied with the availability (M = 3.70, N = 315) and cleanliness (M = 3.48, N = 315)
of restrooms on campus. Employees, on the other hand, reported less satisfaction with availability (M = 3.17, N
= 241) and cleanliness (M = 2.98, N = 240).
19
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Table 3.2 displays results for Physical Environment questions that were asked of both groups, and also displays
the results of questions asked exclusively of each group. A majority of students (59.6%) reported being satisfied
with the availability of study areas on campus (M = 3.63, N = 314). More employees were dissatisfied (39.5%)
with the availability of meeting space on campus than satisfied (27.1%). Several more employees were satisfied
with the general upkeep of classrooms/labs (M = 3.09, N = 228) and office space (M = 3.03, N = 238), than
were dissatisfied. Textbox 3.4 displays employee comments related to the general upkeep of campus facilities.
Table 3.2
Student and Employee Satisfaction with RHC Physical Environment
Mstu
Nstu
The developing appearance of the campus.
3.91
316
The variety of food/drink options on campus.
3.19
315
The availability of restrooms on campus.
3.70
315
The cleanliness of restrooms on campus.
3.48
315
The availability of study areas on campus.
3.63
314
The general upkeep of classrooms/labs.
N/A
N/A
The general upkeep of office space.
N/A
N/A
The availability of meeting space on campus.
N/A
N/A
Textbox 3.4
Memp
3.49
2.36
3.17
2.98
N/A
3.09
3.03
2.71
Nemp
242
234
241
240
N/A
228
238
225
Employee Comments Related to General Campus Upkeep
Employee responses to comments/suggestions/needs of campus (Campus Upkeep responses):
 “Picnic tables need to be placed where catering truck is and not so far away. Students are eating in
areas closer to truck and leaving a mess on benches and other tables. Truck people should clean area
before they leave.”
 “Seems like other campuses looks so much cleaner. You almost get used to things being dusty and
dirty here.”
 “Parking lot H behind the black box theatre is a major walkway for student leading into the music
area, campus inn and lower campus. The maintenance of that area is awful. There the trees need
major trimming, the ground is filthy, the planters are full of trash. I really looks terrible for visitors
coming to events in the campus inn or campus tours such as CID that pass through that area.”
 “Cleaning needs to be done in offices, bathroom, etc. Better cleaning of vents. Stairways are
disgusting and need to be scrubbed and power washed.”
Safety
Within the Campus Atmosphere section, both students and employees rated the campus relatively safe
(Mstu = 4.02 and Memp = 3.80, see Table 3.1). Also inquired were perceptions of safety in the forms of feelings
of personal safety and feelings of safety for one’s property (car) on campus (Figure 3.3 and Table 3.3). Both
groups felt safe walking on campus during the day (Mstu = 4.32 and Memp = 4.38). Both groups felt less safe
walking on campus at night, but more respondents still agreed with feeling safe (Mstu = 3.47 and Memp = 3.39).
Also, both groups felt their cars were safer parked on campus during the day (Mstu = 3.66 and Memp = 3.79) as
opposed to at night (Mstu = 3.27 and Memp = 3.39).
20
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 3.3
Student and Employee Perceptions of Safety on Campus
5.00
4.38 4.32
4.00
3.79 3.66
3.39 3.47
3.39 3.27
3.00
2.00
1.00
I feel safe walking
on campus during
the daytime.
I feel safe walking
on campus at night.
Employee
Table 3.3
My car is safe when
it is parked on
campus during the
day.
My car is safe when
it is parked on
campus at night.
Student
Student and Employee Perceptions of Safety on Campus
I feel safe walking on campus during the daytime.
I feel safe walking on campus at night.
My car is safe when it is parked on campus during the day.
My car is safe when it is parked on campus at night.
Mstu
4.32
3.47
3.66
3.27
Nstu
317
317
314
314
Memp
4.38
3.39
3.79
3.39
Nemp
243
220
240
211
The perception of safety while walking on campus at night was examined by gender (Figure 3.4). For students
and employees, women on campus rated their feeling of safety at night lower than men (for students: Mwomen =
3.10, Mmen = 3.88; and for employees: Mwomen = 3.08, Mmen = 3.91). Textbox 3.5 displays employee comments
related to safety on campus.
Figure 3.4
Student and Employee Perceptions of Walking on Campus at Night by Gender
I feel safe walking on campus at night.
5
4
3
3.91
(N = 85)
3.88
(N = 145)
3.08
(N = 144)
3.1
(N =163)
2
1
Students
Wom en
21
Men
Employees
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Textbox 3.5
Employee Comments Related to Safety on Campus
Employee responses to comments/suggestions/needs of campus (Campus Safety responses):
 “Security: we need campus security officers, closed circuit cameras, a method of getting help
immediately if needed at any place on the campus.”
 “Safety at night. Secure parking lots, my car was stolen from lot f.”
 “More security on campus monday through saturdays, spread out through out the campus with
escorts, maybe it can be a requirement for the police academy students to volunteer hours for their
graduation requirement. Practice for them & safety for all, plus have a number where they can be
reached.”
 “Security presence during night time hours.”
 “Maybe more security patrolling at night.”
 “… Safety of students on campus. We need more roving patrols. I hear stories from students all the
time that their cars are broken into.”
 “Improved campus lighting would make the campus feel safer at night.”
Physical Environment & Safety: Discussion
Since survey data collection in May 2009, a new facility the Learning Resource Center (LRC) opened offering
more study areas for students and a few meeting areas for employees. Other construction projects for the
campus have begun and are under construction, which could affect individuals’ perceptions of the physical
environment on campus. For those interested, a ‘Building Program’ link on the Rio Hondo College homepage
provides plans and updates on development projects.
Perceptions of safety on campus were generally positive, although feelings of safety lessen when asked
specifically about feelings of safety at night. Figure 3.4 displays the responses of women and men on campus,
when asked of their feeling of safety while walking on campus at night. For women (both students and
employees), there was weak agreement with the survey item. Only a few more women agreed than disagreed
with feeling safe. A component of the ‘Building Program’ is the installation of a ‘Blue Light Emergency Phone
System’ throughout the campus, and perhaps these emergency phone lines could improve feelings of safety.
The open responses about safety requested more of a security presence on campus (Textbox 3.5).
Diversity & Equity: Results
Issues of Diversity & Equity at RHC were assessed. RHC is an open campus and provides a wide range of
academic and student services for a variety of educational goals. This dimension sought to measure diversity as
a value on campus, and whether individuals felt the campus treated people in an equitable manner without
prejudice. Students and employees were asked common questions about their perceptions of diversity and
equity on campus (Figure 3.5 and Table 3.4) with a few questions asked only of students (Table 3.5), and a few
questions asked only of employees (Table 3.6). Figure 3.5 shows a majority of students and employees were
satisfied with the ethnic diversity of instructional (Mstu = 3.97, Memp = 3.78) and non-instructional (Mstu = 3.91,
Memp = 3.82) staff. High proportions of students and employees strongly disagreed or disagreed that there were
prejudice issues among students (Mstu = 2.17, Memp = 2.28) or among employees (Mstu = 2.07, Memp = 2.24) on
campus. Substantiating this result was the finding that both groups reported high disagreement with the
statement on witnessing a student or groups of students being treated unfairly by RHC employees (Mstu = 2.16,
Memp = 2.24).
22
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 3.5
Student and Employee Perceptions of Diversity & Equity at RHC
5.00
4.00
3.78
3.97
3.82 3.91
3.00
2.28 2.17
2.00
2.24 2.07
1.00
I am satisfied with
I am satisfied with
Prejudice among
Prejudice among
the diversity of
the diversity of
students is a
faculty and staff is a
ethnic backgrounds ethnic backgrounds problem on campus. problem on campus.
of RHC instructors.
of RHC noninstructional staff.
Employee
Table 3.4
Student
Student and Employee Perceptions of Diversity & Equity at RHC
Mstu
Nstu
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of
3.97
317
RHC instructors.
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of
3.91
316
RHC non-instructional staff.
Prejudice among faculty and staff is a problem on campus. 2.07
314
Prejudice among students is a problem on campus.
2.17
316
I have seen students or groups of students treated unfairly
2.16
314
by school employees.
Memp
3.78
Nemp
228
3.82
228
2.02
2.28
2.24
212
198
229
Table 3.5 shows student ratings of diversity on campus. A majority of students (57.1%) strongly disagreed or
disagreed with the statement about feeling uncomfortable taking classes with people that are different from
themselves (M = 2.54, N = 315). Also a majority of students (72.9%) strongly agreed or agreed with the
statement about making friends with students of differing ethnic backgrounds (M = 3.96, N = 317) on campus.
Majorities of students also responded that their instructors used culturally diverse examples in class (M = 3.71,
N = 318), and that their instructors treated students of diverse backgrounds equally (M = 4.13, N = 318). When
asked if RHC classes and activities have contributed to providing students with a better understanding of people
from differing backgrounds, a majority of students (56.6%) strongly agreed or agreed with this statement (M =
3.66, N = 316).
Table 3.6 shows employee ratings of equity on campus. In general, these ratings were highly positive. When
employees were asked as to whether they felt their supervisor treated others of diverse backgrounds with equal
respect, a high majority of employees (78.3%) strongly agreed or agree with the statement (M = 4.18, N = 234).
Employees also tended to agree with statements regarding whether the campus treated individuals of differing
demographic backgrounds equally.
23
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Table 3.5
RHC Student Ratings of Diversity on Campus
I am uncomfortable taking classes with people that are
different than me.
While at RHC, I have made friends with students from
ethnic/racial backgrounds different from my own.
Instructors use examples of contributions from different
racial/ethnic groups in their lectures.
My instructors treat students of diverse backgrounds with
equal respect.
From RHC classes and activities, I have a better
understanding of people with backgrounds different from
mine.
Table 3.6
Mstu
2.54
Nstu
315
3.96
317
3.71
315
4.13
318
3.66
316
Memp
4.18
Nemp
234
3.92
3.86
221
222
3.87
210
3.90
3.83
223
230
RHC Employee Ratings of Equity on Campus
My supervisor treats employees of diverse backgrounds
with equal respect.
The campus is equally supportive of all genders.
The campus is equally supportive of all racial/ethnic
groups.
The campus is equally supportive of all sexualorientations.
The campus is equally supportive of people of all ages.
The campus is equally supportive of people with
disabilities.
Diversity & Equity: Discussion
Survey results found positive ratings for diversity and equity questions related to the campus. There was
congruity in the pattern of responses found to the common questions asked of both students and employees.
Students tended to agree with statements regarding being inclusive to individuals different than themselves and
the campus’ efforts in fostering an inclusive environment for all. Employees tended to rate the campus as
treating individuals equally across demographic categories. Even though positive results were found,
perceptions of diversity and equity are issues that need to be continually monitored, and efforts spent fostering
an inclusive environment continually sustained.
24
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Chapter 4
RHC Campus Climate: Student Track
25
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Student Needs: Results
The services and programs Rio Hondo College provides were conceived to encapsulate two major areas:
academic and student services. To this end, students were asked about their overall satisfaction with academic
experiences, course offerings, and services provided on campus. Student overall ratings of satisfaction were
high (Figure 4.1). Majorities of students tended to agree with being satisfied with their academic experiences at
RHC (M = 3.93, N = 348), would recommend RHC to a friend (M = 4.12, N = 347), and were satisfied with the
quality of instruction and teaching (M = 3.79, N = 346). A majority of students (52.6%) also agreed with the
statement that RHC helped the student identify their career goal (M = 3.57, N = 346). Figure 4.2 displays
results for questions that inquired student satisfaction with course offerings. High levels of agreement were
found with the statements on being satisfied with the variety of courses offered (M = 3.65, N = 347), and the
belief that RHC courses were preparing students to achieve their educational goal (M = 4.02, N = 344). A little
over half of the student respondents (51.2%) agreed with the statement that courses were offered at times
convenient to the student (M = 3.42, N = 346), leaving close to half of the respondents who answered with the
neutral option (26.3%), or disagreed with the statement (22.5%). When students were asked if course
registration was difficult due to courses reaching maximum enrollment too soon (M = 3.22, N = 346), neutral
was the most answered option (39.6%), followed by students who strongly agreed or agreed (36.4%), and then
students who strongly disagreed or disagreed (24.0%).
Figure 4.1
General Student Ratings of Academic Satisfaction
5.00
4.00
3.93
(N =348)
4.12
(N =347)
3.79
(N =346)
3.57
(N =346)
3.00
2.00
1.00
I am satisfied with
my academic
experiences at RHC.
I would recommend
RHC to a friend.
26
I am satisfied with
the quality of
instruction and
teaching.
RHC helped me
identify my career
goals.
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 4.2
5.00
4.00
Student Satisfaction with RHC Course Offerings
3.65
(N =347)
4.02
N
( =344)
3.42
N
( =346)
3.22
(N =346)
3.00
2.00
1.00
I am satisfied with
Courses I need are
the variety of courses offered at the times
offered.
that are convenient
to my schedule.
Courses at RHC are
preparing me to
achieve my
educational goals.
I can’t get into the
courses I need
because they fill up
too quickly.
Students were asked to rate how satisfied they were with the services received from offices and departments on
campus. Students rated each office or department on a five-point Very Satisfied to Very Dissatisfied scale. A
‘Never Used’ option was available to students, who were unfamiliar with the service. Results are shown below
(Table 4.1). The respondents who answered with ‘Never Used’ were omitted from the calculation of percentage
for how satisfied students were of the service received.
27
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Table 4.1
Student Satisfaction with Services Received from Offices and Departments on Campus
Admissions and
Records
Assessment Center
Bookstore
CalWORKS
Campus Inn
Career Center
Computer Lab
Counseling
Department Offices
Disabled Students
Programs and
Services (DSP&S)
EOPS
ESL/Foreign
Language Lab
Financial Aid
Fitness Center
Health
Office/Psychology
Services
Learning Assistance
Center (LAC)
Library
Mathematics &
Science Center
(MSC)
Reading/Writing
Lab
Transfer Center
Veterans Services
Very
Satisfied
Satisfied
No
Opinion
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Number of
Respondents
21%
23%
29%
14%
21%
29%
46%
43%
26%
57%
49%
49%
22%
36%
37%
38%
33%
43%
8%
21%
8%
54%
25%
26%
11%
15%
25%
9%
4%
8%
2%
10%
3%
2%
4%
2%
5%
3%
5%
8%
9%
5%
4%
6%
4%
321
254
326
125
222
191
264
287
211
21%
33%
17%
17%
51%
36%
4%
4%
7%
9%
113
159
17%
31%
37%
23%
31%
29%
50%
15%
24%
1%
11%
5%
9%
12%
5%
123
235
198
32%
29%
31%
2%
6%
154
29%
43%
24%
37%
41%
12%
1%
4%
5%
3%
151
283
38%
27%
26%
5%
5%
199
38%
24%
18%
28%
26%
17%
29%
36%
55%
1%
7%
2%
4%
8%
7%
181
160
103
Although no open response feedback was collected from RHC students, when employees were asked what one
thing they are most proud of as an employee of Rio Hondo, respondents overwhelmingly cited working in the
service of students. Textbox 4.1 provides a few examples of employee responses.
28
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Textbox 4.1
Employee Comments on Being of Service to Students
Employee responses to what makes them most proud as an employee (Being of Service to Students
responses):
 “I am most proud of the positive contribution I make in students lives. Every day I help a students,
I know that I am making a difference in my community. I make every student feel special and
important in my office.”
 “I am the most proud of the amazing students we draw to this campus. They are not always ready
for College but when they connect to the Faculty they become so determined and committed and
grateful for what we offer them. I am proud to serve 1st generation and adult learners! I am also
proud of the dedicated Faculty and staff who go the extra mile for students every day!”
 “How much the faculty and staff care about helping our students.”
 “My students are successful at transferring to some of the most prestigious universities in some of
the most challenging disciplines.”
 “When I see how many students go through graduations and how hard they have struggled to reach
their goal, I feel on some small level I played a role in helping them achieve their goal.”
 “I feel like I make a difference, in the office and with students.”
 “I am proud when students in our program meet their goals and graduate and/or transfer to a
university. To see the joy in their face is priceless.”
Student Needs: Discussion
Assessing Student Academic Needs within a climate survey reveals overall perceptions of student satisfaction.
Students reported being satisfied with their academic experiences and the quality of instruction and teaching on
campus. An overwhelming majority of students (80.4%) would recommend Rio Hondo College to a friend.
More than three-fourths of students (76.8%) recognized the value of their coursework in helping them achieve
their educational goals. Majorities of students were satisfied with the variety of coursework offered (63.4%) and
the times courses are scheduled (51.2%). Nearly a quarter of students (24.0%) disagreed with the statement on
not being able to register for some classes because the courses reach maximum enrollment too soon, while
36.4% of students agreed with the statement.
As stated previously, these survey questions were useful in assessing students’ overall satisfaction with Student
Needs. There is increased benefit when assessment occurs soon after the “point of contact”. For instance, a
student could have utilized the services of the Bookstore months prior to the survey, and the student would have
had to recall their satisfaction with the services received. Perhaps in the next assessment of campus climate, this
data can be derived from Student Learning Outcome (SLO) and Service Area Outcome (SAO) assessments
conducted by individual departments.
Campus Relationships: Results
In many respects, how individuals perceive their environment is heavily influenced by their social interactions
within the environment. Campus Relationships examined student impressions of their relationships with peers,
instructors, and non-instructional staff on campus. Students rated their relationships with classmates highly
(Figure 4.3). Students agreed that they have friends on campus (M = 3.76, N = 323), met nice people while on
campus (M = 3.98, N = 323), and enjoyed talking to classmates outside of class (M = 3.65, N = 321). A
majority of students (59.0%) disagreed with the statement about being treated disrespectfully by other students
(M = 2.36, N = 322).
29
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 4.3
Student Relationships with their RHC Peers
5.00
4.00
3.00
3.98
(N =323)
3.76
(N =323)
3.65
(N =321)
2.36
(N =322)
2.00
1.00
Other students have
treated m e
disrespectfully.
My friends take classes
at RHC.
I’ve m et a lot of nice
people on cam pus.
I like to talk to m y
classm ates outside of
class.
Students thought highly of instructors (Figure 4.4), tending to agree with statements about instructor
preparedness (M = 3.92, N = 327), effort expended in helping students succeed (M = 3.91, N = 325), and
sensitivity to the needs of all students (M = 3.69, N = 324). Figure 4.5 shows that students tended to agree with
the ease found talking to instructors (M = 3.95, N = 326), and the knowledge instructors have shown (M = 4.14,
N = 323). Students also tended to agree that non-instructional staff have treated them respectfully (M = 3.91, N
= 327), and have been helpful (M = 3.90, N = 322). Textbox 4.2 provides examples of comments employees
made about their relationship with students when asked what they are most proud of as an employee of the
college.
Figure 4.4
Student Relationships with RHC Faculty
5.00
4.00
3.92
(N =327)
3.91
(N =325)
3.69
(N =324)
RHC instructors com e to class
w ell prepared.
RHC instructors w ork hard to
help students succeed.
RHC instructors are sensitive to
the needs of all students.
3.00
2.00
1.00
30
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 4.5
5.00
Student Relationships with RHC Faculty and Staff
3.95
(N =326)
4.14
(N =323)
3.91
(N =327)
4.00
3.90
N
( =322)
3.00
2.00
1.00
RHC em ployees (non
My instructors are
RHC em ployees (non
It is easy to talk to
instructors) have been
highly know ledgeable.
instructors) have
instructors about m y
helpful.
treated m e w ith respect.
questions and concerns.
Textbox 4.2
Employee Comments Regarding Their Relationships with Students
Employee responses to what makes them most proud as an employee (Relationship with Students
responses):
 “The opportunity to be part of Rio Hondo College Family; and having the chance to build a relation
with the students. Working at Rio Hondo has thought me that we need an education in life and that
has help me motivate student well working with them.”
 “When student transfer out and write back to tell me how much they learned in my class.”
 “I am most proud of my interaction with students.”
 “I am proud when I hear students talk about their transfer goals.”
 “Students that keep in touch afer the class has ended.”
Campus Relationships: Discussion
Students rated peer, faculty, and staff relationships positively. Higher education researcher John Bean (1986)
proposed a ‘Social Integration’ component in his model of student attrition. The ‘Social Integration’ component
consists of students building relationships with other students and faculty/staff, thereby creating a social support
system that would bond the student to the campus. Other education researchers (Astin, 1993; Tinto, 1975) have
also advocated that integrating students socially can increase a student’s commitment to their education and to
the institution, thereby decreasing a student’s intention to leave college.
Inclusiveness and Campus Life: Results
The Inclusiveness & Campus Life dimension sought to assess student perceptions of the campus outside the
realm of academic and student services, examining how integrated students felt with the campus community.
Another way of thinking about this dimension asks what connections to the campus students feel, not simply as
consumers of educational services, but as active members of the student body. Figure 4.6 displays data for
perceptions of membership with the campus environment. Students tended to agree with feeling a sense of
belonging on campus (M = 3.75, N = 322), and that they like the RHC environment and feel a sense of comfort
on campus (M = 3.93, N = 322). There was some agreement found for the statement on whether students were
asked for their ideas when important decisions are made on campus (M = 3.28, N = 320).
31
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 4.6
Student Perceptions of an Inclusive Campus Environment
5.00
4.00
3.75
(N =322)
3.93
N
( =322)
I feel like I belong here.
I like the RHC environm ent and
feel com fortable here.
3.28
(N =320)
3.00
2.00
1.00
Students are asked for their
ideas w hen im portant decisions
are m ade on cam pus.
Figure 4.7 displays data on student participation in campus life/activities. Close to half of student respondents
(46.7%) agreed with being satisfied with their opportunities to join clubs on campus (M = 3.56, N = 321).
Thirty-five percent of students responded that they enjoyed participating in campus student activities (M = 3.23,
N = 318), and were inclined to attend more RHC athletic events (M = 3.22, N = 319).
Figure 4.7
Student Participation in Campus Life Activities
5.00
4.00
3.22
(N =319)
3.56
(N =321)
3.23
(N =318)
3.00
2.00
1.00
I w ish that I could attend m ore
RHC athletic events.
I am satisfied w ith m y
opportunities to join clubs at
RHC.
I like to participate in cam pus
student activities (Guest
Speakers, Club Fairs, Gam es,
etc.)
Inclusiveness and Campus Life: Discussion
The Inclusiveness and Campus Life dimension consisted of some of the lowest student ratings. From Figure 4.6,
only 37.2% of students strongly agreed or agreed with the statement on students being queried for their ideas
when important decisions are made on campus. A little over one-third (35%) responded that they enjoyed
participating in campus student activities, and were inclined to attend more athletic events. A higher percentage
of students (46.7%) were satisfied with their opportunities to join clubs on campus. Perhaps campus
administrators could utilize the Riomail student email system to alert students of campus activities. Assessment
32
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
in the future could inquire more about opportunities provided for extracurricular activity participation and
impediments of participation.
Another area of study could examine how RHC instructors promote participation in extracurricular activities
and how participation in student life/activities is integrated with student coursework. The Inclusiveness and
Campus Life dimension fits in the ‘Social Integration’ component of current models of student retention
mentioned previously. Participating in campus activities not only can leave a positive impression on a student’s
academic experiences, but also provides opportunities for building peer-to-peer relationships and student-tofaculty/staff relationships.
33
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Chapter 5
RHC Campus Climate: Employee Track
34
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Job Satisfaction: Results
The Job Satisfaction dimension assessed whether employees were generally satisfied with their work.
Table 5.1 provides mean ratings for each job satisfaction question within the climate survey. Many of these
questions were supplied by a job satisfaction survey template provided by SurveyMonkey, the web-based
survey tool utilized by the campus. The mean ratings are group calculations of job satisfaction. The questions in
Table 5.1 are arranged in ascending order according to mean ratings. Mean ratings tended to be positive. The
lowest rating was a marginal disagreement with the statement ‘I am satisfied with the opportunities for
advancement at RHC’ (M = 2.95). Figure 5.1 displays the opportunities for advancement statement examined
by Job Classification. There was some agreement with the statement amongst Administration/Management (M
= 3.25, N = 16) and Full-Time Faculty (M = 3.44, N = 80). Classified/Confidential (M = 2.76, N = 86), PartTime Faculty (M = 2.89, N = 28), and Part-Time Hourly employees tended to disagree with the statement.
Table 5.1
RHC Employee Ratings of Job Satisfaction
I am satisfied with the opportunities for advancement at RHC.
My work assignment changes regularly.
I feel pressure to accomplish too many tasks and priorities.
Most of my position requires routine tasks.
I receive feedback that my work contributes to the overall success of the college.
I am recognized for my good work.
I have adequate supplies/equipment necessary to complete my job.
I am encouraged to be creative and come up with new ideas and improvements.
At this point in my career, I feel my present position satisfies my professional goals and
aspirations.
My supervisor provides useful feedback on my work performance.
My job requires me to learn new things.
My position allows me to make independent decisions.
The people in my department/division are student centered.
I know what is expected of me and my job.
I like working at RHC.
I get a feeling of personal satisfaction from my work.
My job helps the college meet its mission.
35
Mean Rating
2.95
2.97
3.00
3.13
3.25
3.35
3.49
3.58
3.63
N
252
252
255
254
254
256
256
253
253
3.72
4.07
4.11
4.16
4.20
4.28
4.33
4.44
257
255
255
257
256
253
257
256
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 5.1
RHC Employee Satisfaction with Opportunities for Advancement by Job Classification
5
4
2.76
(N =86)
3
3.44
(N =80)
2.89
N
( =28)
3.25
(N =16)
2.09
(N =11)
2
1
Part-Tim e Hourly
Classified/
Confidential
Full-Tim e Faculty
Part-Tim e Faculty
Adm inistration/
Managem ent
Job Satisfaction: Discussion
Job satisfaction is one of the longest and most researched topics in organizational psychology (Jex, 2002). Much
of this attention is spent examining the relationship between job satisfaction and other workplace variables. A
pervasive finding throughout this empirical research is that the relationship between job satisfaction and job
performance is small, meaning the happiest worker is not necessarily the best worker. With that in mind,
organizational researcher Cheri Ostroff examined this issue distinctively. Ostroff (1992) investigated the
relationship between employee satisfaction (the aggregate of job satisfaction across an entire organization) and
organizational performance. In a large sample of middle and high schools, teachers were assessed for their
satisfaction, and results found that increased employee satisfaction was significantly related to higher math and
reading scores, higher student attendance, higher student satisfaction, lower student drop-out, lower teacher
turnover, and was related to a number of other performance measures. Job satisfaction or employee satisfaction
are important variables to measure, and the work cited above serves as an example of the value in examining
issues with an institutional-level perspective.
Communication & Campus Relationships: Results
Communication
RHC employees positively agreed with almost all communication indicators in the survey (Table 5.2).
Majorities of employees agreed with being informed of events/decisions in their department/program (64.4%),
in their division/unit (63.7%), and on campus (59.6%). High mean ratings were found when asked if supervisors
adequately informed employees of decisions (M = 3.61, N = 253), and if employees were well informed by coworkers of campus events (M = 3.79, N = 253). The lowest rating in Table 5.2 was found when inquiring
whether there was adequate coordination across departments and divisions on campus (M = 2.82, N = 251).
Figure 5.2 examines the coordination question by job classification. There was general disagreement with the
statement by Classified/Confidential (M = 2.80, N = 86), Full-Time Faculty (M = 2.72, N = 79), and
Administration/Management (M = 2.88, N = 16). Part-Time Faculty (M = 3.25, N = 29) and Part-Time Hourly
(M = 3.50, N = 12) tended to agree that there was adequate coordination on campus. Textbox 5.1 provides a
sampling of comments related to employees’ perceptions of communication on campus. The comments pertain
to receiving information more readily/conveniently, and fostering more dialogue.
36
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Table 5.2
RHC Employee Communication Indicators on Campus
I am informed about events/decisions in my department/program.
I am informed about events/decisions in my division/unit.
I am informed about events/decisions on campus.
My supervisor does a good job in communicating decisions to everyone.
My co-workers keep me informed of campus events.
There is adequate coordination across departments and divisions on campus.
Figure 5.2
M
3.71
3.64
3.52
3.61
3.79
2.82
N
253
253
250
253
253
251
RHC Employee Perceptions of Coordination across Departments and Divisions
5.00
4.00
3.50
(N =12)
3.00
2.80
N
( =86)
2.72
(N =79)
Classified/
Confidential
Full-Tim e Faculty
3.25
(N =29)
2.88
(N =16)
2.00
1.00
Part-Tim e Hourly
Textbox 5.1
Part-Tim e Faculty
Adm inistration/
Managem ent
Employee Comments Related to Communication on Campus
Employee responses to comments/suggestions/needs of campus (Campus Communication responses):
 “Centralized information portal, online perhaps - for faculty/classified documentation regarding
handbooks, HR information, and bulletin board of important announcements, rather than endless
emails with no organization for retrieval.”
 “Everyone should receive a copy of the governance manual (first edition...online thereafter). New
employees should receive a copy when they are first employed.”
 “I believe that we need to work on the shared governance and open communication. I believe the
website is an excellent place to share information but everyone is not at the same technological
status and training should be provided to those who would like it.”
 “Communication between the administration and contituency groups. I know we are working on
this but it still needs improvement.”
 “More open communication between all areas, not gossip-communication.”
 “Increased communication between division faculty and VP's utilizing division meetings when
possible to expression vision, concerns and discuss possible solutions. Too often the
communication is channeled and filter through one individual - the current Dean. It would provide
a greater degree of assurance that ideas and concerns are being communicated and reinforced and
provide immediate acknowledgement and feedback. This would help the Dean in communicating
division and college ideas when the entire division voice is heard.”
37
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Campus Relationships
Similar to the student section on Campus Relationships, how employees perceive their workplace is heavily
influenced by their social interactions within their job setting. Campus Relationships examined two main
relationships: employees’ relationships with their immediate supervisor and employees’ relationships with their
immediate co-workers (Table 5.3). High positive ratings were found when asking employees about their
relationship with their supervisor. High mean ratings were found when employees were asked whether their
supervisor treats people fairly without favoritism (M = 3.88, N = 252), acknowledges good work (M = 3.91, N
= 252), encourages development and growth (M = 3.77, N = 251), is competent in his/her job (M = 4.07, N =
252), and seeks/values opinions and ideas (M = 3.81, N = 251). Very high mean ratings were found when
employees were asked about their coworkers. Approximately 80% or more of respondents ‘Strongly Agreed’ or
‘Agreed’ with the statements on enjoying the people they work with (M = 4.31, N = 252), having supportive
coworkers (M = 4.14, N = 252), and on having competent coworkers (M = 4.11, N = 252).
The lowest rated statement was ‘A sense of team spirit exist at RHC’ (M = 3.16, N = 252). There was a low
level of agreement with the statement, meaning employees slightly ‘Agreed’ or ‘Strongly Agreed’ more often
than ‘Disagreed’ or ‘Strongly Disagreed’ with the statement.
Table 5.3
RHC Employee Ratings of Campus Relationships
Mean Rating
My supervisor treats people fairly and without favoritism.
3.88
My supervisor acknowledges good work.
3.91
My supervisor encourages me to develop and grow.
3.77
My supervisor is competent at doing his/her job.
4.07
My supervisor seeks and values my opinions and ideas.
3.81
I enjoy the people I work with at RHC.
4.31
My co-workers are supportive.
4.14
My co-workers are competent at doing their job.
4.11
A sense of team spirit exists at RHC.
3.16
N
252
252
251
252
251
252
252
252
252
Communication & Campus Relationships: Discussion
Survey responses to the employee Communication dimension were generally positive (Table 5.2). Yet, the open
feedback responses revealed some dissatisfaction with the processes of how the campus informs and the
opportunities for dialogue. A research article by Richard Dolphin (2005) highlighted the increased importance
organizations are placing on their internal communications functions. Dolphin states an effective internal
communication strategy works in “building and nourishing employee relations, establishing trust, providing
timely and reliable information and thereby contributing to general motivation, particularly in times of changes
and stress.”
Governance: Results
Employee perceptions of the governance process at Rio Hondo College were collected. Well implemented
governance processes rely on well defined roles and responsibilities within the process. This dimension
assessed perceptions about the effectiveness of the process, communication within the process, and opinions of
decisions made. Table 5.4 displays results for general perceptions of the governance process on campus. The
statement “I have confidence in the effectiveness of the administration at RHC,” resulted in a close to neutral
rating (M = 3.03, N = 247) with 39.2% of employees strongly agreeing or agreeing with this statement. The
statement was further examined by job classification (Figure 5.3). A majority of Administration/Management
(M = 4.33, N = 15) and a majority of Part-Time Faculty (M = 3.50, N = 29) agreed with feeling confident in
38
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
RHC administration. Classified/Confidential (M = 3.11, N = 86) and Part-Time Hourly (M = 3.18, N = 12) to a
lesser extent agreed with the statement. Full-Time Faculty provided the lowest rating, disagreeing with feeling
the administration was effective (M = 2.79, N = 80). Forty-six percent of employees (45.8%) agreed with
feeling optimistic about what can be achieved through participatory governance (M = 3.26, N = 247) and fortyone percent (40.5%) were satisfied with the opportunity provided to participate in the governance process (M =
3.29, N = 247). Forty-three (43.1%) of employees agreed with the statement, “The constituent groups on
campus work collaboratively towards the achievement of college goals” (M = 3.42, N = 246). Textbox 5.2
provides a sampling of employee perceptions of participatory governance on campus.
Table 5.4
RHC Employee General Perceptions of the Governance Process
I have confidence in the effectiveness of the administration at RHC.
I am optimistic about what can be achieved through participatory governance at RHC.
I am satisfied with the opportunity I have to participate in the governance process.
The constituent groups on campus work collaboratively towards the achievement of
college goals.
Figure 5.3
Employee Rated Effectiveness of the Administration at RHC by Job Classification
4.33
(N =15)
5.00
4.00
Mean Rating
3.03
3.26
3.29
3.42
3.18
N
( =12)
3.00
3.11
(N =86)
2.79
(N =80)
Classified/
Confidential
Full-Time
Faculty
3.50
(N =29)
2.00
1.00
Part-Time
Hourly
39
Part-Time
Faculty
Administration/
Management
N
247
247
247
246
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Textbox 5.2
Employee Comments Related to the Governance Process on Campus
Employee responses to comments/suggestions/needs of campus (General Perceptions of Governance
responses):
 “All of these committees such as the senate and PFC are there for show. They have no power.
Admininstration gives them lip service but they have no power. I spend my time with students in
the classroom.”
 “Shared governance needs to be more employee equal (faculty & staff). Administration makes
decisions without listening to faculty concerns or without parity with faculty. Administration
should take shared governance seriously, commit to it, and discontinue its efforts to undermine or
supercede it.”
 “The voice of various constituency groups gets lost moving up till it becomes a problem. The
problem lies in the fact that there is a clash of cultures among the newly hired upper Administration
and those of us who have been here for awhile. Upper management makes decisions and later
comes to various councils to get a rubber stamp. This is making most of the constituency group
lose faith in the process. Faculty is beginning to think that Administration does not care for the
opinions of constituency and only look for the appearance of Participatory Governance.”
 “Upper management, particularly the President, must make a greater effort towards truly listening
to and considering the opinions of the various constituencies on campus. Shared governance on
this campus too frequently involves badgering constituents into agreement on an issue rather than
placing value on contructive, inclusive dialogue. All major initiatives should reflect the fact that
they are the product of cross-campus collaboration and discussion.”
Communication within the governance process was examined (Table 5.5). A majority of employees (57.7%)
agreed that constituent group representative(s) express the issues/concerns of the group well (M = 3.62, N =
247), and communicated information to members adequately (M = 3.64, N = 247). Only 28.0% of employees
strongly agreed or agreed with the statement on being sufficiently consulted about important decisions (M =
2.81, N = 247). This statement was further examined by job classification (Figure 5.4). Administration/
Management (M = 3.73, N = 15) agreed the most with the statement. To a lesser extent, Part-Time Faculty (M
= 3.33, N = 29) and Part-Time Hourly Staff agreed (M = 3.08, N = 12). Full-Time Faculty (M = 2.56, N = 80)
and Classified/Confidential Staff (M = 2.94, N = 86) disagreed with the statement. Textbox 5.3 provides a
sampling of employee comments regarding a lack of communication about governance and the lack of
opportunities for participation.
Table 5.5
RHC Employee Perceptions of Communication within the Governance Process
Mean Rating
My constituent group representative(s) express the issues/concerns of my group well.
3.62
My constituent group representative(s) keep me informed of the proceedings and
3.64
recommendations of governance groups.
There is sufficient consultation about important decisions.
2.81
40
N
247
247
247
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Figure 5.4
Employee Perceptions of Consultation about Important Decisions by Job Classification
5.00
4.00
3.08
(N =12)
2.94
(N =86)
Part-Time Hourly
Classified/
Confidential
3.00
3.33
(N =29)
3.73
N
( =15)
2.56
(N =80)
2.00
1.00
Textbox 5.3
Full-Time
Faculty
Part-Time
Faculty
Administration/
Management
Employee Comments Related to Communication and Participation in the Governance Process
Employee responses to comments/suggestions/needs of campus (Communication and Participation in the
Governance Process responses):
 “Upper management needs to listen first to various groups on campus before formulating a plan.
As it stands now, they come up with a plan and modify it to fit. This method results in an awkward
fit.”
 “Employees need to be respected and given the opportunity to participate in the governance of the
college. For example, I have asked my supervisor several times if she would allow me to sit on a
campus committee, however, every time she tells me and others in our office that she cannot afford
to have us out of the office. I want to be involved. I want to contribute but am never afforded the
opportunity. There is never a good time. Additionally, my co-workers and I are never asked what
we think about anything. It is very difficult to keep giving your opinion when it is not valued or
wanted. My co-workers and I do the work and we see when things aren't working and what can be
done to improve, but it doesn't matter to say anything; we are never heard. And if you do speak up,
you are labeled as a problem employee. It is not right. We want the college to be successful and
for our students to have the best experience possible - let us contribute! Really, I don't feel
valued.”
 “An adminstration and Board truly willing to listen to all constituents on campus when making
decisions that affect the entire campus.”
 “What needs improvement is Share Governance with Classified staff- solution- let classified
participate.”
 “Upper management, particularly the President, must make a greater effort towards truly listening
to and considering the opinions of the various constituencies on campus. Shared governance on
this campus too frequently involves badgering constituents into agreement on an issue rather than
placing value on contructive, inclusive dialogue. All major initiatives should reflect the fact that
they are the product of cross-campus collaboration and discussion.”
41
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Low ratings were found when inquiring about decision proceedings within the governance process (Table 5.6).
A little over one-third (34.5%) of employees strongly agreed or agreed that decisions made on campus were
consistent with the college’s goals and mission (M = 2.94, N = 86). One-third of employees (33.7%) also
strongly agreed or agreed that the opinions of students are given appropriate weight in matters of institutional
importance (M = 3.21, N = 246). Close to one-third (34.4%) strongly disagreed or disagreed that the opinions
of employees were given appropriate weight in matters of institutional importance (M = 2.85, N = 247).
Table 5.6
Employee Perceptions of Decisions Made in the Governance Process
Decisions made on campus are consistent with the college’s goals and mission.
The opinions of students are given appropriate weight in matters of institutional
importance.
The opinions of employees are given appropriate weight in matters of institutional
importance.
Mean Rating
3.14
3.21
N
246
246
2.85
247
Governance: Discussion
There are opportunities for improvement in many measures of Governance. A research article by Sullivan,
Reichard, & Shumate (2005) described one community college’s efforts to enhance their participatory
governance system with the use of periodic climate surveys. An initial surveying of campus employees was
conducted using the Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) survey instrument published by
the National Initiative for Leadership and Institutional Effectiveness (NILIE). Some of the lowest rated items in
this initial survey revealed low perceptions for advancement opportunities on campus, information sharing,
communication, and the ability of individuals to influence the direction of the college. A representative
committee on campus examined the data, proposed, and implemented strategies to improve on these measures.
These strategies included: conducting self-assessments; providing training opportunities in communication,
teamwork, and customer service; and forming faculty and staff associations. Administering the PACE two years
after the initial assessment found increased scores in all areas that were found to be rated low two years prior.
Subsequent planned initiatives and PACE surveys found increased areas of campus climate.
42
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Chapter 6
Conclusion
43
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
Conclusion
The purpose of campus climate surveys is to gain a better understanding of the perceptions that members of the
campus have towards the college. The collection of this data represents the initial steps towards transforming
campus climate. Rankin and Reason (2008) proposed their “Transformational Tapestry Model,” of climate
transformation, which essentially consists of assessing the current campus climate, discussing and implementing
actions to improve climate, and assessing climate again. This iterative process of assessment-action-assessment
was alluded to earlier in the report when describing the work of Sullivan, Reichard, and Shumate (2005).
A great deal of climate data was collected for this survey. Some institutions choose to prioritize their efforts by
examining the lowest rated survey items, and classifying them as priorities for improvement. A broad
representative group of campus members should manage these efforts. Campus climate is a collective concept.
The assessment of climate and the results disseminated are products of collective perceptions. For any
improvements in climate to occur, there has to be a capacity for experimentation, and a sustained effort by not
one individual, or a small group of individuals, but a sustained effort by all campus members.
44
RHC Campus Climate Report 2009
References
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college. Liberal Education, 79, 4-15.
Bean, J.P. (1986). Assessing and reducing attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 53, 47-61.
Dolphin, R.R. (2005). Internal communications: Today’s strategic imperative. Journal of Marketing
Commuications, 11, 171-190.
Jex, S.M. (2002). Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach (New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons).
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-974.
Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive approach to transforming
campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 262-274.
Sullivan, L.G., Reichard, D.L., & Shumate, D. (2005). Using campus climate surveys to foster participatory
governance. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29, 427-443.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
45
Campus Climate
Survey Report 2010
Office of Institutional Research & Planning
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Table of Contents
HIGHLIGHT OF THE FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
INSTRUMENTATION .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
INTERPRETING THE RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
SURVEY SAMPLE: STUDENTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 12
SURVEY SAMPLE: EMPLOYEES .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
RHC CAMPUS CLIMATE – STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE........................................................................................................... 16
Physical Environment..................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Safety .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
DIVERSITY & EQUITY: RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
RHC CAMPUS CLIMATE: STUDENT TRACK .............................................................................................................................. 24
ACADEMIC NEEDS: RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 25
CAMPUS RELATIONSHIPS: RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 26
INCLUSIVENESS AND CAMPUS LIFE: RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
RHC CAMPUS CLIMATE: EMPLOYEE TRACK .......................................................................................................................... 29
JOB SATISFACTION: RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 30
TEXTBOX 5.1
EMPLOYEE OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS RELATED TO JOB SATISFACTION .................................................................. 31
COMMUNICATION & CAMPUS RELATIONSHIPS: RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 31
Communication .............................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Campus Relationships .................................................................................................................................................................... 33
GOVERNANCE: RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 36
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
PROJECT CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 41
2
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Produced by the Rio Hondo College Office of Institutional Research and Planning
3600 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601
Email: howard.kummerman@riohondo.edu
(562) 908-3412
http://www.riohondo.edu/research/
3
Highlight of the Findings
The majority of student (65.8%) and employee (76.9%) respondents were satisfied with the developing
appearance of the campus. Although there was less satisfaction found when employees were asked about
campus upkeep and the cleanliness of restrooms.
Dissatisfaction with parking was one of the most prominent issues mentioned in student open feedback.
Out of the 108 students who made comments in the open feedback section, 27 students expressed
dissatisfaction with parking. The most common adjective used was “horrible”.
Perceptions of safety decreased when students and employees were asked about their feelings of safety
on campus at night as opposed to during the day. Women on campus (students and employees) felt less
safe than men at night. Comments regarding safety included requests for a larger security presence and
more lighting on campus.
The majority of students were satisfied with the ethnic diversity of instructional (70.8%) and noninstructional (58.4%) staff. A high majority of students (89.1%) strongly disagreed or disagreed with the
statement about feeling uncomfortable taking classes with people that are different from themselves.
When asked if RHC classes and activities have contributed to providing students with a better
understanding of people from differing backgrounds, a majority of students (54.7%) strongly agreed or
agreed with this statement.
Students reported being satisfied with their academic experiences and the quality of instruction and
teaching on campus. High majorities of students would recommend Rio Hondo College to a friend
(80.7%), and recognized the value of their coursework in helping them achieve their educational goals
(87.8%). Majorities of students were also satisfied with the variety of coursework offered, and the times
courses are scheduled.
Students rated their relationships with classmates highly. Students agreed that they have friends on
campus, met nice people while on campus, and enjoy talking to classmates outside of class. Students
thought highly of instructors, tending to agree with statements about instructor preparedness, effort
expended in helping students, and sensitivity to the needs of all students. Students also tended to agree
with the ease found talking to instructors, and the knowledge instructors have shown.
Students tended to agree with feeling a sense of belonging on campus, and that they like the RHC
environment and feel a sense of comfort on campus.
Employees were generally satisfied with their work, liking their work in general, and deriving a sense of
personal satisfaction from their work.
Employees positively agreed with almost all campus communication indicators in the survey. Although
some employees expressed the need for more campus-wide, departmental, and interdepartmental
communication.
High positive ratings were found when asking employees about their relationship with their supervisor.
High mean ratings were found when employees were asked whether their supervisor treats people fairly
4
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
without favoritism, acknowledges good work, encourages development and growth, is competent in
his/her job, and seeks/values opinions and ideas.
Very high mean ratings were found when employees were asked about their coworkers. More than 80%
of respondents „Strongly Agreed‟ or „Agreed‟ with the statements on enjoying the people they work
with, having supportive coworkers, and on having competent coworkers.
Fifty-four percent of employees (54.3%) agreed with feeling optimistic about what can be achieved
through participatory governance, and forty-five percent (44.5%) were satisfied with the opportunity
provided to participate in the governance process.
Close to half of employees (47.5%) strongly agreed or agreed that decisions made on campus were
consistent with the college‟s goals and mission.
5
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Chapter 1
Introduction
6
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Overview
Rio Hondo College administered a campus climate survey to students and employees from April 26 to May 8 of
the spring 2010 semester. Two versions of the RHC Climate Survey were administered. One version was the
RHC Student Climate Survey and the other was the RHC Employee Climate Survey. The goal of each survey
was to provide insight into the overall campus climate. The 2010 administration of the surveys were the second
time these survey instruments were utilized. The purpose of this research project was to investigate overall
perceptions about the campus climate as reported by students and employees.
Instrumentation
Both the RHC Student Climate and the RHC Employee Climate Surveys were developed on campus by the
Institutional Research & Planning (IRP) Office. Specific campus climate dimensions were formulated for both
surveys and several example surveys were consulted. The format and structure of the RHC Climate Surveys
were modeled after example surveys from Cypress and San Bernardino Valley colleges, and previous climate
research conducted at Rio Hondo College during the mid-1990‟s.
The 2010 survey instruments were edited and streamlined from the previous year‟s surveys by a voluntary
group comprised of representative Faculty, Classified, and Research Office staff. The volunteer advisory group
that reviewed the survey instrument utilized questions supplied by a job satisfaction survey template provided
by Survey Monkey as a basis for survey questions.
A few common climate dimensions are thought to be perceived by both students and employees, such as
campus environment and safety. In these instances both groups answered several identical questions related to
these dimensions. This provided opportunities to compare perceptions between groups. However, since students
and employees interact with the campus in different ways, two distinct branches of the climate survey were
created. Graphical representations and definitions of the dimensions that comprise both the RHC Student and
Employee Climates surveys can be found in Figure A.1, Figure A.2, and Table A.1.
The majority of survey questions followed a 5-point Likert scale format with answer options: “Strongly
Disagree”, “Disagree”, “Neutral”, “Agree”, and “Strongly Agree.” A “Don‟t Know” or not applicable (N/A)
option was available for some questions. In addition, open-ended questions were asked which allowed survey
respondents to provide comments related to campus climate. Paper versions of the surveys were generally used.
An online version of the student climate survey was created for student respondents registered in online courses.
Implementation
Student survey respondents were chosen by randomly selecting course reference numbers (CRN) in the spring
2010 class schedule. An online sample size calculator recommended that a sample size of 644 students was
sufficient for a population of 19,553 students with a confidence interval of 5 and a confidence level of 99%.
Eight-teen courses were selected along with two alternate courses. Instructional faculty was contacted and
permission to administer the student survey during class time was granted by all faculty who were reached.
Appointments were made, and Institutional Research & Planning (IRP) Office staff visited courses to
administer the survey to students. The time to read instructions and time for students to fill-in the survey was
approximately 15-20 minutes. For the three online courses in the sample, an online version of the survey was
created and instructors were asked to post an announcement, along with the survey web address, on Blackboard
requesting their students‟ participation.
A stratified-random sampling method was utilized to select the employee sample. An employee listing by job
classification (i.e., Administrator/Confidential, Classified, Full-time Faculty, etc.) was obtained. Half of each
job classification was randomly selected and paper surveys were distributed to campus mailboxes. Returning
7
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
the surveys to the IRP Office was an anonymous process. Employees were asked to return their nameless
surveys in nameless envelopes and return them to the campus mailroom or through their department using
interdepartmental mail.
Employees not selected to participate in the sample were provided an opportunity to view and respond to an
online version of the survey. These responses were segregated from responses from the selected sample and are
NOT analyzed in this report, but can be viewed in an appendix.
Analysis
Analyses of rating data (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) along with percentage data are reported. These
analyses are relatively straightforward. The following section, Interpreting the Results, provides an overview on
how to interpret these results throughout the report. Analysis of open-ended feedback required a more thorough
analysis. First open-ended responses were read and categorized with other responses consisting of similar
content, a process referred to as content analysis. These “clusters” of similar entries formed themes that a
response entry would support. Such analysis is necessary to summarize the response entries of many individuals
and describe the most salient thoughts expressed by a group of respondents.
Interpreting the Results
Throughout this report, mean ratings and percentages are provided for specific survey questions. Mean ratings
(M) are average scores that correspond with the Likert scaling format (see Table 1.1). In this report, mean
ratings will revolve around 3.00 (Neutral: neither agreeing with nor disagreeing with the statement). Agreement
with the statement reflects a mean rating of greater than 3.00. Disagreement with the statement reflects a mean
rating of less than 3.00.
Table 1.1
Reference Points for Interpreting Mean Ratings
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 –Disagree
3 –Neutral
4 –Agree
5 –Strongly Agree
A standard deviation (SD) represents the variance, or the spread, around a mean rating. Approximately 68% of
responses fall within 1 SD to the left and right of the mean, and approximately 95% of responses fall within 2
SDs on either side of the mean. The larger the SD, the more variability there was in how respondents answered
a survey question on the Likert scale.
Percentages on how respondents answered survey questions are also provided. The entire survey along with the
percentages of responses is provided in the appendices. There are instances in this report when percentages for
„Strongly Disagree‟ and „Disagree‟ or „Strongly Agree‟ and „Agree‟ are added together to produce a percentage
of respondents who negatively or positively responded to a question. The numbers of respondents who
answered specific questions are reported and are indicated with an „N‟. Verbatim comments from open-ended
response questions are displayed in textboxes and are integrated throughout the report to provide context and/or
validate survey data.
8
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Figure A.1 Dimensions of RHC Student Climate
Physical
Environment
& Safety
Inclusion
&
Campus Life
RHC
Student
Climate
Campus
Relationships
Figure A.2
Diversity
&
Equity
Student
Academic
Needs
Dimensions of RHC Employee Climate
Physical
Environment
& Safety
Diversity
&
Equity
Governance
RHC
Employee
Climate
Comm. &
Campus
Relationships
Job
Satisfaction
9
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Table A.1
Synopses of RHC Climate Dimensions for Students and Employees
Physical
Environment
& Safety
Diversity &
Equity
RHC Campus Climate
Opinions of the physical environment and feelings of safety were elicited. This dimension measures more tangible
aspects of the environment and helps to answer the question as to whether a comfortable setting is being provided
to students and employees on campus.
Diversity & Equity are essential concepts for any public educational institution and Rio Hondo College is no
different. RHC is an open campus and provides a wide range of academic and student services for a variety of
educational goals. This dimension measures perceptions of diversity on campus and whether campus members feel
they are treated fairly without prejudice.
RHC Campus Climate—Student
The academic and student services
provided to students are thought to
fulfill Student Needs. To this end,
Student Needs
students were asked about their
satisfaction with course offerings
and services provided on campus.
Campus
Relationships
Inclusion
&
Campus Life
RHC Campus Climate—Employee
Job Satisfaction can encompass an
entire research focus on its own, but
was included to examine its
Job Satisfaction
conjunction with campus climate.
This dimension essentially asked
whether employees on campus were
satisfied with their jobs.
Communication on campus was
assessed in conjunction with
Campus Relationships. Campus
Communication
Relationships questions asked about
&
Campus Relationships relationships between employees
and their supervisor and co-workers.
How individuals perceive their
environment is heavily influenced
by their social interactions within
the environment. Campus
Relationships examined student
impressions of their relationships
with peers, instructors, and noninstructional staff on campus.
Similar to Diversity & Equity, the
Inclusion & Campus Life
dimension was used to assess how
well the campus is fostering an
environment conducive for access
into higher education, gauging how
integrated students feel with the
campus community.
Governance
10
The Governance dimension was
included to assess perceptions of
campus operations. Clearly defined
roles and responsibilities are
essential not only in work positions,
but also roles within the entire
institution.
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Chapter 2
Demographics
11
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Survey Sample: Students
The headcount for the spring 2010 semester recorded 19,553 credit students attending Rio Hondo College. The
total enrollment in the 18 sample courses was 679. Before student surveys were administered, IRP staff asked
whether anyone had responded to the survey in a different class. No student reported filling in the survey in
another course. Also, no student declined to take the survey at the time of administration. The number of
student survey respondents was 357 for a response rate of 53% (357/679). The largest ethnic group of
respondents were Hispanic/Latino students (68%, N = 272), followed by White/Caucasian students (13%, N =
52), Asian/Pacific Islander (9%, N = 36), Other Non-White (8%, N = 31), and Black/African American (2%, N
= 7) students. Thirty-one student respondents reported multiple ethnicities. The ethnic composition of the
survey sample was reflective of the student population for the spring 2010 semester (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1
Student Sample to Population Comparison by Ethnicity
Asian/ Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Other Non-White
White/Caucasian
Student Sample Student Population
9%
8%
2%
3%
68%
71%
8%
3%
13%
16%
The age ranges of the student sample over-sampled younger age ranges when compared to the student
population in the spring 2010 semester. Table 2.2 provides the number of students for each age range in the
respondent sample and the percent comparison of the sample to the population.
Table 2.2
Student Sample to Population Comparison by Age Range
Age
# Student Sample Student Sample Student Population
19 or less
112
31%
19%
20 to 24
140
39%
29%
25 to 29
42
12%
15%
30 to 39
31
9%
18%
40 to 49
16
4%
11%
50+
10
3%
9%
No Response
6
2%
0%
Total
357
100%
100%
Of the students who reported their gender, the sample consisted of 172 female respondents (50%), and 173 male
respondents (50%). The population of the spring 2010 semester was 46% women and 54% men (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3
Student Sample to Population Comparison by Gender
Gender
Women
Men
# Student Sample
172
173
Student Sample
50%
50%
12
Student Population
46%
54%
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Students were also asked how many years they have attended Rio Hondo College (Figure 2.1). Respondents
most frequently reported attending RHC for less than a year (39%, N = 138). Responses dropped off as the
number of years increased.
Figure 2.1
50%
40%
RHC Student Sample Attendance at RHC
39%
(N =138)
23%
(N =80)
30%
22%
(N =79)
20%
10%
(N =35)
10%
3%
(N =10)
2%
(N =7)
2%
(N =6)
4 years
5 years
6+ years
0%
Less than 1
year
1 year
2 years
3 years
Number of Years at RHC
Survey Sample: Employees
A random sample of 449 of 1457 total employees received a survey invitation.
A total of 266 employees responded to the RHC Employee Climate Survey (see Figure 2.2). There were 449
surveys delivered to employees for a response rate of 59% (266/449).
Figure 2.2
RHC Employee Sample Job Classification
27%
(N =71)
30%
30%
(N =81)
24%
(N =65)
20%
10%
6%
(N =15)
6%
(N =15)
7%
(N =19)
0%
Administration
/Confidential
Classified (Parttime & Full-time)
Full-Time Faculty
Part-Time Faculty
Job Classification
13
Part-Time Hourly
Prefer not to say
/No Response
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Table 2.4 provides the response rate for each job classification on campus. Response rates were equal to or
greater than 50% with the exception of Part-Time Hourly employees. There was some difficulty in identifying
active Part-Time Faculty and Part-Time Hourly employees. In the future the IRP Office should work with the
Human Resources Office to determine a more current listing of active employees to sample.
Table 2.4
Survey Response Rate by Job Classification
(N) Survey Respondents Surveys Distributed Response Rate
Part- Time Hourly
15
51
29%
Classified
71
117
61%
Full- Time Faculty
65
98
66%
Part- Time Faculty
81
162
50%
Administration/Confidential
15
21
71%
Prefer Not to Say/No Response
20
N/A
N/A
Table 2.5 shows that more female employees responded to the survey than male employees.
Table 2.5
Comparison of Employee Sample to Population by Gender
Gender
Women
Men
No Response
(N) Employee
Sample
138
107
21
Employee Sample
52%
40%
8%
Employee Campus
Population
55%
45%
N/A
Employee ethnicity was also collected (Table 2.6). White/Caucasian (47%, N = 124) employees represented the
largest group, followed by Hispanic/Latino (31%, N = 82) employees, Asian/Pacific Islander (13%, N = 35),
Other Non-White (5%, N = 12), and Black/African American (3%, N = 7) employees.
Table 2.6
Employee Sample Race/Ethnicity
Employee Sample
Asian/ Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Other Non-White
White/Caucasian
13%
3%
31%
5%
47%
14
Employee Campus
Population (Fall 2009)
11%
0%
32%
11%
40%
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Employee survey respondents most frequently reported working at Rio Hondo College (Figure 2.3) zero to five
years (30%, N = 81), followed by six to ten years (14%, N = 38), followed by respondents who have worked at
the college 21 years or greater (22%, N = 58).
Figure 2.3
35%
30%
Years Employed at Rio Hondo College
30%
(N =81)
14%
(N =38)
25%
20%
22%
(N =58)
7%
(N =19)
15%
9%
(N =25)
17%
(N =45)
10%
5%
0%
0 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
21 years and
greater
Prefer not to
say/No Response
Num ber of Years at RHC
Note: A few survey responses were omitted, and are archived in the Institutional Research and Planning (IRP)
Office for anyone to view. Reasons for omission from analysis were the following: duplicated/photocopied
survey forms, and if more than a quarter of climate survey questions were not answered.
15
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Chapter 3
RHC Campus Climate – Student and Employee
16
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Physical Environment & Safety: Results
Physical Environment
Opinions of the physical environment and feelings of safety at RHC were elicited. This dimension provided
tangible feedback about the campus environment, and examined whether a comfortable setting was being
provided to students and employees on campus. Many common questions about the physical environment and
safety were asked of both students and employees (see Figure 3.1) with a few questions asked exclusively of
each group (see Table 3.1). A majority of students (65.8%) and employees (76.9%) were satisfied with the
developing appearance of the campus (Mstu = 3.77 and Memp = 3.92, respectively). Textbox 3.1 displays a
sampling of student and employee comments related to the physical appearance of the campus.
Figure 3.1
Student and Employee Satisfaction with RHC Physical Environment
5
4
3.77 3.92
3.76
3.36
3.49
3.02
2.71
3
3.59
2
1
The developing
appearance of the
campus.
The variety of
food/drink options
on campus.
Student
Textbox 3.1
The availability of
restrooms on
campus.
The cleanliness of
restrooms on
campus.
Employee
Student and Employee Comments Related to the Physical Environment on Campus
Students:
“I am sad to see the grassy areas disappear I really enjoy the natural scapes Inspires me to be happy
& concentrate on my studies.”
“One thing that keeps me coming back to this school is the Nature/Plants/Forestry. Don‟t ever take
that away. It gives this place character and diversity. (NEED MORE “RECYCLE” Trash bins) I
absolutely love how I don‟t see much litter around campus.”
“I was really upset when Rio hondo took out the grass land where the new Learning center was
put... My self and friends loved to study and hang out there... now we no longer have a grassy area
to relax and study.”
Employees:
“Let‟s finish all the construction!”
“LRC looks sterile, Much like a hospital – signs/artwork are necessary for a more academic tone.”
“I value the beautiful natural setting. Having an owl hoot on my way to class – (a night class, of
course,) is a real high.”
17
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
More students reported being very satisfied or satisfied (49.6%) than dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (22.9%)
with food and drink options on campus (M= 3.36, N = 353). However, more employees reported being very
dissatisfied or dissatisfied (44.6%) with food and drink options (M = 2.71, N = 265). Textbox 3.2 displays a
sampling of student and employee comments related to food and drink options on campus.
Textbox 3.2
Student and Employee Comments Related to Food & Drink Options on Campus
Students:
“The food at the campus inn is not very appetizing. I think RHC needs a better variety of better
tasting food and of course at reasonable prices!!!”
“…There needs to be more of a variety of food. Other campuses have restaurants in their campus
& so should RHC. A chipotle on campus would be the best thing given the students! I would eat it
every day I would be on campus & so would all my friends!”
“The breakfast burritos, in fact all the cafeteria food, is really good. It could be more affordable
though.”
Employees:
“Evening cafeteria hours”
“Too much junk food on campus. Be a leader in providing a healthy food climate. Stop allowing
the “Roach Coach” to park near campus classrooms at night (and during the day)”
“I feel the food choice here at Rio has been lacking greatly. The campus inn food is not good, so a
lot of employees choose to leave campus rather than eat there. Rio Hondo would benefit from
having another vendor, or other vendors offer better food choices, on a daily basis and not just once
a week.”
Students were generally satisfied with the availability (M = 3.76, N = 354) and cleanliness (M = 3.59, N = 356)
of restrooms on campus. Employees, on the other hand, reported less satisfaction with availability (M = 3.49, N
= 261) and cleanliness (M = 3.02, N = 261). Textbox 3.3 displays a sampling of student and employee
comments related to restrooms on campus.
Textbox 3.3
Student and Employee Comments Related to Campus Restrooms
Students:
“I just wish they would address the restrooms regularly.”
“In the technical area of the college, why are the restrooms either locked or out of order?”
“Can you please fix the toilet papers in the girls bathroom Thank you!”
Employees:
“Need more custodial staff. The restrooms are minimally maintained.”
“Cleaner restrooms. Possibly, providing more incentive to clean-up crew (?)”
18
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Table 3.1 displays results for Physical Environment questions that were asked of both groups, and also displays
the results of questions asked exclusively of each group. A majority of students (69.1%) reported being satisfied
with the availability of study areas on campus (M = 3.82, N = 346). And a majority of students (54.7%)
reported being satisfied with the availability of outdoor gathering areas (M = 3.50, N = 351). More employees
were satisfied (48.2%) with the availability of meeting space on campus than were dissatisfied (15.2%). About
half of the employee sample were satisfied with the general upkeep of classrooms/labs (50.4%, M = 3.34, N =
264) and office space (48.5 %, M = 3.32, N = 264). A majority of the employee sample (61.3%) were satisfied
the cleanliness of the campus (outdoor gathering areas, parking lots, playing fields). Textbox 3.4 displays
employee comments related to the general upkeep of campus facilities.
Table 3.1
Student and Employee Satisfaction with RHC Physical Environment
The developing appearance of the campus.
The variety of food/drink options on campus.
The availability of restrooms on campus.
The cleanliness of restrooms on campus.
The availability of study areas on campus.
The availability of outdoor gathering areas.
The general upkeep of classrooms/labs.
The general upkeep of office space.
The availability of meeting space on campus.
The cleanliness of the campus (outdoor gathering areas,
parking lots and play fields)
Textbox 3.4
Mstu
3.77
3.36
3.76
3.59
3.82
3.50
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nstu
354
353
354
356
346
351
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Memp
3.92
2.71
3.49
3.02
N/A
N/A
3.34
3.32
3.40
3.56
Nemp
260
265
261
261
N/A
N/A
264
264
263
265
Employee Comments Related to General Campus Upkeep
Employees:
“The College needs more custodial staff. I‟ve seen and experience myself co-workers and staff
literally clean tables, chairs, and computers. This takes time from other duties.”
“I would like to see the campus a little better maintained physically; restrooms, elevators working;
floor cleaned more frequently”
“The stair areas are filthy!!! They should be cleaned at least once a month on a Friday or Saturday
afternoon when students/school employees are not present.”
19
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Dissatisfaction with parking was one of the most prominent issues mentioned in student open feedback. Out of
the 108 students who made comments in the open feedback section, 27 students expressed dissatisfaction with
parking. The most common adjectives used were “horrible” and its synonyms. Textbox 3.5 displays a sampling
of student and employee comments related to student parking.
Textbox 3.5
Student and Employee Comments Related to Student Parking
Students:
“Parking is horrible, this campus needs a parking structure.”
“And trying to find parking is really hard, there should be more.”
“More Parking in the upper level. And wider parking spaces for SUV.”
“I love Rio Hondo but parking is horrible!”
“Hope a parking structure is on long-term roadmap!”
“We need better and more parking. It‟s ridicoulous. We shouldn‟t have to wait the 3rd week for
students to drop to find parking.”
“I believe Rio Hondo should spend more time thinking about our parking situation..”
“Parking sucks”
“Rio Hondo needs more parking. A lot of students spend over an hour trying to find parking. I
don‟t understand the purpose of a parking permit if we don‟t have any parking privilages.”
“Parking is hell! I pay for it but I need to walk so far to get to class.”
“Turn Parking area A into a parking structure, mostly no one likes to walk up steep hills and get all
sweaty before class.”
Employees:
“Parking. I was talking to a student and she drove around for almost two hours at the beginning of
the semester and never could find a parking spot. She went home in frustration. She missed her
class.”
“Parking is one of the biggest issue at the college that needs improvemet. Adding, more parking
lots near by different buildings will help students”
20
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Safety
The surveys assessed perceptions of safety in the forms of feelings of personal safety and feelings of safety for
one‟s property (car) on campus (Figure 3.2 and Table 3.2). Both groups felt safe walking on campus during the
day (Mstu = 4.29 and Memp = 4.46). Both groups felt less safe walking on campus at night, but more respondents
still agreed with feeling safe (Mstu = 3.43 and Memp = 3.58). Also, both groups felt their cars were safer parked
on campus during the day (Mstu = 3.29 and Memp = 3.69) than at night (Mstu = 3.01 and Memp = 3.20).
Figure 3.2
5
Student and Employee Perceptions of Safety on Campus
4.29 4.46
4
3.69
3.43 3.58
3.29
3.01
3
3.2
2
1
I feel safe walking on
campus during the
daytime.
I feel safe walking on
campus at night.
Student
Table 3.2
My car is safe when it is My car is safe when it is
parked on campus
parked on campus at
during the day.
night.
Employee
Student and Employee Perceptions of Safety on Campus
I feel safe walking on campus during the daytime.
I feel safe walking on campus at night.
My car is safe when it is parked on campus during the day.
My car is safe when it is parked on campus at night.
21
Mstu
4.29
3.43
3.29
3.01
Nstu
329
314
325
303
Memp
4.46
3.58
3.69
3.20
Nemp
248
232
249
233
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
The perception of safety while walking on campus at night (Figure 3.3) was further examined by gender. For
students and employees, women on campus rated their feeling of safety while walking at night lower than men
(for students: Mwomen = 2.97, Mmen = 3.86; and for employees: Mwomen = 3.26, Mmen = 4.04). Textbox 3.6 displays
student and employee comments related to safety on campus.
Figure 3.3
Student and Employee Perceptions of Walking on Campus at Night by Gender
I feel safe walking on campus at night.
5
4
3
2.97
(N =148)
3.86
(N =156)
3.26
(N =123)
4.04
(N =89)
2
1
0
Student
Employee
Women
Textbox 3.6
Men
Student and Employee Comments Related to Safety on Campus
Students:
“More security and lighting on the campus at night.”
“This was my first semester here and half way through somebody had stolen my gas cap from my
car. This happened at night from 7-10 p.m.”
“Please improve campus security, especially in the evening time. My vehicle has been broken in
to. Security cameras should be considered.”
“My car was vandelized. Scratched up tremendously.”
“This was my first and only semester here. I am a senior at CSUF and needed units for the CPA
exam. I enjoyed my time here except for the fact that my car was keyed on campus during the
middle of the day. They later caught the guy but they would not release his information to me.
The overall experience has been mixed good & bad”
Employees:
“Security Patrol in the staff and student parking lots when classes are released usually between 9:50
– 10:10. This could create a safe feeling while walking to your car.
“We need better lighting and security in the parking lots at night, particularly due to the
surrounding trees and foliage. Last semester, I didn‟t always feel safe walking to the staff parking
lot at 10 PM (Admin Bldg). Many areas are very dark and deserted at that hour”
Add more security. Too many car crimes and no security at night at all. This is a very unsafe
campus.
22
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Diversity & Equity: Results
Issues of Diversity & Equity at RHC were assessed. RHC is an open campus and provides a wide range of
academic and student services for a variety of educational goals. This dimension sought to measure diversity as
a value on campus, and whether individuals felt the campus treated people in an equitable manner without
prejudice. In order to streamline the survey process for respondents, this section was shortened and fewer
common questions were asked of both groups. Survey questions in this section will rotate to assess Diversity &
Equity over time. In this iteration of the surveys, students were primarily asked about their perceptions of
diversity, and employees were primarily asked about their perceptions of equity. Table 3.3 displays the one
common question in the Diversity & Equity section asked of students and employees. Both groups reported
high disagreement with the statement on witnessing a student or groups of students being treated unfairly by
RHC employees (Mstu = 2.00, Memp = 2.11).
Table 3.3
Student and Employee Reported Observation of Unfairness on Campus
I have seen students or groups of students treated unfairly
by school employees.
Mstu
2.00
Nstu
357
Memp
2.11
Nemp
237
Table 3.4 shows student ratings of diversity on campus. Majorities of students were satisfied with the ethnic
diversity of instructional (70.8%) and non-instructional (58.4%) staff. A high majority of students (89.1%)
strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement about feeling uncomfortable taking classes with people that
are different from themselves (M = 1.52, N = 350). When asked if RHC classes and activities have contributed
to providing students with a better understanding of people from differing backgrounds, a majority of students
(54.7%) strongly agreed or agreed with this statement (M = 3.61, N = 353).
Table 3.4
RHC Student Ratings of Diversity on Campus
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of RHC instructors.
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of RHC non-instructional staff.
I am UNCOMFORTABLE taking classes with people that are different than me.
From RHC classes and activities, I have a better understanding of people with
backgrounds different from mine.
Mstu
3.86
3.69
1.52
3.61
Nstu
353
351
350
353
Table 3.5 shows employee ratings of equity on campus. In general, these ratings were highly positive.
Employees tended to agree with statements regarding whether the campus treated individuals of differing
demographic backgrounds equally.
Table 3.5
RHC Employee Ratings of Equity on Campus
The campus is equally supportive of all genders.
The campus is equally supportive of all racial/ethnic groups.
The campus is equally supportive of all sexual-orientations.
The campus is equally supportive of people of all ages.
The campus is equally supportive of people with disabilities.
23
Memp
4.16
3.95
4.07
4.07
4.08
Nemp
237
239
229
242
242
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Chapter 4
RHC Campus Climate: Student Track
24
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Academic Needs: Results
Students were asked about their overall satisfaction with academic experiences, course offerings, and services
provided on campus. Student overall ratings of satisfaction were high (Table 4.1). Majorities of students tended
to agree with being satisfied with their academic experiences at RHC (M = 4.01, N = 352), would recommend
RHC to a friend (M = 4.16, N = 352), and were satisfied with the quality of instruction and teaching (M = 4.12,
N = 353). Almost half of the student sample (47.3%) agreed with the statement that RHC helped them identify
their career goal (M = 3.45, N = 351).
Table 4.1
General Student Ratings of Academic Satisfaction
I am satisfied with my academic experiences at RHC.
I would recommend RHC to a friend.
I am satisfied with the quality of instruction and teaching.
RHC helped me identify my career goals.
Mstu
4.01
4.16
4.12
3.45
Nstu
352
352
353
351
The majority of student comments that related to academic needs pertained to requests for specific courses or
programs. Textbox 4.1 provides a sampling of these comments.
Textbox 4.1
Student Comments Related to Curriculum
Students:
“I like this college. Although I wish this college offered the Speech-language pathology program.”
“More online classes with different instructors for specific subjects.”
“More evening classes for those who work full-time during the day.”
“Rio Hondo should have more classes at more times. A lot of classes are offered in the middle of
the day, like honors classes, and people who work then can‟t make them.”
“More ceramic classes!!!!”
“More classes need to be add to summer schedule & offer more afternoon classes other than 5 or
7.”
“I would like to see more animal science classes. More flexibility with the chemistry and biology
classes‟ schedule. I would like more variety in the dance department; different types of music and
dances.”
“I would like to see more hand-on activities in-conjunction to what we are learning in class. This
would make learning fun & Entertaining for students. More outside activities pertaining to what
we are being taught would help me tremendously. Thank you”
“I am a deaf student, so when our class watches a video, there are not alway close caption on T.V. I
require to have Close Caption otherwise I‟ll fall behind in class. It has happened several times and
my interpreters cannot always translate.”
25
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Table 4.2 displays results for questions that inquired student satisfaction with course offerings. High levels of
agreement were found with the statements on being satisfied with the variety of courses offered (M = 3.63, N =
355), and the belief that RHC courses were preparing students to achieve their educational goal (M = 4.23, N =
345). A little over half of the student respondents (52.2%) agreed with the statement that courses were offered at
times convenient to the student (M = 3.46, N = 353), leaving close to half of the respondents who answered
with the neutral option (30.9%), or disagreed with the statement (17.0%).
Table 4.2
Student Satisfaction with RHC Course Offerings
I am satisfied with the variety of courses offered.
Courses I need are offered at times that are convenient to my schedule.
Courses at RHC are preparing me to achieve my educational goals.
Mstu
3.63
3.46
4.23
Nstu
355
353
345
Textbox 4.2 displays a few student comments related to the difficulty found registering for courses.
Textbox 4.2
Student Comments Related to Course Registration
Students:
“Very hard to sign up for classes as a first time student. I tried spring2010 semester was only able
to get One class that fit my schedule (Mornings & Afternoons) As for summer was only able to get
one class all others were taken.”
“My career has taken a lot longer to achieve due to all the Biology classes being filled & not being
able to add on anymore because of the waitlist. I have been getting behind so much because of
closed classes.”
“Fix the schedueling and computer service to apply to classes, it‟s very difficult fighting for classes
when you don‟t know it‟s time to sign up for next semester.”
Campus Relationships: Results
In many respects, how individuals perceive their environment is heavily influenced by their social interactions
within the environment. Campus Relationships examined student impressions of their relationships with peers,
instructors, and non-instructional staff on campus. Students rated their relationships with classmates highly
(Table 4.3). Students agreed that they have friends on campus (M = 3.68, N = 351), enjoyed talking to
classmates outside of class (M = 3.60, N = 351), and met nice people while on campus (M = 3.94, N = 356). A
high majority of students (81.2%) disagreed with the statement about being treated disrespectfully by other
students (M = 1.75, N = 345).
Table 4.3
Student Relationships with their RHC Peers
My friends take classes at RHC.
I like to talk to my classmates outside of class.
I've met a lot of nice people on campus.
Other students have treated me disrespectfully.
26
Mstu
3.68
3.60
3.94
1.75
Nstu
351
351
356
345
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Students thought highly of instructors (Table 4.4), tending to agree with statements about instructor
preparedness (M = 4.26, N = 349), effort expended in helping students succeed (M = 3.94, N = 354), and
sensitivity to the needs of all students (M = 3.73, N = 357).
Table 4.4
Student Relationships with RHC Faculty
RHC instructors come to class well prepared.
RHC instructors work hard to help students succeed.
RHC instructors are sensitive to the needs of all students.
Mstu
4.26
3.94
3.73
Nstu
349
354
357
Table 4.5 shows that students tended to agree with the ease found talking to instructors (M = 4.05, N = 357),
and the knowledge instructors have shown (M = 4.41, N = 350). Students also tended to agree that noninstructional staff have treated them respectfully (M = 3.91, N = 355), and have been helpful (M = 3.86, N =
352).
Table 4.5
Student Relationships with RHC Faculty and Staff
It is easy to talk to instructors about questions and concerns.
My instructors are highly knowledgeable.
RHC employees (non instructors) have treated me with respect.
RHC employees (non instructors) have been helpful.
Mstu
4.05
4.41
3.91
3.86
Nstu
357
350
355
352
Inclusiveness and Campus Life: Results
The Inclusiveness & Campus Life dimension sought to assess student perceptions of the campus outside the
realm of curriculum, examining how integrated students felt with the campus community. Another way of
thinking about this dimension asks what connections to the campus students feel, not simply as consumers of
educational services, but as active members of the student body. Table 4.6 displays data for perceptions of
membership with the campus environment. Students tended to agree with feeling a sense of belonging on
campus (M = 3.66, N = 349), and that they like the RHC environment and feel a sense of comfort on campus
(M = 3.98, N = 352). There was some agreement found for the statement on whether students were asked for
their ideas when important decisions are made on campus (M = 3.20, N = 353).
Table 4.6
Student Perceptions of an Inclusive Campus Environment
I feel like I belong here.
I like the RHC environment and feel comfortable here.
Students are asked for their ideas when important decisions are made on campus.
27
Mstu
3.66
3.98
3.20
Nstu
349
352
353
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Table 4.7 displays data on student participation in campus life/activities. Close to half of student respondents
(45.5%) agreed with being satisfied with their opportunities to join clubs on campus (M = 3.48, N = 356). A
quarter of the students in the sample (25.9%) responded that they enjoyed participating in campus activities (M
= 2.91, N = 355), and were inclined to attend more RHC athletic events (M = 3.17, N = 355).
Table 4.7
Student Participation in Campus Life Activities
I wish that I could attend more RHC athletic events.
I am satisfied with my opportunities to join clubs at RHC.
I like to participate in campus student activities (Guest Speakers, Club Fairs,
Games, etc.).
28
Mstu
3.17
3.48
2.91
Nstu
355
356
355
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Chapter 5
RHC Campus Climate: Employee Track
29
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Job Satisfaction: Results
The Job Satisfaction dimension evaluated whether employees were satisfied with their work.
Table 5.1 provides mean ratings for each job satisfaction question within the climate survey. The mean ratings
are group calculations of job satisfaction. The questions in Table 5.1 are arranged in ascending order according
to mean ratings. Mean ratings tended to be positive. Table 5.1 displays means and standard deviations for all
variables used to measure employee ratings of job satisfaction. The lowest rating was when employees tended
to disagree with the statement „I feel pressure to accomplish too many tasks and priorities‟ (M = 2.67). Figure
5.1 displays the opportunities for advancement statement examined by Job Classification. There was some
agreement with the statement amongst each job classification with the exception of classified employees.
Table 5.1
RHC Employee Ratings of Job Satisfaction
I feel pressure to accomplish too many tasks and priorities.
I am satisfied with the opportunities for advancement at RHC.
I receive feedback that my work contributes to the overall success of the college.
I have adequate supplies/equipment necessary to complete my job.
I am encouraged to be creative and come up with new ideas and improvements.
I am recognized for my good work.
At this point in my career, I feel my present position satisfies my professional goals and
aspirations.
My supervisor provides useful feedback on my work performance.
My job requires me to learn new things.
My position allows me to make independent decisions.
I get a feeling of personal satisfaction from my work.
I know what is expected of me and my job.
I like working at RHC.
Figure 5.1
Memp Nemp
2.67 258
3.14 262
3.58 262
3.61 263
3.75 260
3.76 263
3.79 258
4.10
4.13
4.18
4.46
4.51
4.59
255
264
255
262
257
258
RHC Employee Satisfaction with Opportunities for Advancement by Job Classification
5
4
3.70
(N =64)
3.33
(N =15)
3.10
(N =81)
2.70
(N =69)
3
3.20
(N =15)
2
1
Administration
/Confidential
Classified (Part-time
& Full-time)
Full-Time Faculty
30
Part-Time Faculty
Part-Time Hourly
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Textbox 5.1
Employee Open-ended Comments Related to Job Satisfaction
Employees:
“Set up a Department/Division shared meeting/work area for Part-Time Faculty to meet with
students.”
“Promotional opportunities for part time faculty.”
“A small number of faculty leaders do all of the work on behalf of all faculty. Uninvolved faculty
members are not held accountable and overly-involved faculty members get burned out.”
“I really enjoy working at Rio Hondo”
“Team spirit, equality from supervisors. They should encourage co-workers to work together, not
make some feel as if they are better than others.”
“There needs to be orientation for new employees. An orientation of the College & an orientation
in the Division where people work.”
“We need the appropriate amount of staff for the needs of the office – ”
Communication & Campus Relationships: Results
Communication
RHC employees reported similarities in the communication indicators in the survey (Table 5.2). The Majority
of employees agreed with being informed of events/decisions in their department/program (70.5%), in their
division/unit (70.9%), and on campus (64.7%). High mean ratings were found when asked if immediate
supervisors adequately informed employees of decisions (M = 3.98, N = 262), and if employees were well
informed by co-workers of campus events (M = 3.69, N = 259). The lowest rating in Table 5.2 was found when
inquiring whether there was adequate coordination across departments and divisions on campus (M = 2.99, N =
269). Textbox 5.2 provides a sampling of comments related to employees‟ perceptions of communication on
campus.
Table 5.2
RHC Employee Communication Indicators on Campus
I am informed about events/decisions in my department/program.
I am informed about events/decisions in my division/unit.
I am informed about events/decisions on campus.
My immediate supervisor does a good job in communicating decisions to everyone.
My co-workers keep me informed of campus events.
There is adequate coordination across departments and divisions on campus.
31
Memp
3.80
3.79
3.67
3.98
3.69
2.99
Nemp
258
258
261
262
259
262
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Textbox 5.2
Employee Comments Related to Communication on Campus
Employees:
“Better inter-divisional communication & interaction is necessary. Perhaps establishing an office of
inter-division liaison in every division would help this process.”
“Better collaboration between departments/divisions. The portal will help but every committee on
campus needs to think about how they communicate high level information to the campus community
and ensure there are many levels of communication regarding essential information”
“Can we have a more inclusive management, more of a sense of teamwork. I think the President
needs to be more proactive in getting to know his faculty. Too much gossip goes around – we need to
address that before it gets out of hand or we can‟t work together. I am saddened by this.”
“When the administration and staff collaborate and negotiate, communicate big and small decisions to
all, when everyone can see the effect of their contributions as meaningful to the department, the
division, and the College, morale and the work environment will improve. We need to make the
college‟s mission a true and active part of our daily efforts. We need to practice what we preach and
truly become a “collaborative center”.”
“The ability to be heard. Communication without ramifications.”
“Supervisors should make it a point to keep employees informed of the constant changes in office
procedures. We can‟t properly serve the students, if we are all following different procedures.”
“There needs to Be Better Coordination and Communication Between departments. Currently the
depts. operate autonomous from one another, and that leads to a lot of inefficiencies in terms of work
and performance. Perhaps a College wide meeting (mandatory?) could be held where the College
Goals and Objectives could be detailed, and how Depts. are InterDependant.
32
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Campus Relationships
Similar to the student section on Campus Relationships, how employees perceive their workplace is heavily
influenced by their social interactions within their job setting. Campus Relationships examined two main
relationships: employees‟ relationships with their immediate supervisor and employees‟ relationships with their
immediate co-workers (Table 5.3). High scores were found when asking employees about their relationship
with their supervisor. High mean ratings were found when employees were asked whether their supervisor treats
people fairly without favoritism (M = 4.09, N = 257), acknowledges good work (M = 4.07, N = 265),
encourages development and growth (M = 3.93, N = 261), is competent in his/her job (M = 4.30, N = 257), and
seeks/values opinions and ideas (M = 3.92, N = 263). High mean ratings were found when employees were
asked about their coworkers. More than 80% of respondents „Strongly Agreed‟ or „Agreed‟ with the statements
on enjoying the people they work with (M = 4.38, N = 255), having supportive coworkers (M = 4.20, N = 262),
and on having competent coworkers (M = 4.20, N = 265). The lowest rated statement was „A sense of team
spirit exist at RHC‟ (M = 3.24, N = 265).
Table 5.3
RHC Employee Ratings of Campus Relationships
Memp Nemp
My supervisor treats people fairly and without favoritism. 4.09 257
My supervisor acknowledges good work.
4.07 265
My supervisor encourages me to develop and grow.
3.93 261
My supervisor is competent at doing his/her job.
4.30 257
My supervisor seeks and values my opinions and ideas.
3.92 263
I enjoy the people I work with at RHC.
4.38 255
My co-workers are supportive.
4.20 262
My co-workers are competent at doing their job.
4.20 265
A sense of team spirit exists at RHC.
3.24 265
33
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Table 5.4 Campus Relationships by Employee Classification Summary
Included
Total
N
Percent
N
My supervisor treats people fairly and without favoritism
244
93.1%
262
My supervisor acknowledges good work
252
96.2%
262
My supervisor encourages me to develop and grow
248
94.7%
262
My supervisor is competent at doing his/her job
244
93.1%
262
My supervisor seeks and values my opinions and ideas
250
95.4%
262
I enjoy the people I work with at RHC
243
92.7%
262
My coworkers are supportive
249
95.0%
262
My coworkers are competent at doing their job
252
96.2%
262
34
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Textbox 5.3 displays employee comments related to campus relationships. These comments pertained to getting
to know others on campus outside of regular circles and fostering a team spirit.
Employees:
about smallComments
lunches with
the President
– all
year round –no more than 10 people each
Textbox “How
5.3 Employee
Related
to Campus
Relationships
luncheon. The more we know each other and the more “fun” we have together the better we‟ll work
together. There are team building programs we could bring in a consultant.”
“It‟s important to have more fun, bonding activities where campus leaders can get to know each
other better and grow to trust each other. People need to be able to create and maintain healthy
working relationships.”
“Softball, bowling, more stuff like that”
“Each one of us must be willing to reach out and help one another, even if it is just a friendly
greeting or by inviting strangers from the staff & faculty to sit by you at FLEX day.”
“Work harder at developing a college- wide team. Stop focusing on only the negatives or
problems. State “A Job Well Done” on an regular bases. The leadership of the College, President,
VP‟s + managers must make a greater Effort at telling staff they are doing a great job.”
“Team building. Help everyone focus on the goals of Rio Hondo and define how their
responsibilities contribute towards those goals.”
“- Genuine collaboration between the administration and staff/faculty.”
Governance: Results
Employee perceptions of the governance process at Rio Hondo College were collected. Well implemented
governance processes rely on well-defined roles and responsibilities within the process. This dimension
assessed perceptions about the effectiveness of the process, communication within the process, and opinions of
decisions made. Table 5.4 displays results for general perceptions of the governance process on campus. A
majority of employees (51.2%) agreed with the statement “I have confidence in the effectiveness of the
administration at RHC”. The statement was further examined by job classification (Figure 5.2). A majority of
Administration/Management (M = 3.93, N = 15), Part-Time Faculty (M = 3.95, N = 75), and Part-Time Hourly
(M = 4.17, N =12) employees agreed with feeling confident in RHC administration. Classified (M = 2.99, N =
69) employees and Full-Time Faculty (M = 2.75, N = 63) to a lesser extent agreed with the statement.
Table 5.6
RHC Employee General Perceptions of the Governance Process
I have confidence in the effectiveness of the administration at RHC.
I am optimistic about what can be achieved through participatory governance at
RHC.
I am satisfied with the opportunity I have to participate in the governance process.
The constituent groups on campus work collaboratively towards the achievement of
college goals.
36
Memp
3.29
3.42
Nemp
252
241
3.39
3.35
247
191
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Figure 5.2
Employee Rated Effectiveness of the Administration at RHC by Job Classification
5
4
3.95
(N =75)
3.93
(N =15)
2.99
(N =69)
3
4.17
(N =12)
2.75
(N =63)
2
1
Administration
/Confidential
Classified (Parttime & Full-time)
Full-Time Faculty
Part-Time Faculty
Part-Time Hourly
Fifty-four percent of employees (54.3%) agreed with feeling optimistic about what can be achieved through
participatory governance (M = 3.42, N = 241) and forty-five percent (44.5%) were satisfied with the
opportunity provided to participate in the governance process (M = 3.39, N = 247). Forty-two percent (42.4%)
of employees agreed with the statement, “The constituent groups on campus work collaboratively towards the
achievement of college goals” (M = 3.35, N = 191). Textbox 5.4 provides a sampling of employee comments
related to campus leadership.
Textbox 5.4
Employee Comments Related to Campus Leadership
Employees:
“Get some real leaders who can communicate and are respected. Present “leadership” is ineffectual
Lack of communication is obvious.”
“Administration needs to be more collegial and less antagonistic and authoritarian.”
“Trim the fat. Admin has lost its focus on why they are here. Cut from the top down. Some
admins are not competent. Too much time spent in meetings that accomplish nothing. Too many
power struggles at the higher level. No communication. Hard to get involved when the admin
ignores any suggestions or efforts to improve on things if it does not benefit them direct.”
“It may be time for a change in administration. We have managers but few leaders.”
“Administrators should be more aware/knowledgeable about each program and/or department,
especially if it relates to his division. It appears the higher one is on the administrative ladder, the
more removed one is.”
37
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Communication within the governance process was examined (Table 5.5). A majority of employees (67.4%)
agreed that constituent group representative(s) express the issues/concerns of the group (M = 3.74, N = 218),
and communicated information to members adequately (M = 3.73, N = 234). Only 34.3% of employees
strongly agreed or agreed with the statement on being sufficiently consulted about important decisions (M =
2.90, N = 213). This statement was further examined by job classification (Figure 5.3). Administration/
Confidential, Part-Time Faculty, and Part-Time Hourly employees agreed with the statement. Full-Time Faculty
and Classified employees disagreed with the statement.
Table 5.7
RHC Employee Perceptions of Communication within the Governance Process
My constituent group representative(s) express the issues/concerns of my group well.
My constituent group representative(s) keep me informed of the proceedings and
recommendations of governance groups.
There is sufficient consultation about important decisions.
Decisions made on campus are consistent with the college‟s goals and mission.
The opinions of students are given appropriate weight in matters of institutional
importance.
Memp
3.74
3.73
Nemp
218
234
2.90
3.30
3.42
213
234
199
Close to half of the employee sample (47.5%) strongly agreed or agreed that decisions made on campus were
consistent with the college‟s goals and mission (M = 3.30, N = 234). Half of employees (50.8%) also strongly
agreed or agreed that the opinions of students are given appropriate weight in matters of institutional importance
(M = 3.42, N = 199).
Figure 5.3
Employee Perceptions of Consultation about Important Decisions by Job Classification
5
4
3.36
(N =14)
3
2.57
(N =58)
2.49
(N =57)
Classified (Part-time &
Full-time)
Full-Time Faculty
3.55
(N =58)
3.60
(N =10)
Part-Time Faculty
Part-Time Hourly
2
1
Administration
/Confidential
38
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Textbox 5.5 provides a sampling of employee comments regarding the governance/decision processes on
campus.
Employees:
“Participatory Governance. – Even though faculty & Classified have committees, we are often
surprised by “New Programs” “New Hires” “We are going to do this in this manner” from
administration. There is no, or relatively little adherance to current policy/procedure. Should stick
to current policy/procedure & changes should go through appropriate process.”
―Fewer unilateral decisions being made by the administration”
―When true teamwork and spirit-de-corps is present we can achieve more, together. However,
right now fear of retribution, fear for loss of job, fear of learning new things that may mean added
duties and responsibilities, keeps everyone stagnant and unwilling to grow or develop new skills.
Also, the administration has taken an adversarial position with the staff, by not following due
process to make major decisions. This has staff feeling powerless, threatened, and demoralized.
When each person or groups does not value the work efforts and contributions of another, the
college is not a team. Staff needs management to plan the strategy, but management needs
knowledgeable staff to do the work.”
―..True Collaboration- Administration (higher level) clearly does not value faculty opinions and in
put. This seems to be the case in all areas of campus matters. This lack of participatory governance
is seriously detrimental to moral-”
―I believe that before administrative decisions are made all of the pros and cons should be
discussed with the constituent groups most affected. This can be accomplished by meeting (s) with
the constituent groups for a consensus. Although this may take time – more time seems to be
wasted having to battle with those Affected over hasty or detrimental decisions made.”
39
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Chapter 6
Conclusion
40
RHC Campus Climate Report 2010
Project Conclusion
The primary goal of this campus climate survey report is to gain a better understanding of the perceptions that
members of the campus have towards the college. There were no reported differences between Students and
Employees satisfaction with the physical environment on campus however they was less satisfaction with
food/drink options available. More Students were dissatisfied with parking on campus. There were also no
significant differences in the Perceptions of safety on campus, although feelings of safety lessen when asked
specifically about feelings of safety at night. Employees tended to rate the campus as treating individuals
equally across demographic categories. Students reported being satisfied with their academic experiences and
the quality of instruction and teaching on campus. Students rated peer, faculty, and staff relationships positively.
Employee job satisfaction, campus communication, and campus relationship indicators were generally high.
There are opportunities for improvement in many measures of governance. Now that climate data has been
collected current objectives in the process include: (1) to examine and discuss this data as an institution, (2) plan
actions for improvement, (3) implement those plans, and (4) assess climate again. The ultimate goal of the
project is to achieve a better understanding between all employee classifications in an environment of academic
excellence
41
CAMPUS
CLIMATE
SURVEY REPORT 2011
Office of Institutional Research & Planning
Contents
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6
Background ................................................................................................................................. 7
Instrumentation............................................................................................................................ 7
Implementation Procedures ......................................................................................................... 9
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Interpreting the Results ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 1: Dimensions of RHC Student Climate .................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Dimensions of RHC Employee Climate ................................................................ 12
Table 1.1: Synopses of RHC Climate Dimensions for Students and Employees.................. 13
Chapter 2 Demographics............................................................................................................... 14
Survey Sample: Students ........................................................................................................... 15
Table 2.1
Comparison of Student Sample to Population by Ethnicity ............................ 15
Table 2.2: Comparison of Student Sample to Population by Age Range.............................. 15
Table 2.3: Student Sample to Population Comparison by Gender ........................................ 16
Student Sample Attendance at RHC ......................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.1: RHC Student Sample: Attendance at RHC ......................................................... 16
Survey Sample: Employees ....................................................................................................... 17
Table 2.4: 2011 Employee Response Rates........................................................................... 17
Figure 2.2: RHC Employee Sample by Classifications ......................................................... 17
Table 2.5: Survey Response Rate by Employee Classification ............................................. 18
Table 2.6: Comparison of Employee Sample to Population by Gender ................................ 19
1 Table 2.7: Employee Sample by Ethnicity ............................................................................ 19
Figure 2.3: Years Employed at Rio Hondo College .............................................................. 20
Chapter 3 RHC Campus Climate: Student and Employee............................................................ 21
Physical Environment & Campus Safety: Results .................................................................... 22
Physical Environment ............................................................................................................ 22
Figure 3.1: Student and Employee Satisfaction with RHC’s Campus Appearance .............. 22
Figure: 3.2 Student and Employee Satisfaction with Food/Drink Options on Campus ........ 23
Table 3.1: Student and Employee Satisfaction with RHC Physical Environment ................ 25
Campus Safety........................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.2: Student and Employee Perceptions of Safety on Campus .................................. 26
Table 3.2: Student and Employee Perceptions of Safety on Campus in 2010 and 2011....... 26
Figure 3.3: Student and Employee Perceptions of Walking on Campus at Night by Gender27
Diversity and Equity.................................................................................................................. 28
Table 3.3: RHC Student Ratings of Diversity on Campus .................................................... 28
Table 3.4: RHC Employee Ratings of Equity on Campus .................................................... 28
Student Academic Needs and Academic Success ..................................................................... 29
Table 3.5: General Student Ratings of Academic Satisfaction ............................................. 29
Figure 3.4: Student Satisfaction with Instruction and Teaching By Years of Attendance .... 29
Figure 3.5: Student Satisfaction with Instructor’s Knowledge By Years of Attendance ...... 30
Student Academic Needs and Academic Success (continued) ................................................. 31
Table 3.6: Student Satisfaction with Course Offerings ......................................................... 31
Table 3.7: Student Relationships with their RHC Peers ........................................................ 31
Table 3.8: Student Relationships with RHC Faculty............................................................. 32
Table 3.9: Student Relationships with RHC Faculty and Staff ............................................. 32
2 Inclusion and Campus Life Campus ......................................................................................... 33
Table 3.10 Student Perceptions of an Inclusive Campus Environment ................................ 33
Table 3.11: Student Participation in Campus Life Activities ................................................ 33
Table 3.12: RHC Employee Ratings of Satisfaction ............................................................. 34
Figure 3.6: Employee Satisfaction with Opportunities for Advancement by Classification. 35
Communication and Campus Relationships ............................................................................. 36
Table 3.13: RHC Employee Communication Indicators on Campus .................................... 36
Figure 3.7: Adequate Coordination Between Departments/Divisions By Job Classification 37
Table 3.14: RHC Employee Ratings of Campus Relationships ............................................ 37
Figure 3.8: Campus Relationships by Job Classification ...................................................... 38
Employee Satisfaction and Governance .................................................................................... 39
Table 3.15: Employee General Perceptions of Governance Process..................................... 39
Figure 3.9: Confidence in Administration by Job Classification .......................................... 39
Employee Satisfaction and Governance (continued) ................................................................ 40
Table 3.16: RHC Employee Perceptions of Communication within the Governance Process
............................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3.10: Perceptions of Consultation about Important Decisions by Job Classifications41
Figure 3.11: Campus Decisions by Employee Classification................................................ 41
3 Produced by the Rio Hondo College Office of Institutional Research and Planning
3600 Workman Mill Road
Whittier, CA 90601
Email: howard.kummerman@riohondo.edu
(562) 908-3412
http://www.riohondo.edu/research/
4 Key Findings
Overall
For students and employees, areas of greatest satisfaction emerged: campus safety
(especially during the daytime), physical environment, academic satisfaction (for students) and
campus relationships (for employees). In comparison to 2010, it is clear that employees and
students are more content with the “developing appearance of the campus.”
Campus Safety
Students and employees generally had positive perceptions of safety on campus (ranging
from mean averages of 3.4 to 4.3). The possible exception was the safety of their cars when
parked on campus at night, with average ratings just above the midpoint. Changes in feelings of
safety on campus changed little between 2010 and 2011.
Employee Governance
In terms of governance, area of concerns varied across employee groups. The fulltime
faculty expressed the most dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the administration at RHC.
Part-time hourly employees expressed the most satisfaction with decisions made on campus
reflecting the college’s goals and mission. Classified employees generally disagreed
(Mean=2.90 on a 1 to 5 scale) that sufficient consultation was provided concerning important
decisions related to employee governance. In contrast, part-time hourly employees (Mean=3.90)
and full-time faculty (Mean=3.48) generally agreed with each other on the sense of team spirit
exists at Rio Hondo College.
Student Academic Needs and Experiences
Reflecting on student ratings of academic satisfaction, students reported a high rating
(Mean=4.16) of their academic experiences. Students expressed satisfaction (Mean=4.07) with
the quality of instruction they received. Open-ended feedback described students’ concerns
regarding limited parking spaces and customer service provided by Financial Aid and
Admissions office.
Employee Job Satisfaction and Campus Relationships
Another area of concern includes employee job satisfaction. Full-time and part-time
classified employees gave their lowest rating (Mean =2.90) on their satisfaction with
opportunities for advancement at RHC. The total mean among all employee groups was 3.02 in
this area. Slight decreases were reported across RHC employee ratings of campus relationships.
Employees reported a high satisfaction rating (Total Mean=4.35) with the quality of employees
they work with at RHC. The lowest rating was the extent to which a team spirit exists at RHC
for all employee classifications (Total Mean=3.35).
5 Chapter 1 Introduction
6 Background
Rio Hondo College administered a campus climate survey to students and employees
from May 9 to May 17th, 2011. There were separate employee and student versions of the RHC
Climate Survey. The 2011 administration of the surveys was the third time these survey
instruments were utilized. The purpose of this research project was to investigate the overall
perceptions of the campus climate as reported by students and employees. “Campus Climate”
refers to the general atmosphere experienced by the faculty, staff, and students (see Table A.1 on
page 12).
Instrumentation
Both the RHC Student and the RHC Employee Climate Surveys were initially developed
on campus by the Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) office in 2009. The format and
structure of the RHC Climate Surveys were modeled after example surveys from Cypress and
San Bernardino Valley colleges, and previous climate research conducted at Rio Hondo College
during the mid-1990s. Specific campus climate dimensions were formulated for both surveys
and several example surveys were consulted. Special groups on campus came together to revise
the 2010 survey instruments by a voluntary group comprised of representative Faculty,
Classified, and Research and Planning Office staff. The Institutional Effectiveness Committee
also reviewed the survey instrument.
The 2011 survey instruments were edited from the previous year’s surveys by the IRP
staff. A few common climate dimensions are thought to be perceived by students and
employees, such as campus environment and safety. In those instances both groups answered
identical questions related to these dimensions. This provided the option to compare perceptions
between groups. However, since students and employees interact with the campus in different
ways, two distinct branches of the climate survey were created. Graphical representations and
definitions of the dimensions that comprise both the RHC Student and Employee Climate
Surveys can be found in the ratings and open-ended comments below. Figure 1 shows the
dimensions of the RHC student climate survey. Figure 2 describes the dimensions of the
employee climate survey.
7 Major Survey Themes: The survey addressed the following themes
Employees

Job Satisfaction: Explores employees’ overall satisfaction at the college as well as
personal goals, supervisor’s feedback, and professional opportunities.

Communication: Explores the information received about events//decisions in
his/her department or division.

Campus Relationships: Explores relationships among coworkers and supervisor.

Governance: Explores confidence in the administration, constituent groups, and
important decisions on campus.

Diversity and Equity: Explores the treatment of students, genders, racial/ethnic
groups, and disabilities.

RHC Environment: Explores the developing appearance of the campus, classroom
labs, and food/drink options on campus.

Campus Safety: Explores the issues of safety on campus during the day and
evening.
Students

Student Academic Needs: Explores the academic experiences at RHC leading to
career goals.

Campus Relationships: Explores relationships among students and employees on
campus.

Inclusion and Campus Life: Explores the sense of belonging to the campus,
student activities, and athletic events.

Diversity and Equity: Explores perceptions of the diversity of ethnic backgrounds
of RHC instructors and non-instructors and treatment of students or groups.

Physical Climate: Explores the developing appearance of the campus, restrooms,
gathering areas, study areas, and food/drink options.

Campus Safety: Explores the issues of safety on campus during the day and
evening.
8 The majority of the questions followed a 5-point Likert scale format with answer options:
“Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,” “Neutral,” “Agree,” and “Strongly Agree.” A “Don’t Know”
or not applicable (N/A) option was available for some questions. “Don’t Know” responses were
not considered in the survey response totals. In addition, open-ended questions were asked,
which allowed survey respondents to provide comments related to campus climate and general
suggestions for improvement.
Implementation Procedures
Student survey respondents were chosen by randomly selecting course reference numbers
(CRN) in the spring 2011 class schedule. Twenty-three (23) courses were selected for the
student sample. Instructional faculty was contacted and permission to administer the student
survey during class time was granted by all faculty who were reached. Appointments were made
and IRP office staff visited courses to administer the survey to students. The time to read
instructions and for students to fill-in the survey was approximately 15-20 minutes. An online
sample-size calculator presented as a public service of Creative Research Systems recommended
that a sample size of 641 of students was sufficient for a population of 17,113 (unduplicated
credit students headcount) with a confidence interval of 5 and a confidence level of 99%. 816
students were enrolled in the classes surveyed and 505 completed surveys. No students refused
participation. The intended sample size was projected to be higher but due to the semester’s end
class attendance was low. This sample still included In the future, IRP staff need to project 63%
attendance in classes for the student sample. This sample still included 2.9% of the enrolled
student population (505 completed surveys out of 17, 113) during Spring 2011 and 20.8% of the
employees (327 of the 1572).
A stratified random sampling method was utilized to select the employee sample. An
employee listing by classification (e.g., Administrator/Confidential, Classified, Full-time
Faculty, etc.) was obtained. Limitations existed regarding the current employee lists of parttimers. Half of each employee classification was randomly selected and paper surveys were
distributed to campus mailboxes. Returning the surveys to the IRP Office was an anonymous
process. Employees were asked to remove the memo on the outside of the envelope and return
the completed survey in the self-addressed envelope to the mailroom.
Analysis
Analyses of rating data (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) along with percentage data
are reported. The following section, “Interpreting the Results,” provides an overview on how to
interpret these results throughout the report. Analysis of open-ended feedback required a more
thorough approach. First open-ended responses were read and coded with other responses
consisting of similar content. These clusters or categories formed themes that a response entry
would support. This analysis is necessary to summarize the response entries of many individuals
and describe recurring themes expressed by a group of respondents. The excerpts of open-ended
comments are listed verbatim according to recurring themes with the exception of individual
9 names to protect confidentiality. To address confidentiality, names were ommitted in specific
references.
Interpreting the Results
Throughout this report, mean ratings and percentages are provided for specific survey
questions. Mean ratings (M) are average scores that correspond with the Likert scaling format.
Reference Points for Interpreting Mean Ratings:
1 Strongly Disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neutral
4 Agree
5 Strongly Agree
Percentages of how respondents answered survey questions are also provided. The entire
summary report along with the percentages of responses is provided in the appendices. The
numbers of respondents who answered specific questions are reported and are indicated with an
“N.” Verbatim comments from open-ended response questions are displayed in textboxes and
are integrated throughout the report to provide context and/or validate survey data. Individual
names were omitted for confidentiality.
10 Figure 1: Dimensions of RHC Student Climate
Physical
Environmental &
Safety
Diversity
&
Equity
Student
Academic
Needs
RHC Student
Climate
Inclusion
&
Campus Life
Campus
Relationships
11 Figure 2: Dimensions of RHC Employee Climate
Physical
Environmental &
Safety
Diversity
&
Equity
Governance
RHC
Student
Climate
Community
&
Campus
Relationships
Job
Satisfaction
12 Table 1.1: Synopses of RHC Climate Dimensions for Students and Employees
RHC Climate Survey
Physical
Environment
& Safety Diversity &
Equity Opinions of the physical environment and feelings of safety were elicited. This dimension
measures more tangible aspects of the environment and helps to answer the question as to whether
a comfortable setting is being provided to students and employees on campus. Diversity & Equity are essential concepts for any public educational institution and Rio Hondo
College is no different. RHC is an open campus and provides a wide range of academic and
student services for a variety of educational goals. This dimension measures perceptions of
diversity on campus and whether campus members feel they are treated fairly without prejudice.
RHC Campus Climate—Employee RHC Campus Climate—Student Student
Needs
Campus
Relationships
Inclusion
&
Campus Life The academic and student services
provided to students are thought to
fulfill Student Needs. To this end,
students were asked about their
satisfaction with course offerings
and services provided on campus. Governance
How individuals perceive their
environment is heavily influenced
by their social interactions within
the environment. Campus
Relationships examined student
impressions of their relationships
with peers, instructors, and noninstructional staff on campus. Job
Satisfaction
Similar to Diversity & Equity, the
Inclusion & Campus Life
dimension was used to assess how
well the campus is fostering an
environment conducive for access
into higher education, gauging how
integrated students feel with the
campus community. 13 Communication
&
Campus
Relationships
The Governance dimension was
included to assess perceptions
of campus operations. Clearly
defined roles and
responsibilities are essential not
only in work positions, but also
roles within the entire
Job Satisfaction can encompass
an entire research focus on its
own, but was included to
examine its conjunction with
campus climate. This
dimension essentially asked
whether employees on campus
were satisfied with their jobs.
Communication on campus was
assessed in conjunction with
Campus Relationships. Campus
Relationships questions asked
about relationships between
employees and their supervisor
and co-workers. Chapter 2 Demographics
14 Survey Sample: Students
The headcount for the spring 2011 semester showed 17,113 credit students attending Rio
Hondo College. The total enrollment in the 23 randomly selected courses was 816 students.
Before student surveys were administered, IRP staff asked whether anyone had responded to the
survey in a different class. A few students reported completing the survey in another course, so
they did not complete the survey again. No students declined to take the survey at the time of
administration. The number of student survey respondents was 505 for a yield of 62%
(505/816). The largest ethnic group of respondents was Hispanic/Latino students (79.88%, N =
393), followed by White/Caucasian students (5.89%, N=29), Asian/Pacific Islander (8.54%, N=
42), Other (1.83%, N =9), and Black/African-American (.81%, N=4) students. 2.64% (N=13)
student respondents reported two or more races. The ethnic composition of the survey sample
was reflective of the student population for the spring 2011 semester (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1
Comparison of Student Sample to Population by Ethnicity
Race/ Ethnicity
Asian/ Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Native American/Alaskan
White/Caucasian
Two or more races
Other
2011 Student Sample
8.5%
.8%
79.9%
.4%
5.9 %
2.6 %
1.8 %
2011 Student Population
5%
2%
65%
0%
10%
*
18%
*Not an option in Banner/Cognos
The age ranges of the student sample over-sampled students age 24 and below (68.5%)
when compared to the student population in the Spring 2011 semester (54% age 24 and below).
Table 2.2 provides the number of students for each age range in the respondent sample and the
percent comparison of the sample to the population.
Table 2.2: Comparison of Student Sample to Population by Age Range
Age
19 or less
20 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50+
Total
2011 (N) Student Sample
127
213
57
56
26
17
496
2011 Student Sample
25.6%
42.9%
11.5%
11.3%
5.2%
3.4%
100%
15 2011 Student Population
7%
47%
15%
16%
10%
6%
100%
Of the students who reported their gender, the sample consisted of 275 female
respondents (55.78%), and 218 male respondents (44.22%). This percentage is a substantial
difference between the sample and the population in spring 2011.
Table 2.3: Student Sample to Population Comparison by Gender
Gender
Female
Male
2011 # Student Sample
275
218
2011 Student Sample
55.78%
44.22%
2011 Student Population
43.00%
57.00%
Student Sample Attendance at RHC
Students were also asked how many years they have attended Rio Hondo College.
Respondents most frequently reported attending RHC for less than a year (29.3 %, N=96). Over
53.1% of students reported attending RHC for 2 years or less. Figure 2.1 demonstrates the
student sample’s length of attendance at RHC.
Figure 2.1: RHC Student Sample: Attendance at RHC
25.0%
22.9%
20.2%
20.0%
20.2%
15.0%
10.7%
10.0%
8.0%
6.4%
4.9%
5.0%
0.0%
Less than 1
year
1 year
2 years
3 years
16 4 years
5 years
6 plus years
Survey Sample: Employees
A random sample of 834 employees received a survey invitation. A total of 327
employees responded to the RHC Employee Climate Survey (see Table 2.4). There were 834
surveys delivered to employees for a response rate of 39% (327/834).
Table 2.4: 2011 Employee Response Rates
Employee Response Composition
Total Employees at RHC
N
1572
Percentage
N/A
Employees in Sample (received a survey invitation)
834
53.1%
Employees in Sample Responding to Survey
327
39%
Employees at RHC Responding to Survey
327/1572
20.8%
Figure 2.2 shows the employee sample by classification. The highest percentage (26%, N=85)
of respondents were part-time and full-time classified employees.
Figure 2.2: RHC Employee Sample by Classifications
30.0%
26.0%
25.0%
20.2%
20.0%
15.0%
24.2%
13.1%
10.0%
8.6%
5.0%
2.1%
0.0%
Part‐Time HourlyClassified (PT/FT)
Faculty (FT)
Faculty (PT)
17 Administration/ Prefer not to say
Confidential
Table 2.5 provides the response rate for each job classification on campus. Response
rates by employee classification were similar with the exception of part-time hourly,
administration, and those that preferred not to specify. There was some difficulty in identifying
active part-time faculty and part-time hourly employees. In future data collection cycles, the IRP
office will seek an improved list of current employees for the sample.
Table 2.5: Survey Response Rate by Employee Classification
Job Classification
Part-Time Hourly
Classified
Faculty (FT)
Faculty (PT)
Administration/Confidential
Prefer Not to Say/No
2011 Survey
Respondents
43
85
66
79
7
28
2011
Surveys
Distributed
157
140
95
421
21
NA
18 2011
Response 2010 Survey
Rate
Respondents Difference
3%
15
-2%
61%
71
-31%
69%
65
-3%
19%
81
-31%
33%
15
-38%
NA
19
NA
Table 2.6 shows that more female employees responded to the survey than male
employees. Employee ethnicity was also collected (Table 2.7). White Caucasian (41.3 %, N =
121) employees represented the largest group, followed by Hispanic/Latino (34.1%, N=100)
employees, Asian/Pacific Islander (9.2 %, N=27), Other (8.5%, N= 25), Black/African American
(2.14 %, N=7), and two or more races (3.4 %, N= 10) employees. The number and percentage of
Filipinos was not available from our source.
Table 2.6: Comparison of Employee Sample to Population by Gender
Gender
Women
Men
2011 (N) Employee
Sample
158
140
2011 Employee
Sample
53%
47%
2011 Employee
Campus Population
55%
45%
Table 2.6 shows that more Hispanic/Latino employees responded to the survey than other
ethnicities.
Table 2.7: Employee Sample by Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Asian/Asian American
Black/African American
Filipino
Hispanic/Latino
Native American/Alaskan
Pacific Islander
White/Caucasian
Two or more races
Other
2011 Employee Sample
8.2%
2.4%
.7%
34.1%
1.0%
.3%
41.3%
3.4%
8.5%
19 2010 (Fall) Employee Population
10.08%
(N=51)
4.74%
(N=24)
Not Available
27.47%
(N=139)
1.19%
(N=6)
.40%
(N=2)
54.55%
(276)
1.19%
(N=6)
0.40%
(N=2)
29% of employee respondents have worked at RHC for less than 5 years. The median number of
years for the employee survey sample at RHC is 6-10 years (20.2%).
Figure 2.3: Years Employed at Rio Hondo College
25.0%
22.9%
20.2%
20.2%
20.0%
15.0%
10.7%
10.0%
8.0%
6.4%
4.9%
5.0%
0.0%
Less than 1 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years
year
11 to 15
years
20 16 to 20
years
21 years & Prefer not to
Older
say
Chapter 3 RHC Campus Climate: Student and Employee
21 Physical Environment & Campus Safety: Results
Physical Environment
Opinions of the physical environment and feelings of safety at RHC were sought. This
dimension provided tangible feedback about the campus environment especially during major
construction projects such as the Administration of Justice Building, Student Services Complex,
and Upper Quad area. Many common questions about the physical environment and campus
safety were asked of both students and employees (see Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2) with a few
questions asked exclusively of each group. It is important to note that safisfaction increased
concerning the developing appearance of the campus. The student mean ratings of the campus’
appearance increased from the average rating of 3.77 in 2010 to 3.95 in 2011). The employee
mean ratings of the campus’ appearance increased from the average rating of 3.92 in 2010 to
2.96 in 2011. In the open-ended comments, students expressed concern over the construction
and the cost of completion.
Figure 3.1: Student and Employee Satisfaction with RHC’s Campus Appearance
4.00
3.96
3.95
3.92
3.95
3.90
3.85
3.80
3.77
3.75
3.70
3.65
Student
Employee
2010
2011
22 There was a difference between employees’ and students’ perceptions of the variety of
food/drink options on campus. Students were more satisfied with the food and drink options on
campus. Employees were not satisfied with the variety of food/drink options on campus
(Mean=2.77).
Figure: 3.2 Student and Employee Satisfaction with Food/Drink Options on Campus
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
3.36
3.31
2.71
Student
Employee
2010
2011
23 2.77
The most direct recommendations for campus improvements related to perceptions of the
physical environment. Students’ most common suggestions were better restroom facilities,
parking, campus food options, and safety. Students are also unaware of construction completion
timeline
With regard to parking, students would like more parking spaces and possibly a parking
structure on the upper campus area. A student stated,
“fix parking…have cameras in lots to track down damages done to cars or have someone
to watch over unnecessary speed bumps uphill cause more traffic. I think some parking
spaces for students are too narrow. Parking is bad. The spaces provided in some spots
are too much and some are too less. This causes a lot of wasted space and creates higher
chances of minor car accidents” .
Employees’ perceptions included recommendations for “…better traffic flow during beginning
of semester” and better parking, security, and a “permanent” parking pass for part-time faculty
and enforcement of parking regulations.
Additional comments described the extent of satisfaction related to the environment and
general improvements at RHC. Employees expressed dissatisfaction with adequacy of parking
spaces for students, extent of food selection for the campus, and cleanliness on the campus
especially restrooms. For this reason, employees mentioned the adequacy for custodial services
and expressed comments related to increasing the number of custodial staff. Employee mean
ratings concerning the physical environment ranged between 2.77 and 3.96 (Table 3.1).
24 Table 3.1 displays results for Physical Environment questions that were asked of both
groups, and also presents the results of questions asked exclusively of each group. Students
reported being most satisfied with the availability of restrooms (M=3.77) and study areas on
campus (M=3.76) as well as the developing appearance of the campus (3.95).
Table 3.1: Student and Employee Satisfaction with RHC Physical Environment
Student
RHC Physical
Environment
Developing
appearance of the
campus.
Variety of
food/drink options
on campus.
Availability of
restrooms on
campus.
Cleanliness of
restrooms on
campus.
Availability of
study areas on
campus.
Availability of
outdoor gathering
areas.
General upkeep of
classrooms/labs.
Employee
2011
Mean
2011
N
2010 2010
2011 2011 2010
Mean
N
Change Mean
N
Mean
2010
N
Change
3.95
501
3.77
354
0.18
3.96
321
3.92
260
0.04
3.31
501
3.36
353
-0.05
2.77
306
2.71
265
0.06
3.77
502
3.76
354
-0.01
N/A
N/A
3.49
261
N/A
3.58
502
3.59
356
-0.02
N/A
N/A
3.02
261
N/A
3.76
501
3.82
346
-0.06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.59
501
3.5
351
0.09
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.46
269
3.34
264
0.12
25 Campus Safety
The surveys assessed perceptions of (personal and property) safety on campus (Figure 3.2
and Table 3.2). Students and employees generally reported positive perceptions of safety on
campus during the daytime. Students reported slight increases in perceptions of safety when
walking and parking during the day and evening on campus in 2011. However, employees
reported a slight decrease from 2011 to 2010 in perceptions of safety when walking on campus
during the day and nighttime.
Figure 3.2: Student and Employee Perceptions of Safety on Campus
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
4.37
4.35
3.51
3.49
3.47
3.66
3.04
I feel safe walking on
campus during the
daytime.
3.25
I feel safe walking on My car is safe when it isMy car is safe when it is
campus at night.
parked on campus
parked on campus at
during the day.
night.
Student
Employee
Table 3.2: Student and Employee Perceptions of Safety on Campus in 2010 and 2011
Campus Safety Perceptions
I feel safe walking on campus during
the daytime.
I feel safe walking on campus at night.
My car is safe when it is parked on
campus during the day.
My car is safe when it is parked on
campus at night.
Mean
2011
Student
N
2011 Change
4.37
3.51
478
456
0.08
0.08
4.35
3.49
321
287
-0.11
-0.09
3.47
460
0.18
3.66
322
-0.03
3.04
441
0.03
3.25
287
0.05
26 Employee
Mean
N
2011
2011 Change
The perception of safety while walking at night was further examined by gender. Male
students and employees expressed a higher perception of safety while walking on campus at
night. Figure 3.3 shows the students’ and employees’ perceptions of walking on campus at night
by gender.
Figure 3.3: Student and Employee Perceptions of Walking on Campus at Night by Gender
I feel safe walking on campus at night
4.50
3.92
4.00
3.50
3.84
3.24
3.19
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Female Student
Male Student
Female Employee
27 Male Employee
Diversity and Equity
Students reported a high level of satisfaction with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of
RHC instructors and non-instructional staff. The low 1.74 mean response to being
“uncomfortable taking classes with people who are different from me” indicates that the students
are comfortable with diversity, but less comfortable than were the students in the 2010 sample.
Table 3.3: RHC Student Ratings of Diversity on Campus
Diversity Satisfaction
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds
of RHC instructors.
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds
of RHC non-instructional staff.
I am UNCOMFORTABLE taking classes with people
who are different from me.
From RHC classes and activities, I have a better
understanding of people with backgrounds different
from mine.
Mean
2011
Students
N
2011
Change
3.98
500
-.12
3.92
500
+.23
1.74
501
+.22
3.60
500
+.01
Overall employee ratings support equity on campus, however there was a slight decrease
from 2010 to 2011. The staff members’ perceptions of the college’s commitment to diversity
were consistently above 3.9. In general, the campus is supportive of people with disabilities,
gender, and racial/ethnic groups with a mean rating between 3.91 and 4.06.
Table 3.4: RHC Employee Ratings of Equity on Campus
Campus Ethnicity
The campus is equally supportive of all genders.
The campus is equally supportive of all racial/ethnic
groups.
The campus is equally supportive of people with
disabilities.
28 Mean
2011
4.06
Students
N
2011
323
Change
-.10
3.91
296
-.04
3.99
292
-.09
Student Academic Needs and Academic Success
Table 3.5 displays student ratings of academic satisfaction. Students reported a high
rating (M =4.16) of academic experiences in Table 3.5. Students experienced satisfaction
(M=4.07) with quality of instruction. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 show the ratings of academic
satisfaction by years of attendance. Overall, students in their fifth year at RHC offered the
highest satisfaction ratings.
Table 3.5: General Student Ratings of Academic Satisfaction
Diversity Satisfaction
I am satisfied with my academic experiences at RHC.
I would recommend RHC to a friend.
I am satisfied with the quality of instruction and teaching.
RHC helped me identify my career goals.
Mean
2011
4.16
4.23
4.07
3.52
Students
N
2011
501
502
496
495
Change
+.15
+.07
-.05
+.07
Figure 3.4: Student Satisfaction with Instruction and Teaching By Years of Attendance
29 Figure 3.5: Student Satisfaction with Instructor’s Knowledge By Years of Attendance
30 Student Academic Needs and Academic Success (continued)
Open-ended feedback described students’ concerns regarding the dimension of student
academic needs concerning academic support like tutoring, instruction, and class offerings. In
order to maintain strong success and retention rates, the College must provide the tools necessary
for students’ success. Many students indicated that the academic environment (tutoring,
instruction, and class offerings) encouraged their success. One student wrote, “Rio Hondo was a
good stepping stone in preparing myself for a 4 year university.” Some of the suggestions
included offering a radiologic technologist associate degree program, additional course offerings
in Child Development, and the addition of a paint booth in auto body to remove the barrier to
graduation. Another suggestion revolves around the reading lab requirement. A student states,
“…but i just wish we didn't have the reading lab part of the class because some people
don't really want to be there. there should have the reading lab there for questions, help
but not do the hours thing. Thanks for give the opportunity to students who worked all
day and come to night classes.”
Students reported satisfaction above the mid-point for course offerings and relationships
with peers (Tables 3.6. and 3.7). The highest rating was for RHC preparing students to meet their
educational goals.
Table 3.6: Student Satisfaction with Course Offerings
Course Offering Satisfaction
I am satisfied with the variety of courses offered.
Courses I need are offered at times that are convenient
to my schedule.
Courses at RHC are preparing me to achieve my
educational goals.
Mean
2011
3.73
Students
N
2011
500
Change
+.10
3.57
497
+.11
4.24
497
+.01
Mean
2011
4.07
3.71
4.06
2.09
Students
N
2011
498
495
496
497
Change
+.39
+.11
+.12
+.34
Table 3.7: Student Relationships with their RHC Peers
Student Peer Relationships
I have friends at RHC.
I like to talk to my classmates outside of class.
I have met a lot of nice people on campus.
Other students have treated me disrespectfully.
31 Student respondents indicated that they are satisfied with academic experiences at RHC.
Students strongly agreed with the quality of instructors and teaching. Students indicated that the
academic environment helped them to achieve educational goals.
Table 3.8: Student Relationships with RHC Faculty
Student/ Faculty Relationships
RHC instructors come to class well prepared.
RHC instructors work hard to help students succeed.
RHC instructors are sensitive to the needs of all students.
Mean
2011
4.24
4.03
3.85
Students
N
2011
498
499
499
Change
-.02
+.07
+.12
Table 3.9: Student Relationships with RHC Faculty and Staff
Student/ Faculty-Staff Relationships
It is easy to talk to instructors about questions and
concerns.
My instructors are highly knowledgeable.
RHC employees (non-instructors) have treated me with
respect.
RHC employees (non-instructors) have been helpful.
32 Mean
2011
Students
N
2011
Change
4.08
499
+.03
4.28
501
-.13
3.88
500
-.03
3.82
499
-.04
Inclusion and Campus Life Campus
Ratings explained unique aspects concerning the campus life dimension experienced by
students. Students reported a 3.70 (N=498) mean rating of belonging to RHC (Table 3.10).
Many comments addressed issues with two offices: financial aid and admissions. This appears
to conflict with the college’s commitment to help student’s access federal, state, and institutional
resources in order to ensure attendance regardless of financial resources.
Perceptions of the campus environment concerning customer service were consistent
among students and employees. Employees also identified a need for improvements in various
Student Services functions.
Students generally reported positive perceptions of the campus environment’s
inclusiveness and campus activities (Tables 3.10 and 3.11). The exceptions related to attending
RHC athletic events and participating in campus activities.
Table 3.10 Student Perceptions of an Inclusive Campus Environment
Campus Environment Perspectives
I feel like I belong here.
I like the environment at RHC.
Students are asked for their ideas when important decisions
are made on campus.
Mean
2011
3.70
3.82
3.27
Students
N
2011
498
500
Change
+.04
-.16
499
+.07
Students
N
2011
228
491
492
Change
-.24
No Change
-.07
Table 3.11: Student Participation in Campus Life Activities
Campus Environment Perspectives
I enjoy attending RHC athletic events.
I am satisfied with my opportunities to join clubs at RHC.
I like to participate in campus student activities (Guest
Speakers, Club Fairs, Games, etc.).
33 Mean
2011
2.93
3.48
2.84
Employees generally reported high levels of employee satisfaction (Table 3.12). Mean
ratings for a number of items (including learning, decision making, and liking to work at RHC)
were above 4.0. Lowest rated items addressed feeling pressured by “too many tasks and
priorities” with a mean rating of 2.72 and satisfaction with opportunities for advancement with a
mean rating of 3.23).
Table 3.12: RHC Employee Ratings of Satisfaction
Employee Satisfaction
I feel pressure to accomplish too many tasks and priorities.
I am satisfied with the opportunities for advancement at RHC.
I receive feedback that my work contributes to the overall success
of the college.
I have adequate supplies/equipment necessary to complete my job.
I am encouraged to be creative and come up with new ideas and
improvements.
I am recognized for my good work.
At this point in my career, I feel my present position satisfies my
professional goals and aspirations.
My supervisor provides useful feedback on my work performance.
My job allows me to learn new things.
My position allows me to make independent decisions.
I get a feeling of personal satisfaction from my work.
I know what is expected of me and my job.
I like working at RHC.
34 Mean
2011
2.72
3.23
3.47
Employees
N
2011
Change
326
+.05
325
+.09
326
+.11
3.80
3.70
324
326
+.19
-.05
3.67
3.77
326
326
-.09
-.02
4.00
4.13
4.23
4.32
4.41
4.53
326
324
323
325
326
326
-.10
0
+.05
-.14
-.10
-.06
Analysis of results for satisfaction with opportunities for advancement revealed some
differences across employee classifications. Part-time hourly employees reported the most
satisfaction in this area. Two groups were below the 3.0 mid-point: classified and part-time
faculty (Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6: Employee Satisfaction with Opportunities for Advancement by Classification
3.30
3.25
3.20
3.13
3.10
3.00
3.00
2.90
2.90
3.02
2.84
2.80
2.70
2.60
Hourly (PT)
Classified
(PT/FT)
Faculty (FT)
Faculty (PT) Administration/
Confidential
35 Total
Communication and Campus Relationships
Minor decreases were reported (Mean rating =3.23) across RHC employee ratings of
campus relationships (Table 3.13). Among employees, the items in Table 3.13 encourage their
knowledge about events and decisions on campus.
Table 3.13: RHC Employee Communication Indicators on Campus
Campus Communication Perspectives
I am informed about events/decisions in my
department/program.
I am informed about events/decisions in my
division/unit.
I am informed about events/decisions on campus.
My immediate supervisor does a good job in
communicating decisions to me.
My co-workers keep me informed of campus
events.
There is adequate coordination among departments
and divisions on campus.
36 Mean
2011
Students
N
2011
Change
3.81
319
+.01
3.64
317
-.15
3.64
317
-.03
3.81
322
3.60
326
-.09
2.66
326
-.39
-17
Figure 3.7 shows how the ratings of adequate coordination among departments and
divisions varied across employee classifications (Figure 3.7). Part-time hourly employees rated
this the highest (M=3.56) and the lowest rating (M=2.59) preferred not to state their employee
classification
Figure 3.7: Adequate Coordination Between Departments/Divisions By Job Classification
4.00
3.50
3.56
3.00
3.41
2.83
3.02
3.00
2.59
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
.50
.00
Hourly (PT)
Classified
(PT/FT)
Faculty (FT)
Faculty (PT)
Administration/ Prefer not to
Confidential
say
Employees generally reported high levels of satisfaction with campus relationships
(Table 3.14). Ratings of supervisors’ behaviors and characteristics were close to 4.0.
Table 3.14: RHC Employee Ratings of Campus Relationships
Campus Environment Perspectives
My supervisor treats people fairly and without favoritism.
My supervisor acknowledges good work.
My supervisor encourages me to develop and grow.
My supervisor is competent at doing his/her job.
My supervisor seeks and values my opinions and ideas.
I enjoy the people I work with at RHC.
My co-workers are supportive.
My co-workers are competent at doing their job.
A sense of team spirit exists at RHC.
37 Mean
2011
4.04
3.95
3.90
4.18
3.80
4.35
4.17
4.18
3.35
Students
N
2011
311
316
311
319
316
322
318
312
304
Change
-.05
-.12
-.03
-.12
-.12
-.03
-.03
-.02
+.11
The lowest employee rating for campus relationships was the extent to which a team
spirit exists at RHC (Total Mean=3.35). Further analysis revealed noteworthy differences across
employee classifications (Figure 3.8). There was a marked difference between the ratings of parttime hourly employees (M=3.90) and administration/confidential employees (M=2.57).
Figure 3.8: Campus Relationships by Job Classification
4.50
4.00
3.90
3.48
3.50
3.58
3.22
3.00
2.57
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
.50
.00
Hourly (PT)
Classified (PT/FT)
Faculty (FT)
38 Faculty (PT)
Administration/
Confidential
Employee Satisfaction and Governance
Employee ratings of satisfaction with the governance process were between 3.21 and 3.39
(Table 3.15 and Table 3.16). Although the average responses for each of the four items were
similar, the lowest rating was for confidence in the effectiveness of the RHC administration.
Analysis of this item indicated that different employee groups have very different perceptions
(Figure 3.9).
Table 3.15: Employee General Perceptions of Governance Process
Campus Environment Perspectives
I have confidence in the effectiveness of the administration
at RHC.
I am optimistic about what can be achieved through
participatory governance at RHC.
I am satisfied with the opportunity I have to participate in
the governance process.
The constituent groups on campus work collaboratively
towards the achievement of college goals.
Mean
2011
3.21
Students
N
2011
304
Change
-.08
3.30
274
-.12
3.34
285
-.05
3.39
254
+.04
Figure 3.9: Confidence in Administration by Job Classification
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
.50
.00
4.14
3.84
3.56
3.04
PT Hourly
Classified PT and FT
2.81
2.57
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
39 Administration/
Confidential
Prefer not to stay
Employee Satisfaction and Governance (continued)
Table 3.16: RHC Employee Perceptions of Communication within the Governance Process
Satisfaction of Governance
My constituent group representative(s) express the
issues/concerns of my group well.
My constituent group representative(s) keep me informed of
the proceedings and recommendations of governance groups.
There is sufficient consultation about important decisions.
Decisions made on campus are consistent with the college’s
goals and mission.
The opinions of students are given appropriate weight in
matters of institutional importance.
40 Mean
2011
Students
N
2011
Change
3.66
266
-.08
3.58
285
-.15
3.03
259
+.13
3.27
273
-.03
3.21
243
-.21
Responses to the item on consultation about important decisions indicate substantial
differences across employee classifications by full-time faculty with a mean rating of 2.57 to
Administration and Confidential with a mean rating of 3.71(Figure 3.10). Average ratings by
part-time hourly employees, part-time faculty, and administration/confidential employees were
much higher than those by classified employees, full-time faculty, and “prefer not to say.” The
average ratings were closer together for the item on decisions being consistent with the college’s
mission and goals (Figure 3.11).
Figure 3.10: Perceptions of Consultation about Important Decisions by Job Classifications
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
.50
.00
3.90
3.71
3.40
2.90
2.52
2.57
Hourly (PT)
Classified (PT/FT)
Faculty (FT)
Faculty (PT)
Administration/ Prefer not to say
Confidential
Figure 3.11: Campus Decisions by Employee Classification
4.00
3.79
3.47
3.50
3.11
3.06
Classified
(PT/FT)
Faculty (FT)
3.57
2.93
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
.50
.00
Hourly (PT)
Faculty (PT) Administration/ Prefer not to
Confidential
say
41 Areas cited by employees as needing improvement include job satisfaction, governance
or resources and committees, relationships and communication, and budget. There were minor
decreases in ratings from 2010 to 2011 (Table 3.16, Figure 3.10, and Figure 3.11). Still, many
employees described RHC as a “friendly” and “positive” environment. An employee stated,
“Positive comments about RHC make me feel real good and proud to serve our students and the
college.”
42 OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING
CLIMATE SURVEY
REPORT 2013
Welcome
Disclaimer
This message does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of The Office of Institutional Research and
Planning, its staff, its friends, its groupies, or its acquaintances; all rights reserved; you may
distribute this message freely but you may not make a profit from it; terms are subject to change
without notice; illustrations are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons,
living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; do not remove this disclaimer under penalty
of law; this message is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; reader assumes full
responsibility; if any defects are discovered, do not attempt to read them yourself, but return to an
authorized research center; read at your own risk; parental advisory - explicit data; data may
contain explicit materials some readers may find objectionable; not liable for damages arising from
use or misuse; for external reading only; if rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue
reading; read only with proper ventilation; disclaimer does not cover misuse, accident, lightning,
flood, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, hurricanes and other acts of God, neglect,
damage from improper reading, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, sonic boom
vibrations, RHC staff adjustments that are not covered in this list, and incidents owing to an airplane
crash, ship sinking or taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass,
mud slides, forest fire, or projectile (which can include, but not be limited to, arrows, bullets, BB's,
shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, or emissions of X-rays, Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays, knives,
stones, etc.); Contact our attorneys Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe for more information about this
Disclaimer.
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Climate Cam
 Aruba
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Domains of
Student Climate
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Domains of
Employee Climate
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Survey Scale
Reference Points for Interpreting Mean Ratings
 1 – Strongly Disagree
 2 –Disagree
 3 –Neutral
 4 –Agree
 5 –Strongly Agree
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Survey Sample
Sample
 486 Employees
 833 Students
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING
CLIMATE SURVEY
REPORT 2013
Demographics
Employee Demographics
Table A-1. Employee Gender and Ethnic Background
Gender
#
261
Female
205
Male
Total
466
Ethnicity
#
White/Caucasian
182
Hispanic/Latino
154
Asian/Asian-American
44
Two or more races
30
Black/African-American
12
Filipino
3
Native American/Alaskan
2
Other
33
Total
461
%
56.0%
44.0%
100.0%
%
39.6%
33.5%
9.6%
6.5%
2.6%
0.7%
0.4%
7.2%
100.0%
Note: Not all respondents indicated gender and/or ethnicity.
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Demographics
Figure A-1. Employees by Years Employed at RHC
50%
40%
30%
21.7%
22.1%
20.4%
16.5%
20%
8.8%
10%
8.3%
2.3%
0%
Less than
one year
1-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-20 yrs
21 yrs or
greater
Prefer not to
say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Demographics
Figure A-2. Employees by Type
50%
40%
32.0%
30%
20%
10%
24.5%
21.0%
12.0%
5.0%
5.6%
0%
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student Demographics
Table B-1. Student Gender and Ethnic Background
Gender
#
%
Female
451
54.6%
Male
375
45.4%
Total
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino
Asian/Asian-American
826
#
586
68
100.0%
%
71.1%
8.3%
48
5.8%
Black/African-American
8
1.0%
Filipino
8
1.0%
Native American/Alaskan
1
0.1%
Pacific Islander
1
0.1%
Two or more races
73
8.9%
Other
31
3.8%
Total
824
100.0%
White/Caucasian
Note: Not all respondents indicated gender and/or ethnicity.
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student Demographics
Figure B-1. Students by Age Group
50%
40%
44.6%
33.9%
30%
20%
10.6%
10%
8.1%
1.7%
1.1%
40-49 yrs
50 yrs or older
0%
19 yrs or
younger
20-24 yrs
25-29 yrs
30-39 yrs
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student Demographics
Figure B-2. Students by Years of RHC Attendance
50%
40%
30%
28.9%
26.5%
20.3%
20%
15.3%
10%
3.9%
3.2%
1.9%
4 years
5 years
6+ years
0%
Less than 1
year
1 year
2 years
3 years
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student Demographics
Figure B-3. Students by Hours Worked per Week
50%
40%
39.6%
30%
19.2%
20%
12.9%
9.7%
6.8%
10%
11.9%
0%
Not working
1-9 hours
10-19 hours
20-29 hours
30-39 hours
40+ hours
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING
CLIMATE SURVEY
REPORT 2013
Campus Climate
Students
Climate Cam
 The Final Frontier –
 Patagonia, Chili
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student Academic Needs
Table C-1. Average Student Responses to Academic Needs
2013
Mean
2013
N
2012
Mean
2012
N
Difference
I am satisfied with my academic experiences at RHC.
4.13
830
4.17
670
-0.04
I would recommend RHC to a friend.
4.18
829
4.21
670
-0.03
RHC helped me identify my career goals.
3.49
825
3.54
670
-0.05
I am satisfied with the variety of courses offered.
3.73
828
3.79
667
-0.06
I am satisfied with the quality of instruction and teaching.
4.04
817
4.1
663
-0.06
Courses I need are offered at times that are convenient to
my schedule.
3.5
826
3.52
664
-0.02
4.29
827
4.34
672
-0.05
4.3
828
4.3
669
0
4.19
825
4.21
671
-0.02
My instructors are highly knowledgeable.
RHC instructors come to class well prepared.
My courses are preparing me to achieve my educational
goals.
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student Academic Needs
Figure C-1. Quality of Instruction by Student Age
4.78
5.00
4.00
3.88
4.09
4.15
4.18
4.15
20-24 yrs
25-29 yrs
30-39 yrs
40-49 yrs
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
19 yrs or
younger
50 yrs or older
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student Inclusion & Campus Life
Table D-1. Average Student Responses to Inclusion and Campus Life
2013
Mean
2013
N
2012
Mean
2012
N
Difference
Students are asked for their ideas when important
decisions are made on campus.
3.28
826
3.29
669
-0.01
I like the environment at RHC.
4.08
831
4.07
669
0.01
I feel like I belong here.
3.73
826
3.75
666
-0.02
I am satisfied with my opportunities to join clubs at RHC.
3.54
817
3.53
661
0.01
2.9
825
2.93
668
-0.03
I enjoy attending RHC athletic events.
2.78
827
2.87
666
-0.09
I am satisfied with the clubs/student activities on campus.
3.29
827
xx
xx
xx
I like to participate in campus student activities (Guest
Speakers, Club Fairs, Games, etc.).
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student Campus Life
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student
Diversity & Equity
Table J-1. Student Perceptions of Diversity and Equity
2013
Mean
2013
N
2012
Mean
2012
N
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of
RHC instructors.
3.93
828
4.01
672
-0.08
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of
RHC non-instructional staff.
3.88
831
3.97
672
-0.09
I am UNCOMFORTABLE taking classes with people who are
different from me.
1.55
831
1.56
671
-0.01
From RHC classes and activities, I have a better
understanding of people with backgrounds different from
mine.
3.59
830
3.67
671
-0.08
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Difference
OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING
CLIMATE SURVEY
REPORT 2013
Campus Climate
Employees
Climate Cam
 New York
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee
Job Satisfaction
Table F-1. Employee Perceptions of Job Satisfaction
2013
Mean
2013
N
2012
Mean
2012
N
I like working at RHC.
4.53
485
4.51
421
0.02
At this point in my career, I feel my present position
satisfies my professional goals and aspirations.
3.72
481
3.68
419
0.04
My supervisor provides useful feedback on my work
performance.
3.88
483
3.9
419
-0.02
I know what is expected of me and my job.
4.45
484
4.47
421
-0.02
My position allows me to make independent decisions.
4.18
476
4.23
414
-0.05
I feel pressure to accomplish too many tasks and
priorities.
2.62
480
2.64
416
-0.02
I am satisfied with the opportunities for advancement at
RHC.
3.14
480
3.05
418
0.09
My job allows me to learn new things.
4.11
479
4.1
416
0.01
I have adequate supplies/equipment necessary to
complete my job.
3.71
483
3.69
417
0.02
I am recognized for my good work.
3.64
486
3.63
421
0.01
I get a feeling of personal satisfaction from my work.
4.35
484
4.4
418
-0.05
I receive feedback that my work contributes to the overall
success of the college.
3.47
479
3.46
420
0.01
I am encouraged to be creative and come up with new
ideas and improvements.
3.74
486
3.8
419
-0.06
Difference
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Job Satisfaction
Figure F-1. Satisfaction with Advancement Opportunities by Employee Type
5.00
4.00
3.61
3.38
3.05
2.80
3.00
3.42
2.58
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
Classified (PT &
FT)
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Job Satisfaction
Figure F-2. Recognition for Good Work by Classification
5.00
4.00
3.97
3.55
3.54
Classified (PT & FT)
FT Faculty
3.79
3.96
3.22
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Communication
Table G-1. Employee Perceptions on Communication
2013
Mean
2013
N
2012
Mean
2012
N
I am informed about events/decisions in my
department/program.
3.75
479
3.82
417
-0.07
I am informed about events/decisions in my division/unit.
3.74
476
3.78
416
-0.04
I am informed about events/decisions on campus.
3.68
472
3.63
411
0.05
My immediate supervisor does a good job in
communicating decisions to me.
3.78
468
3.89
403
-0.11
My co-workers keep me informed of campus events.
3.77
470
3.65
410
0.12
3.1
432
3
377
0.1
There is adequate coordination among departments and
divisions on campus.
Difference
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Communication
Figure G-1. Coordination Among Departments/Divisions by Employee Type
5.00
4.00
2013
2012
3.77
3.48
2.78 2.82
3.00
3.36 3.36
3.05
3.43
3.00
2.65
2.77 2.65
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
Classified (PT & FT)
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Governance
Figure H-1. Frequency of Participation in Governance-Related Activities
Never
Attended a Committee /Council
Meeting.
Attended a Board Meeting
Spoken to Classified/faculty
representative about my
issues/concerns
Voiced my concerns
during a Board
meeting
46%
53%
53%
90%
1-2 times
21%
3-5
6+
11%
22%
32%
9% 6%
30%
8%
8%
9%
1%
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
1%
Employee Governance
Table H-1. Employee Perceptions of the Governance Process
2013
Mean
2013
N
2012
Mean
2012
N
I have confidence in the effectiveness of the
administration at RHC.
3.37
458
2.72
415
0.65
My constituent group representative(s) expresses the
issues/concerns of my group well.
3.77
411
3.64
351
0.13
Decisions made on campus are consistent with the
college's goals and mission.
3.32
423
3.04
349
0.28
There is sufficient consultation about important decisions.
3.02
406
2.77
340
0.25
I am optimistic about what can be achieved through
participatory governance at RHC.
3.42
430
3.21
362
0.21
The opinions of students are given appropriate weight in
matters of institutional importance.
3.24
367
2.96
315
0.28
The opinions of employees are given appropriate weight in
matters of institutional importance.
2.97
406
2.81
341
0.16
My constituent group representative(s) keeps me informed
of the proceedings and recommendations of governance
groups.
3.7
424
3.64
359
0.06
The constituent groups on campus work collaboratively
toward the achievement of college goals.
3.49
389
3.27
322
0.22
I am satisfied with the opportunity I have to participate in
the governance process.
3.43
434
3.22
370
0.21
Difference
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Governance
Figure H-2. Confidence in the Effectiveness of RHC’s Administration
5.00
4.00
4.25
3.93
3.76
3.08
3.12
Classified
FT Faculty
2.77
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential
Prefer not to say
Table H-1. Employee Perceptions of the Governance Process
I have confidence in the effectiveness of the
administration at RHC.
2013
Mean
2013
N
2012
Mean
2012
N
3.37
458
2.72
415
Difference
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
0.65
Employee Governance
Figure H-3. Decisions made on campus consistent with college’s goals and mission,
by Employee Type
5.00
4.00
3.73
3.69
3.18
4.04
3.04
2.76
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
Classified
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential
Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Governance
Figure H-5. Employee opinions are given appropriate weight in matters of
institutional importance, by Employee Type
5.00
4.00
3.71
3.43
3.00
3.39
2.68
2.83
2.40
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
Classified
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential
Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Governance
Figure H-6. I am optimistic about what can be achieved through participatory
governance at RHC, by Employee Type
5.00
4.00
3.76
3.73
3.25
3.21
Classified
FT Faculty
4.00
3.08
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential
Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Governance
Figure H-8. Constituent groups on campus work collaboratively towards
achievement of college goals, by Employee Type
5.00
4.00
3.81
3.74
3.32
3.43
Classified
FT Faculty
3.65
3.18
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential
Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee Governance
Figure H-9. I am satisfied with the opportunity I have to participate in the
governance process, by Employee Type
5.00
4.13
4.00
3.54
3.54
3.44
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
3.21
3.36
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
Classified
Admin/Confidential
Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Campus Relationships
Figure I-1. Perceptions of Team Spirit by Employee Type
5.00
4.00
3.87
3.82
3.23
3.58
3.41
2.88
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
Classified
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential Prefer not to say
Table I-2. Employee Perceptions of Campus Relationships
A sense of team spirit exists at RHC.
2013
Mean
2013
N
2012
Mean
2012
N
3.47
461
3.16
399
Difference
0.31
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Campus Relationships
Figure F-2. Recognition for Good Work by Classification
5.00
4.00
3.97
3.55
3.54
Classified (PT & FT)
FT Faculty
3.79
3.96
3.22
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
PT Hourly
PT Faculty
Admin/Confidential Prefer not to say
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING
CLIMATE SURVEY
REPORT 2013
Campus Climate
Students & Employees
Climate Cam
 China - Panda
 China - Macau, Largo do Senado
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Student & Employee
Comparisons
Figure K-1. Comparison of Employee/Student Satisfaction with RHC Environment
Employee
5.00
4.28
Student
4.17
4.00
3.36
2.80
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
The developing appearance of the campus
The variety of food/drink options on campus.
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Employee
Campus Relationships
Figure L-1. Comparison of Employee/Student Perceptions by Gender
5.00
Employee
4.03
3.96
4.00
3.30
Student
3.62
M
3.28
M
3.19
F
3.29
M
3.00
F
3.15
F
F
M
2.00
1.00
0.00
I feel safe walking on campus at night.
I feel my car if safe when parked on campus at
night.
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
Climate Cam
 Disneyland
Office of Institutional Research & Planning – Campus Climate Survey Report 2013
OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING
CLIMATE SURVEY
REPORT 2013
Thank You!
2012 Climate Survey Report
Employee and Student Responses
Institutional Research & Planning
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................2
Background ...............................................................................................................................................................3
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................................................................3
The Study & Context ..............................................................................................................................................3
Demographics and Research Sample ...............................................................................................................3
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................4
STUDENT DATA...................................................................................................................................................4
Figure 1 Rio Hondo College Years of Attendance ....................................................................................4
Figure 2 Student Respondents by Age .........................................................................................................4
Figure 3 Student Respondents by Gender ...................................................................................................5
Figure 4 Student Respondents by Ethnic Background..............................................................................5
Table 1 RHC Student Ratings of Diversity on Campus ...........................................................................6
Figure 5 Quality of Instruction By Years of Attendance..........................................................................6
Table 2 Student Satisfaction Ratings ............................................................................................................7
Table 4 Student Relationships with RHC Faculty .....................................................................................8
Table 5 Student Relationships with Faculty and Staff ..............................................................................8
Figure 6 Instructors’ Knowledge ...................................................................................................................9
Table 6 Student Relationships with their RHC Peers ...............................................................................9
EMPLOYEE DATA ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7 Years Employed at RHC.............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 8 Employees by Gender .................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 9 Employees by Ethnic Background ............................................................................................. 11
Table 7 Ratings of Employee Communication........................................................................................ 12
Figure 10 Adequate Coordination among Departments and Divisions on Campus by Employee
Classification .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Table 8 Employee Perceptions of the Governance Process .................................................................. 14
Figure 11 Confidence in the RHC Administration by Employee Classification .............................. 14
Figure 12 Campus Decisions Consistent with College’s Goals and Mission ................................... 15
Table 9 Employee Perception of Governance ......................................................................................... 16
Figure 13 Sufficient Consultation about Important Decisions ............................................................. 17
Table 10 Employee Job Satisfaction and Campus Relationships ........................................................ 18
Figure 14 A Sense of Team Spirit Exists at RHC by Employee Classification ............................... 18
Table 11 Employee Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 15 Employee Opportunities for Advancement ........................................................................... 20
Figure 16 Working at RHC by Employee Classification ...................................................................... 20
STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE DATA ........................................................................................................... 21
Table 12 Student and Employee Perceptions of Campus Safety ......................................................... 21
Figure 17 Student and Employee Perceptions of Campus Safety ....................................................... 21
Table 13 Student and Employee Perceptions of Campus Safety in 2011 and 2012 ........................ 22
Figure 18 Employee and Student Feelings of Safety Walking on Campus at Night ....................... 22
Figure 19 Perceptions of Campus Appearance........................................................................................ 23
Figure 20 Campus Food and Drink Variety Options ............................................................................. 23
Summary of Open-Ended Comments............................................................................................................... 24
Students............................................................................................................................................................ 24
Employees ....................................................................................................................................................... 24
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 2
Background
Rio Hondo College administered a campus climate survey to students and employees from May 1 to
May 17, 2012. There were separate employee and student versions of the RHC Climate Survey.
The 2012 administration was the fourth time these survey instruments were utilized. The purpose of
this research project was to investigate the overall perceptions of the campus climate as reported by
students and employees. “Campus Climate” refers to the general atmosphere experienced by the
faculty, staff, and students.
Instrumentation
Both the RHC Student and the RHC Employee Climate Surveys were initially developed on campus
by the Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) Office in 2009. The format and structure of the
RHC Climate Surveys were modeled after consultation from example surveys from Cypress and San
Bernardino Valley Colleges. The 2012 survey instruments were not edited from the previous year’s
surveys by the IRP staff.
The survey covers the following topics: physical environment and safety, diversity and equity,
student academic needs, campus relationships, inclusion and campus life, governance (employees),
and communication with campus relationships (employees).
The Study & Context
The survey design was based on previous instruments adapted from 2010 to 2011. The IRP Office
collected and managed the survey data. Once data was collected, IRP prepared the initial data set
and a series of analyses for the campus at the beginning of June 2012.
This report highlights the findings from the 2012 Climate Survey Report. The purpose of the survey
was to understand the campus climate on several dimensions.
Demographics and Research Sample
The demographic composition of this survey is divided into the following categories: age, gender,
ethnicity, and years employed (for employees). At the time the Climate Survey was conducted, there
were 964 employees at Rio Hondo College: Administration/Confidential 39 (4%), Classified 252
(26.1%), Full Time Faculty 192 (19.9%), Part-Time Faculty 378 (39.2%), and Part-Time Hourly 103
(10.7%). A total of 421 employees completed the survey.
During Spring 2012 there were 17,118 students enrolled (unduplicated headcount). 899 sections
were eligible for the sample. Course sections were downloaded from ESS. Sections were
eliminated if they were cancelled, ending before May 1, without a date and time, not on the main
campus, or fewer than 8 students. A total of 673 students completed the survey. The total class
enrollment of the student survey sample was 1,164. The response rate from the student sample was
57.82%. Sections were randomly selected to participate in the Campus Climate Survey.
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 3
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
STUDENT DATA
The responses from the survey provide invaluable information about students’ experiences and
recommendations. A majority (73.3%) of student respondents attended Rio Hondo College for 2
years or less. Figure 1 contains the breakdown of respondents by years of attendance.
Figure 1 Rio Hondo College Years of Attendance
Figure 2 displays the age of students in the respondent pool. The majority of students who
participated in the survey were between 19 years or younger and 20 to 24 years of age (79.3%).
Figure 2 Student Respondents by Age
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 4
Figure 3 shows the gender of students in the respondent pool. The sample was equally distributed
between both male and female students.
Figure 3 Student Respondents by Gender
Figure 4 shows the ethnic background of students in the respondent pool. A majority of the survey
sample participants identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino students (77.4%).
Figure 4 Student Respondents by Ethnic Background
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 5
Table 1 shows the student ratings of diversity on campus. Student ratings from 2011 to 2012
remained about the same. The biggest difference appeared in the feelings of comfort taking classes
with people that are different from the students. The survey findings emphasize the satisfaction with
the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of RHC instructors and non-instructional staff.
Table 1 RHC Student Ratings of Diversity on Campus
RHC Student Ratings of Diversity on Campus
2012 Mean
2012 2011
Number Mean
2011
Number
2011 to 2012
Difference
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic
backgrounds of RHC instructors.
4.01
672
3.98
500
0.03
I am satisfied with the diversity of ethnic
backgrounds of RHC non-instructional
staff.
3.97
672
3.92
500
0.05
I am UNCOMFORTABLE taking classes
with people that are different than me.
1.56
671
1.74
501
-0.18
From RHC classes and activities, I have a
better understanding of people with
backgrounds different from mine.
3.67
671
3.69
500
-0.02
Figure 5 shows satisfaction with the quality of instruction and teaching by years of student’s
attendance. The years of attendance are consistent with satisfaction with the quality of instruction
and teaching.
Figure 5 Quality of Instruction By Years of Attendance
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 6
General student ratings of academic satisfaction have remained consistent (Table 2).
Table 2 Student Satisfaction Ratings
General Student Ratings of Academic Satisfaction
2012 Mean
I am satisfied with my academic
experiences at RHC.
I would recommend RHC to a friend.
I am satisfied with the quality of instruction
and teaching.
RHC helped me identify my career goals.
2012 2011 2011 to 2012
Number Mean Difference
4.17
670
4.16
0.01
4.21
670
4.23
-0.02
4.10
663
4.07
0.03
3.54
670
3.52
0.02
The student satisfaction with course offerings remained about the same from 2011 to 2012
(Table 3). Survey responses show that students are generally satisfied with instructors’ class
preparation, support for future success and responsive to students’ needs (Table 4). To summarize
campus relationships, students generally believe that instructors are “highly knowledgeable,”
“respectful,” “helpful,” and “easy to talk to” (Tables 3-5).
Table 3 Student Satisfaction with Course Offerings
Student Satisfaction with Course Offerings
I am satisfied with the variety of courses offered.
Courses I need are offered at times that are
convenient to my schedule.
Courses at RHC are preparing me to achieve my
educational goals.
2012 Climate Survey Report
2012
Mean
2012
Number
2011
Mean
2011 to 2012
Difference
3.79
667
3.73
0.06
3.52
664
3.57
-0.05
4.21
671
4.24
-0.03
Page 7
Table 4 Student Relationships with RHC Faculty
Student Relationships with RHC Faculty
RHC instructors come to class well prepared.
RHC instructors work hard to help students
suceed.
RHC instructors are sensitive the needs of all
students.
2012
Mean
2012
Number
2011
Mean
2011 to 2012
Difference
4.30
669
4.24
0.06
4.08
671
4.03
0.05
3.84
672
3.85
-0.01
Table 5 Student Relationships with Faculty and Staff
Student Relationships with RHC Faculty and Staff
2012
Mean
2012
Number
2011
Mean
2011 to 2012
Difference
It is easy to talk to instructors about
questions and concerns.
My instructors are highly knowledgeable.
4.10
670
4.08
0.02
4.34
672
4.28
0.06
RHC employees (non-instructors) have
treated me with respect.
3.96
670
3.88
0.08
RHC employees (non-instructors) have been
helpful.
3.93
670
3.82
0.11
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 8
Figure 6 Instructors’ Knowledge
Further analysis demonstrates that instructors are characterized as “highly knowledgeable” by all age
groups of students.
Students describe their relationships with their RHC peers in a positive and steady manner compared
in 2011 and 2012.
Table 6 Student Relationships with their RHC Peers
Student Relationships with RHC Peers
I have friends at RHC.
I like to talk to my classmates outside of
class.
I have met a lot of nice people on campus.
Other students have treated me
disrespectfully.
2012 Climate Survey Report
2012
Mean
2012
Number
2011
Mean
2011 to 2012
Difference
4.16
669
4.07
0.09
3.70
4.15
667
666
3.71
4.06
-0.01
0.09
1.95
664
2.09
-0.14
Page 9
EMPLOYEE DATA
Employees were randomly selected to participate in the Campus Climate Survey. 421 employees
completed the climate survey out of the 674 invited to participate (62.46% response rate). The
respondents’ median length of employment at RHC was 6 to 10 years.
Figure 7 Years Employed at RHC
More than half of the employee respondents identified themselves as female (54.9%). The two
largest ethnic groups were White Caucasian (39.2%) and Hispanic/Latino (33.1%).
Figure 8 Employees by Gender
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 10
Figure 9 Employees by Ethnic Background
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 11
Employees offered fairly high ratings on communication about events/decisions. Although showing
a substantial increase over 2011, the item scoring the lowest within the employee communication
section addressed “adequate coordination among departments and divisions on campus.”
Table 7 Ratings of Employee Communication
Employee Communication
2012
2012
Mean Number
2011
Mean
2011 to 2012
Change
I am informed about events/decisions in
my department/program.
3.82
417
3.81
0.01
I am informed about events/decisions in
my division/unit.
3.78
416
3.64
0.14
I am informed about events/decisions on
campus.
3.63
411
3.64
-0.01
My immediate supervisor does a good
job in communicating decisions to me.
3.89
403
3.81
0.08
My co-workers keep me informed of
campus events.
3.65
410
3.60
0.05
There is adequate coordination among
departments and divisions on campus.
3.00
377
2.66
0.34
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 12
Part Time Hourly and Part Time Faculty provided the highest ratings on “adequate coordination
among departments and divisions on campus.” Administrative Confidential employees provided the
same rating as the average (3.00). Classified, Full Time Faculty, and “Prefer not to say” offered
ratings that were lower than average.
Figure 10 Adequate Coordination among Departments and Divisions
on Campus by Employee Classification
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 13
Employees’ perceptions of the governance process showed decreases from 2011, but tended to be
near the mid-point of 3.00. Overall, the lowest rated item in employees’ general perceptions of the
governance process is the confidence in the effectiveness of the administration at RHC (Mean=2.72).
Table 8 Employee Perceptions of the Governance Process
RHC Employee General Perceptions of the Governance
Process
2012
2012
Mean Number
I have confidence in the effectiveness of
the administration at RHC.
I am optimistic about what can be
achieved through participatory
governance at RHC.
I am satisfied with the opportunity I have
to participate in the governance process.
The constituent groups on campus work
collaboratively towards the achievement
of college goals.
2011
Mean
2011 to 2012
Change
2.72
415
3.21
-0.49
3.21
362
3.30
-0.09
3.22
370
3.34
-0.12
3.27
322
3.39
-0.12
Figure 11 Confidence in the RHC Administration by Employee
Classification
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 14
Perceptions of the extent to which decisions made on campus are consistent with the college’s goals
and mission varied across employee classifications. Full Time Faculty scored this area the lowest.
Administration/Confidential scored this item the highest.
Figure 12 Campus Decisions Consistent with College’s Goals and
Mission
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 15
A notably low rating was for the sufficiency of consultation about important decisions, which
decreased markedly from 2011 to 2012. Similar decreases were seen in employee perceptions of
decisions being consistent with RHC’s goals and mission, and the weight given to students’ opinions
in matters of instructional importance.
Table 9 Employee Perception of Governance
RHC Employee Perception of Communication with the
Governance Process (Cont.)
2012
2012
Mean Number
My constituent group representative(s)
express the issues/concerns of my group
well.
My constituent group representative(s)
keep me informed of the proceedings and
recommendations of governance groups.
There is sufficient consultation about
important decisions.
Decisions made on campus are consistent
with the college's goals and mission.
The opinions of students are given
appropriate weight in matters of
instructional importance.
2012 Climate Survey Report
2011
Mean
2011 to 2012
Change
3.64
351
3.66
-0.02
3.64
359
3.58
0.06
2.77
340
3.03
-0.26
3.04
349
3.27
-0.23
2.96
315
3.21
-0.25
Page 16
Constituent groups provided different average ratings on the sufficiency of consultation about
important decisions. Part Time Hourly, Administration/Confidential, and Part Time Faculty rated
this category the highest. Full Time Faculty gave the lowest rating.
Figure 13 Sufficient Consultation about Important Decisions
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 17
Employees offered notably positive responses to items about job satisfaction and campus
relationships. These items received some of the highest ratings on the survey. Even the lowest-rated
item (“A sense of team spirit exists at RHC.”) was above the 3.00 mid-point. Responses to that item
varied by constituent group (Figure 14).
Table 10 Employee Job Satisfaction and Campus Relationships
Employee Job Satisfaction/Campus Relationships
2012
2012
2011
Mean Number
Mean
My supervisor treats people fairly and without
4.00
392
4.04
favoritism.
My supervisor acknowledges good work.
4.03
405
3.95
My supervisor encourages me to develop and
3.90
409
3.90
grow.
My supervisor is competent at doing his/her job.
4.21
406
4.18
My supervisor seeks and values my opinions and
3.82
409
3.80
ideas.
I enjoy the people I work with at RHC.
4.32
415
4.35
My co-workers are supportive.
4.13
414
4.17
My co-workers are competent at doing their job.
4.19
406
4.18
A sense of team spirit exists at RHC.
3.16
399
3.35
2011 to 2012
Change
-0.04
0.08
0.00
0.03
0.02
-0.03
-0.04
0.01
-0.19
Figure 14 A Sense of Team Spirit Exists at RHC by Employee
Classification
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 18
Additional items on employee satisfaction also received high ratings. “I like working at RHC”
received the highest rating (4.51) on the employee survey. The ratings for these items remained
relatively stable between 2011 and 2012.
Table 11 Employee Job Satisfaction
Employee Job Satisfaction
2012
2012
Mean Number
I feel pressure to accomplish too
many tasks and priorities.
I am satisfied with the opportunities
for advancement at RHC.
I receive feedback that my work
contributes to the overall success of
the college.
I have adequate supplies/equipment
necessary to complete my goals.
I am encouraged to be creative and
come up with new ideas and
improvements.
2011
Mean
2012 to
2011
Change
2.64
416
2.72
-0.08
3.05
418
3.23
-0.18
3.46
420
3.47
-0.01
3.69
417
3.80
-0.11
3.80
419
3.70
0.10
I am recognized for my good work.
3.63
421
3.67
-0.04
At this point in my career I feel my
present position satisfies my
professional goals and aspirations.
3.68
419
3.77
-0.09
My supervisor provides useful
feedback on my work performance.
3.90
419
4.00
-0.10
4.10
416
4.13
-0.03
4.23
414
4.23
0.00
4.40
418
4.32
0.08
4.47
421
4.41
0.06
4.51
421
4.53
-0.02
My job requires me to learn new
things.
My position allows me to make a lot
of independent decisions.
I get a feeling of personal satisfaction
from my work.
I know what is expected of me and
my job.
I like working at RHC.
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 19
Consituent groups were split in satisfaction with advancement opportuities at RHC.
Administration/Confidential, Full Time Faculty and Part Time Hourly gave ratings well above the
overall average (3.05). Part Time Faculty, Classified, and Prefer Not to Say were below.
Figure 15 Employee Opportunities for Advancement
For “I like working at RHC,” the highest ratings came from Part Time Hourly and Part Time
Faculty. Each constituent group provided an average rating above 4.00.
Figure 16 Working at RHC by Employee Classification
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 20
STUDENT AND EMPLOYEE DATA
Employees and students responded to similar items addressing the topics of safety on campus, the
appearance of the campus, and food/drink options on campus.
Employee and student perceptions of campus safety were generally similar. The larger differences
between the two reflected students’ lower perceptions of the safety of their cars.
Table 12 Student and Employee Perceptions of Campus Safety
Number
Student
Mean
Number
4.46
415
4.40
646
3.75
373
3.55
599
My car is safe when it is parked on
campus during the day.
3.78
413
3.50
615
My car is safe when it is parked on
campus at night.
3.42
366
3.06
580
I feel safe walking on campus
during the daytime.
I feel safe walking on campus at
night.
Employee
Mean
Figure 17 Student and Employee Perceptions of Campus Safety
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 21
In comparison to 2011, employees reported greater feelings of safety on campus, while student
ratings remained about the same.
Table 13 Student and Employee Perceptions of Campus Safety in 2011
and 2012
I feel safe walking on campus during
the daytime.
I feel safe walking on campus at night.
My car is safe when it is parked on
campus during the day.
My car is safe when it is parked on
campus at night.
Employees
2011
Mean
2012
Mean
2011-2012
Difference
Students
2011
Mean
4.37
4.46
0.09
4.35
4.4
0.05
3.51
3.75
0.24
3.49
3.55
0.06
3.47
3.78
0.31
3.47
3.50
0.03
3.04
3.42
0.38
3.04
3.06
0.02
2012 2011-2012
Mean Difference
Among both employees and students, males felt more comfortable than females walking on campus
at night.
Figure 18 Employee and Student Feelings of Safety Walking on
Campus at Night
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 22
The Spring 2012 semester brought changes in both campus appearance and food/drink services. By
January 2012, many campus improvement projects were complete and the new Student Services
Complex opened with a new food/drink vendor. Satisfaction with the appearance of the campus
increased for both employees and students.
Figure 19 Perceptions of Campus Appearance
Satisfaction ratings for food and drink options on campus slightly decreased for both employees and
students. While student ratings were above the 3.00 mid-point, employee ratings were below.
Figure 20 Campus Food and Drink Variety Options
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 23
Summary of Open-Ended Comments
Students
The student satisfaction survey revealed the following areas of focus:

Quality of instruction has helped students learn an adequate amount.

Instructors are considered “motivational.”

Satisfaction with improvement of campus appearance and beautification (more modern
landscape).

Satisfaction with food options (cleanliness and appearance of Rio Café).

Counselors are helpful to students.
The students’ responses also revealed areas for the college to improve practice:
 Improve the availability of classes.
 Dedicate professional development to improve teachers’ instruction.
 Increase exposure of registration and enrollment dates.
 Re-examine the availability of study tables in the library.
 Increase support for clubs and activities on campus.
 Improve food options (Campus Inn, breakfast burritos, and cost of food), vending machines
(accessible food in AJ buildings).
 Availability of parking options (security, polite staff, improve traffic, and parking space
size).
 Provide additional staff for financial aid processing.
 Need more time with counselors.
 Better communication between administrators and students regarding campus policies.
Employees
Employee responses revealed the following strengths:
 Sensitivity of team spirit with faculty.
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 24
 According to new employees, fairness of practices, morale, and campus atmosphere.
 Employees enjoy working with the student population.
 Cleanliness of campus, new buildings and landscape.
Opportunities to improve the workplace came in the form of questions related to the
availability of career advancement, recognition, and compensation.
Recommendations for focus:
 Receptivity of administration/faculty has been very unsettling.
 Overall confidence level with administration is low.
 Culture is not supportive.
 Availability of advancement opportunities for classified staff, part-time faculty; additional
connections to larger community.
 Security and parking on campus, prevention of car theft.
 Overall dissatisfaction with food options.
2012 Climate Survey Report
Page 25