Equity Point Person Pilot (2010-2011) Evaluation
Prepared by the Las Positas College Office of Institutional Research and Planning, Spring 2011
Executive Summary
The EPP is a practice with promise for LPC and possibly for other organizations. Survey data (while
limited) and observations lead to the conclusion that this pilot was moderately successful and the
practice can be made more effective with certain modifications. At the very least it did introduce
reflection and dialogue about equity and inclusion where they might not otherwise have happened. I
believe that over time and with the proper support this practice can increase the amount and quality
of dialogue around issues of equity and inclusion.
This exercise is worth trying for a 2nd year. Expanding to more committees is advisable. Assign the
EPP duty to someone who is well versed in issues of equity and inclusion, comfortably with the role,
and able to initiate and sustain dialogue. Continue conducting the survey of committees annually.
Have one person from CCN become the lead to coordinate communication among EPP. Put EPP as
monthly CNN agenda item.
Background
The Equity Point Person Pilot was initiated by the Campus Change Network for the 2010-2011 academic
year. In Spring 2010 the CCN worked with the College Council and several committee representatives to
select pilot committees for the “Equity Point Person (EPP)”. The committees selected were:
Administrative Council (AC), Planning and Budget Committee (PBC), Faculties Committee (FC), and the
College Council (CC). Each pilot committee selected an “Equity point person” out of its existing
membership for the 2010-2011 academic year. This was not a new person on the committee nor did the
EPP need to be on the Campus Change Network. In fact, the point people were purposely chosen from
those without an affiliation with the CCN. It was thought that this would be an opportunity to develop
new leadership and expertise in the area of equity.
Rather than “policing” committee decisions and discussions the EPP’s role was to provide committees
with an opportunity to consider decisions and processes through an inclusion lens. At the end of each
meeting the EPP would lead the committee’s reflection on the following questions: 1) Are there any
equity/access issues impacted by the decisions we have made?, 2) Has the meeting/process been equitable
for all committee members/constituencies, 3) Are there issues we would like assistance with from the
CCN?
One of the goals of the Campus Change Network has been to institutionalize equity and inclusion efforts
and ensure that our decisions as well as processes are equitable. This work does not happen in one office
or one committee; it’s the responsibility of everyone to further this work in the many forms it takes.
Decision making, resource allocation and determination of policies and processes are embedded in our
Committees. Committees should make a conscious effort to ensure that the decisions it makes and
processes it uses do not have a negative impact on equity and inclusion. The CNN hoped this approach
would increase awareness of and expertise in recognizing and addressing issues of equity and inclusion in
all of the decision-making processes in the College.
Implementation
Not all pilot committees fully participated. Administrative Council and PBC did the reflection all
meetings. Facilities Committee did not meet regularly and when it did the EPP was not completed.
The College Council never selected an EPP and did not do the reflections. In this way the Facilitates
Committee and College Council service as control groups.
The CCN planned to have periodic communication with the EPP throughout the year to get feedback
and possibly brainstorm topics that might come up in meetings as well as ways to probe committee
dialogue. However, due to low staffing levels, the Office of Research and Planning was not able to
follow through. One mid-year memo did go out to EPP and Committee chairs (see attachment #3) to
remind them of the process and to ensure this reflection was on each agenda. This lack of follow-up
may have had an effect on the ultimate effectiveness of the pilot especially considering people who
were not specially trained in equity issues were chosen.
Survey Data:
Survey data was collected from committee members in Spring 2010 (Benchmark) and again in
Spring 2011 (Follow-up). Committees tend to have memberships of 12-17 people. Responses of the
benchmark survey were roughly 75% of committee membership. Responses from the Follow-up
survey was about 25% of membership. Small sample sizes and the low response rate for the Followup survey are limitations of the survey.
Committee members were asked to complete the following survey:
Based on your definitions of equity, access, and social justice, how often did the following things
occur over the course of the academic year?
1) Issues of equity/access were discussed in the committee as they relate to committee business.
2) Committee work consciously furthered the college’s goal to serve a diverse college community by
maintaining and expanding an environment of accessibility, equity, and social justice.
3) The committee functioned in an inclusive/equitable manner and all voices were given fair and
equitable input.
4) Committee members appeared to be conscious of the potential ramifications of their actions on
equity/access for students and employees.
Response fields were: Always = 5, Often = 4, Occasionally = 3, Rarely = 2, Never =1. Composite
scores for each committee were created by creating a scale of all four questions and dividing by the
number of responses so that each committee has one score. Table 1 shows benchmarks and followup scores for each committee. AC, PBC show an increase while the control groups do not. It might
be the case that the monthly reflection exercise did increase the perception that issues of equity and
inclusion were considered as well as meetings were conducted more equitably. Of course, with such
small sample sizes, poor response rates, and lack of control variables, there are many other possible
explanations for the data.
Equity Point Person: Composite Scores Comparisons
20.00
19.00
18.00
17.00
16.00
16.25
16.00
15.17
15.00
14.90
15.00
14.17
14.33
14.20
Baseline
Follow-up
14.00
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
Baseline
Follow-up
Administrators
Baseline
Follow-up
PBC
Baseline
Follow-up
Facilities
College Council
Observations
Another source of evaluative information comes from observations of CCN members. In
discussions with CCN members who have attended meetings of the pilot groups, there is a general
agreement that, at times, the exercise was not taken seriously. There is general agreement that over
time the exercise can become rote. While there were occasions that dialogue did happen, more often
than not, it was the CCN members who began and sustained the dialogue.
At THE beginning of pilot the CCN did receive some critical feedback about the exercise. These
written comments presented concerns over the validity, motives, and logistics of the reflections.
There seemed to be some push-back about the need for the exercise and the CCN inserting itself into
committee business. There was also concern expressed over confidentiality. Additionally, there was
feedback given that instead of a reflection, the CCN should ask that before each meeting a statement
be read about equity and inclusion. While there were not more than 2-3 communications sent to the
CNN it should be noted that this pilot did cause a few people concern and these written commentS
might represent a boarder sentiment of concern.
Limitations:
This evaluation is not meant to be a statistically-sound study. It is a quick and dirty look back at the
pilot to determine if there is enough evidence to continue the exercise and what changes can be made
to improve the project. Small samples, non-representative committees, low response rates, lack of
control variables, and the bias of the CCN members are all factors that limit this evaluation. I make
the following recommendations in light of these limitations.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The EPP is a practice with promise for LPC and possibly for other organizations. The reflections did
result in dialogue however, it did not seem to result in dialogue among people not already predisposed to care about and discuss issues OF equity and inclusion. At the very least it did introduce
reflection and dialogue about equity and inclusion where they might not otherwise have happened in
committees that might not have otherwise had them. I believe that over time and with the proper
support this practice can increase the amount and quality of dialogue around issues of equity and
inclusion.
Recommendations:
1) The EPP’s need to be someone familiar with equity/inclusion issues and comfortable in role. The
person needs to be able to bring the reflection to life and create a space for dialogue.
2) Provide training and ongoing support to EPP’s. This could take the form of being an agenda item
at each CCN meeting, posting to the web-site, monthly special topics and opportunities for EPP
dialogue about challenges/ best practices. They can also provide feedback to the CNN for areas of
concern across campus.
3) The role of the EPP needs to change to meet the changing needs and expertise of committees or
the campus. At times it might need to be a highly-scripted activity with many prompts for dialogue.
Other times, when committees gain more expertise, it can be less formal.
4) It might be a good idea to introduce special topics in addition to the 3 reflection questions to keep
the reflection from becoming a rote activity. For example, committees might be asked to consider
the potential equity ramifications of raising fees or adding pre-requisites.
5) There is a critical need to communicate the purpose, intent, and confidentially of the exercise to
the campus community. This exercise can be viewed with suspicion. Clear and consistent messaging
is important.
6) Stress the confidential nature of these reflections. Create a safe environment where people can
talk. Do not take minutes during the reflections. EEP’s should simply note if there was dialogue and
the nature of the dialogue to share with the CNN and other EPP’s.
7) Find a way to evaluate effectiveness in a manner that does not compromise confidentiality. While
the survey is advisable, we should also find ways to evaluate the exercise qualitatively without
compromising confidentiality.
8) This exercise is worth trying for a 2nd year. Expanding to more committees is advisable. Continue
conducting the survey of committee annually. Have one person from CCN become the lead to
coordinate communication among EPP.
9) Put EPP as monthly CNN agenda item.
ATTACHMENT #1: MEMO FROM CCN TO COLLEGE COUNCIL
Campus Change Network
Memo
To:
College Council
From:
Campus Change Network
CC:
Equity Point Person on Committees
Date:
February 17, 2010
Re:
Modifying Committee Structure to Include an Inclusion Position
One of the goals of the Campus Change Network has been to institutionalize equity and inclusion efforts
and ensure that our decisions as well as processes are equitable. This work does not happen in one office
or one committee; it’s the responsibility of everyone to further this work in the many forms it takes. Decision
making, resource allocation and determination of policies and processes are embedded in our Committees.
Committees should make a conscious effort to ensure that the decisions it makes and processes it uses do
not have a negative impact on equity and inclusion.
At this time we are bringing this forth as an FYI item and will bring a more formal proposal to the College
Council in April. We plan to propose that each committee appoint an “Inclusion point person” out of its
existing membership. This would not be a new person on the committee. Rather than “policing” committee
decisions and discussions this person’s role would be to provide committees with an opportunity to consider
decisions and processes through an inclusion lens.
This person would help the committee reflect at each meeting 1) Are there any equity/access issues
impacted by the decisions we have made?, 2) Has the meeting/process been equitable for all committee
members/constituencies, 3) Are there issues we would like assistance with/from the CCN?
This person does not need to be on the Campus Change Network. The CCN will provide support to and
garner feedback from each Inclusion Point Person. This would be a pilot project for the Fall 2010-Spring
2011 academic year, with evaluation occurring Summer 2011. This is a timely endeavor as there are
substantial opportunities of overlap with other campus initiatives such as new Staff Development initiatives,
the on-going re-articulation of Participatory Governance (committee charge), and the seminars on dialogue.
Please share this information item with your constituents so this proposal can be discussed at the next
College Council meeting. If you have feedback please contact Amber Machamer as we would like to
include it in our formal proposal in April.
Thank you for your consideration and guidance as we increase diversity, equity and inclusion through
dialogue, reflection and action.
ATTACHMENT #2: CCN MEMO TO COMMITTEES
Campus Change Network
Memo
To:
Planning and Budget Committee, Student Senate, Facilities Committee, College Council,
Administrators Council
From:
Campus Change Network
CC:
Equity Point Person on Committees
Date:
August 30, 2010
Re:
Equity Point Person
One of the goals of the Campus Change Network has been to institutionalize equity and inclusion efforts
and ensure that our decisions as well as processes are equitable. This work does not happen in one office
or one committee; it’s the responsibility of everyone to further this work in the many forms it takes. Decision
making, resource allocation and determination of policies and processes are embedded in our Committees.
Committees should make a conscious effort to ensure that the decisions it makes and processes it uses do
not have a negative impact on equity and inclusion.
In Spring 2010 the CCN worked with the College Council and several committee representatives to select
pilot committees for the “Equity Point Person”.. Each pilot committee is to appoint an “Equity point
person” out of its existing membership for the 2010-2011 academic year This would not be a new
person on the committee. This person does not need to be on the Campus Change Network. The CCN
will provide support to and garner feedback from each Equity Point Person. This would be a pilot project for
the Fall 2010-Spring 2011 academic year, with evaluation occurring Spring/Summer 2011.
Rather than “policing” committee decisions and discussions this person’s role would be to provide
committees with an opportunity to consider decisions and processes through an inclusion lens. This
person would help the committee reflect at each meeting 1) Are there any equity/access issues impacted
by the decisions we have made?, 2) Has the meeting/process been equitable for all committee
members/constituencies, 3) Are there issues we would like assistance with/from the CCN?
Please share this information with the committee and select the point person at your first meeting. Please
notify Amber Machamer of the appointee. If you have questions or feedback, please contact Amber
Machamer.
Thank you for your consideration and guidance as we increase diversity, equity and inclusion through
dialogue, reflection and action.
ATTACHMENT #3: MID-YEAR MEMO TO COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND EPP’S
Campus Change Network
Memo
To:
Bob Kratochvil, Cindy Rosefield, Ronald Johansen, Rajwant Singh
From:
Campus Change Network
CC:
Guy Lease, Jennifer Adams, Renee Pegues, Cynthia Ross
Date:
January 28, 2011
Re:
Mid-year Check-in for Equity Point Person Pilot
The academic year is a little more than half over as is our Equity Point Person Pilot activity. Over the past few
months we have received feedback as we are sure you have as well. We’d like to take this opportunity to check in
with you about your experiences, re-confirm the goals of this project, as well as do some mid-year fine tuning to the
pilot.
As the Equity Point person, you have been asking the committee the following three questions and facilitating
reflection and dialogue:
1) Are there any equity/access issues impacted by the decisions we have made?
2) Has the meeting/process been equitable for all committee members/constituencies?
3) Are there issues we would like assistance with/from the CCN?
We hope that this has not become a rote exercise. The goal of these questions is to facilitate reflection and dialogue.
As such, you may be called upon to prompt dialogue by asking follow-up questions or offering examples.
To measure the effectiveness of the pilot we are using the following KPI’s that will be measured by surveying you
and your committee members. Please share these with the committee.
How often did the following occur over the course of the 2010-2011 academic year?
1) Issues of equity/access were discussed in the committee as they relate to committee business.
2) Committee work consciously furthered the college’s goal to serve a diverse college community by
maintaining and expanding an environment of accessibility, equity, and social justice.
3) The committee functioned in an inclusive/equitable manner and all voices were given fair and
equitable input.
4) Committee members appeared to be conscious of the potential ramifications of their actions on
equity/access for students and employees.
In response to feedback we have received about the pilot we are suggesting the following:
1) Please make sure that this activity is placed on each meeting agenda and time is devoted to it.
2) When going over the agenda at beginning of the meeting the Chair uses this as an opportunity to set the
tone of the meeting towards an equity/inclusion perspective by pointing out the agenda item and purpose of
the activity.
3) You need not wait until the end to address equity issues. If an issue arises that needs some
consideration, please bring it up at that time if you feel it’s appropriate. This can be a simple as asking: “Can
we take a moment and consider what the equity/inclusion impacts might be?”
4) Go through questions at the end. Offer prompts to promote dialogue. Hopefully, by now, your committee
members have been using an equity/inclusion lens and won’t need much prompting.
5) Periodic contact with a CCN member to give us feedback about your experiences so we can evaluate
the pilot. We do not want transcripts; just some feedback from you about how it is being received, do you
get blank stares or is there dialogue and how we can improve this process. A member of the CCN will be
contacting you this semester to check in and get feedback from you so you can guide the evaluating and
evolution of this project.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact Amber Machamer (X1027)
ATTACHMENT #4 BASELINE SURVEY
Introduction:
Last year, your committee agreed to part of a pilot project designed to increase equity and inclusion
at LPC by assigning one committee member to be the Equity Point Person. We are collecting
baseline data to evaluate the effectiveness of the “Equity Point Person Initiative”. As a past member
of the (insert committee name here) please answer the following questions. All responses are
anonymous; your response will be linked only to the committee listed above and used in aggregate.
Please restrict your answers to the work of committee listed above. If you were on multiple
committees you may be asked to answer this survey more than once. You will be asked to complete
a survey for each of the target committees you served on.
If you have any question or concerns please contact Amber Machamer (925) 424-1027.
Thank you for your cooperation.
___________________________________________________________________
Response fields: Always, Often, Occasionally, Rarely, Never
Based on your definitions of equity, access, and social justice, how often did the following things
occur over the course of the 2009-2010 academic year?
1) Issues of equity/access were discussed in the committee as they relate to committee business.
2) Committee work consciously furthered the college’s goal to serve a diverse college community by
maintaining and expanding an environment of accessibility, equity, and social justice.
3) The committee functioned in an inclusive/equitable manner and all voices were given fair and
equitable input.
4) Committee members appeared to be conscious of the potential ramifications of their actions on
equity/access for students and employees.
________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT #5: FOLLOW-UP SURVEY
Introduction:
Last year, your committee agreed to part of a pilot project designed to increase equity and inclusion
at LPC by assigning one committee member to be the Equity Point Person. We are collecting data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the “Equity Point Person Initiative”. As a past member of the (PBC,
Facilities, Administrators insert committee name here) please answer the following questions. All
responses are anonymous; your response will be linked only to the committee listed above and used
in aggregate. Please restrict your answers to the work of committee listed above. If you were on
multiple committees you may be asked to answer this survey more than once. You will be asked to
complete a survey for each of the target committees you served on.
If you have any question or concerns please contact Amber Machamer (925) 424-1027.
Thank you for your cooperation
________________________________________________________________________________
Alternative instructions for College Council
Introduction:
Last year, 3 committees agreed to part of a pilot project designed to increase equity and inclusion at
LPC by assigning one committee member to be the Equity Point Person. We are collecting data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the “Equity Point Person Initiative”. As a past member of the College
Council, you did not directly participate in the initiative but your responses to these short questions
will help us evaluate it’s effectiveness. Please answer the following questions. All responses are
anonymous; your response will be linked only to the committee listed above and used in aggregate.
Please restrict your answers to the work of committee listed above. If you were on multiple
committees you may be asked to answer this survey more than once. You will be asked to complete
a survey for each of the target committees you served on.
If you have any question or concerns please contact Amber Machamer (925) 424-1027.
Thank you for your cooperation.
___________________________________________________________________
Response fields: Always, Often, Occasionally, Rarely, Never
Based on your definitions of equity, access, and social justice, how often did the following things
occur over the course of the 2010-2011 academic year?
1) Issues of equity/access were discussed in the committee as they relate to committee business.
2) Committee work consciously furthered the college’s goal to serve a diverse college community by
maintaining and expanding an environment of accessibility, equity, and social justice.
3) The committee functioned in an inclusive/equitable manner and all voices were given fair and
equitable input.
4) Committee members appeared to be conscious of the potential ramifications of their actions on
equity/access for students and employees.