A New Benchmark:
Successful Policies, Programs &
Practices for Supporting LGBT Students
Presenters
Shane L. Windmeyer, MS Ed.
Executive Director, Campus Pride
Sue Rankin, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Higher Education/College Student Affairs
Senior Research Associate, Center for the Study of Higher Education
Pennsylvania State University
Special Guest
Angela C. Nichols
Director - Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
The Q Research Institute
for Higher Education (QRIHE)
Founded in 2008 by Campus Pride, the Q Research Institute for
Higher Education (QRIHE pronounced - queery) is a national
center for the scholarly study of LGBT people in higher education.
The QRIHE’s primary purpose is to conceive, administer and
support national research for LGBT issues in higher education.
The QRIHE works to bring visibility and positive change
addressing the needs of LGBT people at colleges and universities.
The Research Director is Dr. Susan R. Rankin of The
Pennsylvania State University and Associate Research Director is
Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld of The Iowa State University.
Overview of National
Research & Findings
Campus as Social Systems
Campus Climate Defined
Climate Research
Value of Campus Climate on Enhancing Learning
Outcomes
LGBTQQ Campus Climate
Lack of Empirical Data
Lack of Generalizability
Campus as Social System
College campuses are complex social systems.
They are defined by the relationships between
faculty, staff, students, and alumni; bureaucratic
procedures embodied by institutional policies;
structural frameworks; institutional missions, visions,
and core values; institutional history and traditions;
and larger social contexts (Hurtado, Milem, ClaytonPederson, & Allen, 1998).
Campus Climate Defined
For the purposes of our work, campus climate is
defined as current attitudes, behaviors, and standards
and practices of employees and students of an
institution (Rankin & Reason, 2008).
Campus climate is operationalized through the:
 Personal experiences of people who are LGBTQQ on campus;
 Perceptions of people who are LGBTQQ and heterosexual
campus community members regarding the climate for people
who are LGBTQQ; and
 Institutional efforts to address the needs and concerns of
people who are LGBTQQ in the campus community
Climate Research
How students experience their campus environment
influences both learning and developmental
outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005).
Discriminatory environments have a negative effect
on student learning (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini,
Pascarella, & Hagedron, 1999; Feagin, Vera & Imani,
1996; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Value of Campus Climate on
Enhancing Learning Outcomes
Numerous studies and publications have confirmed the
pedagogical value of a diverse student body and faculty on
enhancing learning outcomes.
Selected research references include:
– Frank W. Hale, Jr. (2004). What Makes Racial Diversity Work in Higher
Education, Diversity Digest, Sterling, VA: Stylus.
– Harper, S.R., & Quaye, S.J. (2004). Taking seriously the evidence regarding
the effects of diversity on student learning in the college classroom: A call for
faculty accountability. UrbanEd, 2(2), 43-47.
– Harper, S.R. & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and
implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student
Services, 120, 7-24.
– Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy: Final
report to the U.S. Department of Education. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the
Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education.
LGBTQQ Campus Climate
Some studies have documented the perceptions of campus
quality of life for people who are LGBTQA and those who
work and study with them (Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, &
Robinson-Keilig, 2004; Evans & Broido, 2002; Garber, 2002;
Malaney, Williams, & Geller, 1997; Waldo, 1998).
Other studies have documented experiences of harassment
and violence (D’Augelli, 1992; Herek, 1993; Waldo, HessonMcInnis, & D’Augelli, 1998); related consequences of
harassment and violence (D’Augelli, 1992; Herek, 1994, 1995;
Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1995; Norris & Kaniasty, 1991; SavinWilliams & Cohen, 1996; Slater, 1993)
Still others examined the success of and best practices for
programs to improve campus climate (Draughn, Elkins, &
Roy, 2002; Little & Marx, 2002; Louvaas, Baroudi, & Collins,
2002; Sausa, 2002; Yep, 2002).
Lack of Empirical Data
Much of the academic writing about people who are
LGBTQA is not empirical, but, rather, takes the form
of advice or personal reflections based on lived
experiences; this is particularly true for minorities who
also identify with LGBTQA communities, such as
people with disabilities, transgender people, and
people of color (Draughn, Elkins, & Roy, 2002;
Ferguson & Howard-Hamilton 2000; Louvaas,
Baroudi, & Collins 2002; Schreier, 1995).
Lack of Generalizability
The few existing empirical studies generally include
small participant numbers, from 10 for the smallest
qualitative study, which only included lesbian and
bisexual women, to almost 2,000 for an extensive
study of one university, which included both
heterosexual and LGBTQA students (Stevens, 2004;
Waldo, 1998).
Further, none of these studies is national in scope;
most include one or two campuses and thus are
geographically non-generalizable.
Rankin Project, 2003
To address many of these limitations, a national
study to investigate the campus climate for people
who are LGBTQA was undertaken (Rankin, 2003).
This national study was the first to examine a full
range of experiences of campus life for people who
are LGBTQA.
The study included 1,669 respondents.
It was also the first to include a significant number of
People of Color (n=237) and people who are
transgender (n=67).
Rankin, 2003
Summary Findings
One-third of students and one-quarter of employees
in the sample reported having experienced some
form of harassment, and 11 respondents indicated
they had experienced physical violence enacted on
the basis of perceived or actual sexual orientation.
Other findings noted that both LGBTQA-identified
students and employees reported the overall campus
climate as homophobic and indicated that they hid
their sexual orientation to avoid discrimination and
harassment.
Rankin, 2003
Summary Findings
LGBTQ-identified students and employees reported that they
were uninformed about procedures for enacting institutional
responses and actions on their own behalf.
LGBTQ-identified students and employees were unaware of
rapid response systems intended to address anti-LGBTQ acts of
intolerance on their campus.
Very few respondents agreed that their colleges addressed
issues related to sexuality and gender identity.
Many felt there was a lack of visible leadership regarding
LGBTQ issues and concerns.
Respondents suggested that educational programming should
be more inclusive of LGBTQ issues and that LGBTQ content
should be integrated into the curriculum.
National LGBT College
Climate Survey
Campus Pride’s National LGBT College Climate Survey
is a comprehensive assessment to document bi-annually
the experiences of students, faculty, staff, and
administrators who identify as LGBT at America's
colleges and universities.
The survey examines emerging issues, trends and
changing demographics of LGBT people in higher
education.
National LGBT College
Climate Survey
The “Call for Participation” was extended to
undergraduate and graduate students, staff, faculty,
and administrators who identify as LGBT people to
participate in the National LGBT College Climate
Survey.
The project was approved by the Office of Research
Protections at The Pennsylvania State University
Research Allies
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF)
Consortium of Higher Education Lesbian Gay Bisexual
Transgender Resource Professionals (Consortium
American College Personnel Association (ACPA)
Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education
(NASPA)
Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
National Youth Advocacy Coalition (NYAC)
Why now?
Since 2000 significant increase in the number
of campuses with LGBTQ centers/advocacy
units
Since 2000 significant increase in the number
of campuses with more inclusive sexual
identity, gender identity, and gender
expression policies
One wonders…Has the climate changed with
increase of visibility/support?
Process to Date
May - December 2008
Survey tool development
Development of Communication Plan
IRB Proposal
February – June 2009
Survey administration
Process Forward
July – September 2009
Data Analysis
February 2010
Initial Results Reported
Survey Sections & Sample
Questions
Personal Experiences
Have you ever seriously considered leaving your
campus?
Have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g.,
shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile
conduct (harassing behavior) that has interfered with
your ability to work or learn on your campus?
Perceptions of Campus Climate
The climate of the classes I have taken is accepting of:
Women who are Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Queer; Men who
are Gay/Bisexual/Queer; People who are Gender
Variant
Survey Sections & Sample
Questions
Curricular Issues
My school’s general education requirements represent
the contributions of people who are LGBTQ.
Campus Responses
The University/College positively responds to incidents
of LGBTQQ harassment.
Demographic Information
Race/Gender Identity/Sexual Identity/Gender
Expression/Birth Sex/Disability Status/Institution/SES
Status/First Generation/Academic Major/Citizenship
Status/Spirituality Status/”Outness”/
Survey Limitations
Survey Limitations
 Self-selection bias
 Response rates
Method Limitations
 Data will not be reported for groups of fewer than
5 individuals so as not to compromise identity
The State of Higher
Education for LGBT People
Given the increase in LGBTQQ visibility
on college/university campuses in the
past 10 years and given the increase in
institutionalization of LGBTQQ
issues/concerns, what is the State of
Higher Education for LGBT People?
Questions..?
The LGBT-Friendly
Campus Climate Index
www.campusclimateindex.org
LGBT-Friendly
Campus Climate Index
Purpose of Index
The LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index is
a vital benchmarking tool for assisting campuses
in learning ways to improve their LGBT campus
life and ultimately shape the educational
experience to be safer, more LGBT-Friendly.
All campuses participating are acknowledged for
their active interest in LGBT issues and how to
make their campus more LGBT-Friendly.
LGBT-Friendly
Campus Climate Index
Philosophy
Every student has the right to a safe learning
environment where they can grow academically and
socially. As a result, campuses have the power and
responsibility to enact policies, programs and
practices that work to enhance the campus climate
for all students -- including LGBT and ally students.
Every campus has the choice to make campuses
safer, more LGBT-Friendly.
LGBT-Friendly
Campus Climate Index
Impact Goals
1. Set forth a national standard – a benchmark of
LGBT-Friendly campus policies, programs and
practices.
2. Offer an ongoing, effective measurement tool to
improve LGBT quality of campus life and assist
campuses in becoming more LGBT-Friendly.
3. Advocate nationally for further LGBT progress on
campus by highlighting positive efforts.
Testing (2001-present)
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Human Rights Campaign
National Consortium of Directors
of LGBT Resources in Higher Education
Individual Campuses/Higher Education
Professionals in the LGBT field of study.
Basic Overview of the Tool
The LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index
includes 50+ self-assessment questions in the
areas of eight different LGBT-Friendly factors, as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
LGBT Policy Inclusion
LGBT Support & Institutional Commitment
LGBT Student Life
LGBT Academic Life
LGBT Housing
LGBT Campus Safety
LGBT Counseling & Health
LGBT Recruitment and Retention Efforts.
Methodology
Questions were weighted in order to emphasize and
add value to specific LGBT components which
contribute to a safer, more LGBT-Friendly campus.
Certain weights were applied to compensate for
varying campus demographics (e.g. size, type of
institution, etc.).
All eight LGBT-Friendly factors receive the same
weight in the overall score. Significant testing and
analysis went into determining the weights for the
appropriate questions.
STAGE ONE: Self-Assessment
The Process for Campus Officials
Step One:
A campus official with responsibility for LGBT issues asks
and,or is invited to take the online assessment tool.
Step Two:
Appropriate campus official takes the 50+ item assessment
at his/her own pace, seeking the most accurate answers.
Step Three:
When finished and reviewed by campus official(s), the
assessment is submitted to Campus Pride.
Step Four:
Completed assessment is reviewed for errors, accuracy
and any questions. Then a confidential report is generated
for the campus official(s) highlighting all responses, scoring
as well as notable strengths, areas for improvement and
additional resources.
Note: Confidential report is only available to your
campus official(s); however, general data and scoring is
available for index purposes.
STAGE TWO: Public View
The Information Available
Search Function -Filter by Region, by Size of Institution,
by Index Score, by Size/Locale, and, or a
combination of all the above
Key Features -- Public Access Basic Profile
Basic profile listing campus region, city/state,
general size/description, type of institution, size,
and tuition.
Key Features -- Public Access Basic Profile
Basic profile listing “Need To Know” highlights
from campus responses in general areas of
policies, programs and practices.
Key Features -- Public Access Basic Profile
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (U ncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see t his picture.
My Bookbag allows each public user to add
campuses to an individual listing and then submit
personal contact information for future follow-up
by the campus. An automated email is sent to
campus official(s).
Key Features -- Premier Profile
Any campus has the opportunity to upgrade to an
annual premiere membership for a nominal fee.
In addition to the basic profile, the additional benefits
allow campuses to personalize information by adding
LGBT campus commitment, LGBT offerings, photos,
personal quotes, event highlights, student
organizations, campus resources, admissions office,
etc. In addition, these campuses have the “Premier”
logo beside name.
Special Guest
Angela C. Nichols
Director - Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
Limitations
The LGBT-Friendly Campus Climate Index is NOT a
replacement or substitute for campus climate
research which looks more holistically at campus
attitudes/perceptions of LGBT campus life.
The index is one means of measuring LGBT-Friendly
policies, programs and practices and will lay the
foundation for a national standard for campuses
across the United States.
Copyright 2006-07. Campus Pride.
By penalty of law, not for reprint or duplication. All rights reserved.
2008 Participation
188 colleges & universities since launch in
September 2007 (16 months in operation)
Participation Breakdown
181 colleges & universities (online)
7 colleges & universities (opt out)
60 colleges & universities (incomplete)
2008 Site Usage
Web Traffic:
• 43,000 avg hits per month
• 4 avg page views per visit
• most frequent pages – homepage, search, events
• Google Adwords -- avg 38,000 impressions per day
Referrals:
• 1670 referrals (generated emails)
• Max. 3 in 10 frequency per month
2008 Geographic
Representations
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
New England
South
Southwest
West
n=35
n=64
n=32
n=37
n=09
n=37
18.6%
34.0%
17.0%
19.7%
4.79%
19.7%
Note: 41 States Represented
2008 Institutional Type
Demographic Data
Public 4 Year Colleges & Universities
n=111
59.0%
Private 4 Year Colleges & Universities
n=66
35.1%
Community Colleges
n=11
5.85%
2008 Institutional Size
Demographic Data
Under 2500
n=34
18.1%
2501 to 10,000
n=52
27.7%
10,001 to 15,000
n=28
14.9%
15,0001 to 25,000 n=36
19.1%
25,000 and above n=38
20.2%
2008 Observations
based on Overall, SO, GI/GE
Responses
Majority (106 total) of participating colleges
have above 60% score overall responses.
131 participating colleges score above 60%
on SO areas of concentration compared with
only 77 participating colleges which score
above 60% on GI/GE responses -- 58.8%
variance SO vs. GI/GE inclusion efforts.
2008 Academic Life
LGBT studies program
LGBT specific course offerings
Gender-neutral/single occupancy restroom facilities in academic
settings
New faculty/staff training opportunities on sexual orientation issues
New faculty/staff training opportunities on gender identity/expression
issues
2008 Observations
based on Academic Life
Responses
Majority (102 total) of participating colleges
have above 60% score on Academic Life
Noted Areas for Improvement:
Increase in faculty training on inclusion of LGBT course
materials and sensitivity for SO & GI/GE issues
2008 Student Life
Student organization for LGBT & Ally students
Resource center/office with responsibilities for LGBT students
Paid staff with responsibilites for LGBT & Ally support services
Ally program or Safe Space/Safe Zone
Regularly plans LGBT social activities
Regulary plans educational events on sexual orientation issues
Regularly plans educational events on transgender issues
2008 Observations
based on Student Life
Responses
Majority (160 total) of participating colleges
have above 60% score on Student Life
responses
Strongest area of LGBT responses
Noted Areas for Improvement:
Discrepancy between SO and GI/GE; Increase transgender
services and awareness
2008 Policies & Practice
Non-discrimination statement inclusive of sexual orientation
Non-discrimination statement inclusive of gender identity/expression
Health insurance coverage to employees' same sex partner
Accessible, simple process for students to change their name and
gender identity on university records and documents
Standing advisory committee that deals with LGBT issues
2008 Observations
based on Policies & Practices
Responses
Less than a majority (84 total) of participating
colleges have above 60% score on policies
and practices responses
Noted Areas for Improvement:
Need for GI/GE inclusive policies and practices; Need for
State Govt. to address areas of health benefits
2008 Campus Safety
Procedure for reporting LGBT related bias incidents and hate crimes
Campus public safety office does outreach to LGBT people and meet
with LGBT student leaders/organizations
Trains campus police on sexual orientation issues
Trains campus police on gender identity/expression issues
2008 Observations
based on Campus Safety
Responses
Half (94 total) of participating colleges
have above 60% score on campus safety
responses
Noted Areas for Improvement:
Formation of BIRTs as methods of prevention; Increased
campus police training for SO & GI/GE anti-violence;
Outreach to LGBT student populations
2008 Housing &
Residence Life
LGBT housing options/themes
Transgender student option to be housed in keeping with their gender
identity/expression
Gender-neutral/single occupancy restroom facilities in campus
housing
Trains residence life and housing staff at all levels on LGBT issues
and concerns
2008 Observations
based on Housing & Res Life
Responses
Less than a majority (65 total) of participating
colleges have above 60% score on housing
and residence life responses
Noted Areas for Improvement:
Greater housing choices for LGBT students to be safe,
comfortable; Fair, equitable treatment for LGBT housing
staff; Increased inclusion for housing services/options for
Trans concerns
2008 Counseling
& Health Services
LGBT inclusive counseling/support groups
LGBT inclusive health services/testing
Training for health-center staff to increase their sensitivity to the
special health care needs of LGBT individuals
Insurance coverage for students transitioning from M to F and F to M
to cover hormone replacement therapy
2008 Observations
based on Counseling &
Health Services Responses
Majority (159 total) of participating colleges
have above 60% score on counseling &
health services responses
Noted Areas for Improvement:
Inclusive trans health and counseling practices; Trans
supportive insurance policies
2008 Recruitment &
Retention Efforts
LGBT mentoring program to welcome and assist LGBT students in
transitioning to academic and college life
LGBT and Ally student scholarships
Active LGBT alumni group
Special Lavender or Rainbow Graduation ceremony for LGBT
students and allies
Actively participates in LGBT admission fairs
2008 Observations
based on Recruitment &
Retention Effort Responses
Less than a majority (66 total) of participating
colleges have above 60% score on recruitment
and retention effort responses
Noted Areas for Improvement:
Understanding the importance of R&R efforts; Need for
mentor programs to support LGBT student experience,
Increased direct LGBT recruitment activities
2008 Observations
based on LGBT-Friendly
Factors
Overall Observations
Benchmark data supports further LGBT efforts
Greater Inclusion of Gender Identity/Expression
Highest Scoring Areas:
Student Life
Health & Counseling Services
Lowest Scoring Areas:
Housing & Res Life
Recruitment & Retention Efforts
Questions..?
THANK YOU!
Shane L. Windmeyer, MS, Ed.
info@shanewindmeyer.com
Sue Rankin, Ph.D.
sxr2@psu.edu
THANK YOU!
We appreciate your support of Campus Pride.
More information go online to www.campuspride.org.