YSU CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY REPORT STAFF

Transcription

1 YSU CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEY REPORT STAFF June 11,

2 The Staff Campus Climate Survey measured staff members views of and experiences with the YSU campus climate. The survey questionnaire included both open-ended and closeended questions. The close-ended questions were designed to address nine aspects of the campus climate: (1) Work Environment; (2) Campus Climate for Diversity; (3) Support; (4) Safety and Facilities; (5) Service; (6) Performance Appraisal; (7) Professional Development and Training; (8) University Strategic Plan and Important Documents; and (9) Overall Experience and Comments. Demographic questions were collected for statistical analysis of the research findings. The findings generated from the open-ended questions will be reported separately. This report presents the survey results in three parts. Part One: A Summary of Responses to the Survey Questions. This part is a presentation of frequency distribution and percentages of answers to all survey questions. For convenience of reading, the five-point scale (1 = Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Agree) was reduced to three by combining responses of Agree and Agree into one category, Neutral (unchanged), and Disagree and Disagree as one category. Unable to Evaluate or Does t Apply were treated as missing values. Staff members responses to the survey questions were organized following the sequence of the questionnaire. Finally, positive (and, in some cases, negative) responses are displayed in rank orders to identify areas whereby most staff members either agreed or d. Part Two: Demographic Data and Staff Responses to Survey Questions A reliability test was performed to test to what extent survey questions reliably measured the nine aspects of Campus Climate. All categories except Professional Development and Training (alpha =.670) achieved a high level of reliability (alpha >.7000, see Appendix). The mean scores of responses were computed and formed index variables representing the eight aspects concerning YSU s campus climate. These index variables were then used to study if any of the demographic variables (Staff Rank, University Division, Years of Service, Prior Full-time Position, Application for Another Position in the past three years, Gender, or Race/Ethnic Identity) might have affected staff members responses to the survey questions. The only category for which an index variable could not be formed was Campus Climate for Diversity (Section 2). This section of the survey was discussed in Part One of this report. Part Three: Factors that Influenced Staff s Overall Experience with Campus Climate In this section, staff members Overall Experience with Campus Climate was examined to explore areas that may have relatively important effects on staff members overall experience with the University. Following the findings is a brief discussion of ways in which YSU s campus climate could be improved. 2

3 PART ONE A SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS 3

4 1. WORK ENVIRONMENT This section discusses issues concerning YSU s campus Work Environment. Table 1-1 shows the frequency distribution of staff members responses to nine survey questions on Work Environment. Table 1-2 is a rank-order of positive responses to these questions. Staff members gave positive responses to questions concerning their immediate work environment. The positive responses included staff members ability to voice concerns to their supervisors (77.5) and providing input on work-related issues (72.4). Negative answers to these questions were less than 17. Most staff members (63.1) d or strongly d that campus morale was positive, 62.8 felt insufficient involvement in campus decision-making, and 56.8 felt institutional procedures were streamlined. Finally, whereas about 48 of staff members agreed or strongly agreed that campus work relationship was positive, 63 d or strongly d that campus morale was positive. Table 1-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Work Environment Agree or Agree Neutral Disagree or Disagree Missing Cases (not counted) N 1) I am sufficiently involved in campus decision-making ) I am sufficiently involved in decision-making within my work unit 3) I am kept well-informed of University policies ) I am kept well-informed of matters important to my position ) In general, campus work relationships are positive ) In general, campus morale is positive ) Institutional procedures are streamlined to make it easy for me to do my job 8) My supervisor values my input on work-related issues ) I feel free to voice my concerns to my supervisor Table 1-2: Rank Order of Positive Responses to Questions Concerning Work Environment Survey Questions Agree or Somewhat Agree 1) I feel free to voice my concerns to my supervisor ) My supervisor values my input on work-related issues ) I am sufficiently involved in decision-making within my work unit ) I am kept well-informed of matters important to my position ) I am kept well-informed of University policies ) In general, campus work relationships are positive ) In general, campus morale is positive ) Institutional procedures are streamlined to make it easy for me to do my job ) I am sufficiently involved in campus decision-making

5 2. CAMPUS CLIMATE FOR DIVERSITY Section 2 addressed issues concerning Campus Climate for Diversity. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show the rank-order of the frequency distribution of staff members responses to questions concerning experience with and observation of Campus Climate for Diversity. Whereas the majority ( ) of staff members did not experience or observe discrimination at work because of gender, race, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin, there was a noticeable difference between opinions based on observation and experience (please see table 2-3); the negative responses based on observation on all issues exceeded that based on experience, and these differences were statistically significant on gender, age, disability, national origin, and sexual orientation. Table 2-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Campus Climate for Diversity (Personal Experience) I have personally experience discrimination at work because of my 1) Gender ) Race ) Age ) Religion ) Disability ) Sexual Orientation ) National Origin Table 2-2: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Campus Climate for Diversity (Observation) I have observed at YSU against others based upon 1) Gender ) Race ) Age ) Religion ) Disability ) Sexual Orientation ) National Origin

6 Table 2-3: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Campus Climate for Diversity: A Comparison between Personal Experience and Observation (Paired Sample T Test) Discrimination experience/observed based on Experienced Observed Mean Sig 0 = 1 = 1) Gender /.18 P<.01 2) Age /.15 P<.001 3) Race /.11 P>.05 4) Religion /.04 P>.05 5) Disability /.06 P<.01 6) National Origin /.07 P<.001 7) Sexual Orientation /.05 P<.01 6

7 3. Support Section 3 addressed issues of Support that staff members received at work. As Table 3-2 shows, the most positive responses (75.3) and lease negative responses (11.6) were in relation to support from an immediate supervisor. On the negative side, the highest percentage of ment was support received from a divisional vice president (34.9) or HR (34.0) as well as support submitting and administration of external funding (33.0 and 31.8 respectively). Table 3-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Support During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree Neutral Disagree or Disagree Missing Cases (not counted) N 1) Divisional Vice President ) Executive Director ) Immediate Supervisor ) Human Resources (HR) ) Payroll ) I received adequate support for submitting a proposal for external funding 7) I received adequate support for the administration of external funded projects Table 3-2: Rank Order of Positive and Negative Responses Concerning Support During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Disagree or Disagree 1) Immediate Supervisor ) Divisional Vice President ) Payroll ) Human Resources (HR) ) Human Resources (HR) ) Proposal for external funding ) Executive Director ) Administration of external 31.8 funded projects 5) Divisional Vice President ) Executive Director ) Proposal for external funding ) Payroll ) Administration of external funded projects ) Immediate Supervisor

8 4. Safety and Facilities Section 4 addressed issues of campus Safety and Facilities. As shown in Table 4-2, most staff members found YSU to be a safe place to work (73.5 agreed or strongly agreed, and 6.3 d or strongly d). Concerning technology, about 63 of staff members reported technology in their offices was sufficient to accomplish their job, but only 47 of staff members felt technology used at YSU was sufficient. Table 4-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Safety and Facilities During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree Neutral Disagree or Disagree Missing Cases (not counted) N 1) I am prepared to respond to emergency situations on campus 2) I received sufficient support to respond to disruptive situations (discipline, interpersonal, verbal/physical violence, etc.) in my work environment 3) YSU is a safe place to work ) Technology in my office is sufficient to accomplish my job 5) Technology used at YSU (e.g. Office 365, Web Time Entry, Banner) has improved efficiency in my work Table 4-2: Rank Order of Positive Responses Concerning Safety and Facilities During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree 1) YSU is a safe place to work ) I am prepared to respond to emergency situations on campus ) Technology in my office is sufficient to accomplish my job ) I received sufficient support to respond to disruptive situations 51.4 (discipline, interpersonal, verbal/physical violence, etc.) in my work environment 5) Technology used at YSU (e.g. Office 365, Web Time Entry, 46.8 Banner) has improved efficiency in my work 8

9 5. Service Section 5 dealt with issues concerning Service. Although only 36.0 of staff members agreed or strongly agreed that time available for service was sufficient, the majority reported having opportunities to provide community service (61.2) and serving on University committees (57.5) (please see Tables 5-1 and 5-2). Table 5-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Service Agree or Agree Neutral Disagree or Disagree Missing Cases (not counted) N 1) I have opportunities to serve on committees at YSU 2) I have opportunities to provide community services 3) Time available for service is sufficient Table 5-2: Rank Order of Positive Responses Concerning Service During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree 1) I have opportunities to provide community services ) I have opportunities to serve on committees at YSU ) Time available for service is sufficient

10 6. Performance Appraisal Section 6 addressed issues concerning staff members Performance Appraisal. As shown in Table 6-1 and 6-2, whereas majority of staff members agreed or strongly agreed in response to having a clear understanding of the University s expectations (72.1) and that performance evaluation was consistent with the guidelines outlined in the Bargaining Unit s Agreement and/or BOT policy (68.2), 58.6 of staff members d or strongly d in response to having sufficient opportunities for advancement or that advancement processes are transparent (47.9). Table 6-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Performance Appraisal During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from 1) I have a clear understanding of the University s expectations of my job as a staff member 2) My performance evaluation is consistent with the guidelines outlined in the Bargaining Unit s Agreement and/or BOT policy Agree or Agree Neutral Disagree or Disagree Missing Cases (not counted) N ) Advancement processes are transparent ) Advancement requirements are consistent with the guidelines outlined in the Bargaining Unit s Agreement and/or BOT policy ) I have sufficient opportunities for advancement 6) Appeal/grievance processes are transparent Table 6-2: Rank Order of Positive Responses Concerning Performance Appraisal During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree 1) I have a clear understanding of the University s expectations of 72.1 my job as a staff member 2) My performance evaluation is consistent with the guidelines 68.2 outlined in the Bargaining Unit s Agreement and/or BOT policy 3) Appeal/grievance processes are transparent ) Advancement requirements are consistent with the guidelines 23.9 outlined in the Bargaining Unit s Agreement and/or BOT policy 5) I have sufficient opportunities for advancement ) Advancement processes are transparent

11 7. Professional Development and Training Section 7 addressed issues concerning staff members Professional Development and Training. As shown in Table 7-1 and 7-2, about 1/3 of staff members were dissatisfied with the orientation they received to their position (33) or to the University (32), and about 29 d or strongly d that the process of obtaining Staff Development (SD) leave was transparent. In Table 3, staff members training opportunities were reported. About 73 of staff members reported a lack of mentorship, and about 1/3 of staff members reported a lack of professional development (32) and job specific training (31). Table 7-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Professional Development and Training During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from 1) The process of obtaining Staff Development (SD) leave is transparent 2) I was satisfied with the orientation I received to the University 3) I was satisfied with the orientation I received to my position Agree or Agree Neutral Disagree or Disagree Missing Cases (not counted) N Table 7-2: Rank Order of Positive Responses Concerning Professional Development and Training During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Disagree or Disagree 1) I was satisfied with the orientation I received to my position ) I was satisfied with the orientation I received to the University ) The process of obtaining Staff Development (SD) leave is 28.8 transparent Table 7-3: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Training Opportunities or more Missing Cases (not counted) N 1) Job specific training ) Professional development ) Mentorship

12 8. University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Section 8 included questions concerning University Strategic Plan and Important Documents. Since some of the negative responses were much more prominent than others, Table 8-2 rank-ordered negative responses for examining areas where staff had most concerns. As the data revealed, there is obviously a lack of confidence in the ability of the YSU Board of Trustees to lead (57.2). In terms of YSU s Strategic Plan, whereas only 11.9 of staff members had reservations about supporting YSU s Strategic Plan, higher percentages of staff members or strongly that they understood how the strategic plan applied to them (31.0), or that YSU s activities were consistent with its Strategic Plan (30.3). Table 8-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on University Strategic Plan and Important Documents During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree Neutral Disagree or Disagree Missing Cases (not counted) N 1) YSU s Strategic Plan is congruent with its mission 2) I understand how the Strategic Plan applies to me 3) I support YSU s Strategic Plan ) The activities of YSU are consistent with its Strategic Plan 5) I understand how the University s Guide Book applies to me 6) I am confident in the YSU Board of Trustee s ability to lead Table 8-2: Rank Order of Positive Responses Concerning University Strategic Plan and Important Documents During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Disagree or Disagree 1) I am confident in the YSU Board of Trustee s ability to lead ) I understand how the Strategic Plan applies to me ) The activities of YSU are consistent with its Strategic Plan ) YSU s Strategic Plan is congruent with its mission ) I understand how the University s Guide Book applies to me ) I support YSU s Strategic Plan

13 9. Overall Experience Section 9 asked questions about staff members Overall Experience with the University. As shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, the overall responses were very positive. About 79 of staff members felt proud to work for YSU, and 77 felt work at YSU was a rewarding experience. The majority of staff members also would recommend YSU to friends or family members as a school for higher education (79) or a place to work (68). Table 9-1: Frequency Distribution of Ratings on Overall Experience During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree Neutral Disagree or Disagree Missing Cases (not counted) N 1) Overall, work at YSU is a rewarding experience 2) I am proud to work at YSU ) I would recommend YSU to friends or family members as a place to work 4) I would recommend YSU to friends or family members as a school for higher education Table 9-2: Rank Order of Positive Responses Concerning Overall Experience During my employment at YSU, I have received adequate support from Agree or Agree 1) I would recommend YSU to friends or family members as a school 79.1 for higher education 2) I am proud to work at YSU ) Overall, work at YSU is a rewarding experience ) I would recommend YSU to friends or family members as a place 68.0 to work 13

14 10. Demographic Questions The following demographic data was collected: Staff Rank, University Division, Years of Service, Prior Full-time Position, Application of Another Position, Gender, or Race/Ethnic Identity. Part Two examines the effect of the demographic data on staff members responses to various issues concerning campus climate. Table 10-1: Frequency Distribution of Staff by Ranks STAFF RANK N Exempt Professional Professional/Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Sample Size = 404 (including missing value 55 cases) Table 10-2: Frequency Distribution of Staff by Division UNIVERSITY DIVISION N Academic Affairs Finance and Administration President s Office Student Affairs University Advancement : Sample Size = 404 (including missing value 88 cases) Table 10-3: Frequency Distribution of Years of Employment at YSU YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT N 5 years or less years years years or more Sample Size = 404 (including missing value 47 cases) 14

15 Table 10-4: Frequency Distribution of Fulltime Position Prior to Joining YSU PRIOR FULLTIME POSITION N Sample Size = 404 (including missing value 43 cases) Table 10-5: Frequency Distribution of Applying for a Position in the Past Three Years PRIOR FULLTIME POSITION N Sample Size = 404 (including missing value 48 cases) Table 10-6: Frequency Distribution by Gender GENDER IDENTITY N Female Male Transgender Other t to identify Sample Size = 404 (including missing value 47 cases) 15

16 Table 10-7: Frequency Distribution of Racial/Ethnic Background RACIAL/ETHNIC IDENTITY N African American Asian Caucasian/White Hispanic Latino Multiracial t to report Sample Size = 404 (including missing value 49 cases) 16

17 PART TWO DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND SATISFACTION WITH CAMPUS CLIMATE 17

18 Staff members opinions of campus climate were compared based on six demographic variables: Staff Rank, University Division, Years of Service, Prior Full-time Position, Application for another Position, Gender, or Race/Ethnic Identity. The lowest mean is shown in blue; the highest mean and statistically significant difference is shown in red. In terms of the influence of Staff Rank, as shown in Table 2-1, the means were consistently the highest at the rank of Exempt Professional or Part-time Staff on all aspects of campus climate. The rank of Classified Staff scored the lowest on seven out of eight items except Safety and Facilities. Whereas Exempt Professional and Part-time Staff demonstrated statistically significant differences with the other two ranks on seven out of eight items (except Professional Development and Training), a significant difference between the rank of Professional/Administrative and Classified Staff existed only in three categories: Work Environment, Service, and University Strategic Plan and Important Documents 18

19 Table 2-1: A Comparison of Staff Rank and Aspects of Campus Climate (ANOVA) Demographic Questions Work Environment Support Safety and Facilities Service Performance Appraisal Professional Development and Training University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Overall Experience Staff Rank Exempt Professional Prof./Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Exempt Professional Prof./Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Exempt Professional Prof./Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Exempt Professional Prof./Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Exempt Professional Prof./Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Exempt Professional Prof./Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Exempt Professional Prof./Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Exempt Professional Prof./Administrative Classified Part-time Staff Sample Size (N) Measure Mean Multiple Comparison Sig. Obtained Exempt Professional vs. Pro./Administrative (P<.05) Exempt Professional vs. Classified Prof./Administrative vs. Classified (P<.05) Part-time Staff vs. Classified Exempt Professional vs. Classified Exempt Professional vs. Pro./Administrative (P<.05) Exempt Professional vs. Classified Prof./Administrative vs. Classified (P<.01) Part-time Staff vs. Classified (P<.01) Exempt Professional vs. Classified (P<.05) ne Exempt Professional vs. Pro./Administrative (P<.05) Exempt Professional vs. Classified Prof./Administrative vs. Classified (P<.01) Part-time Staff vs. Prof./Administrative (P<.05) Part-time Staff vs. Classified (P<.01) 19

20 In examining differences by University Division, as shown in Table 2-2, the President s Office scored the highest means on five out of eight items: Work Environment, Safety and Facilities, Service, Performance Appraisal, and University Strategic Plan and Important Documents. However, the President s Office also rated the lowest on Overall Experience. University Advancement scored the highest on three items: Support, Professional Development and Training, and Overall Experience. Finance and Administration scored the lowest on five items: Work Environment, Support, Safety and Facilities (along with Academic Affairs), Service, and Performance Appraisal. Academic Affairs scored the lowest on two items: Safety and Facilities (along with Finance and Administration) and Strategic Plan and Important Documents. Student Affairs scored the lowest on Professional Development and Training. Although ratings differed across various University divisions, statistically significant differences across these divisions were not found in any of the areas studied. 20

21 Table 2-2: A Comparison of University Division and Aspects of Campus Climate (ANOVA) Demographic Questions Work Environment Support Safety and Facilities Service Performance Appraisal Professional Development and Training University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Overall Experience University Division Academic Affairs Finance and Adm. President s Office Student Affairs Univ. Advancement Academic Affairs Finance and Adm. President s Office Student Affairs Univ. Advancement Academic Affairs Finance and Adm. President s Office Student Affairs Univ. Advancement Academic Affairs Finance and Adm. President s Office Student Affairs Univ. Advancement Academic Affairs Finance and Adm. President s Office Student Affairs Univ. Advancement Academic Affairs Finance and Adm. President s Office Student Affairs Univ. Advancement Academic Affairs Finance and Adm. President s Office Student Affairs Univ. Advancement Academic Affairs Finance and Adm. President s Office Student Affairs Univ. Advancement Sample Size (N) Measure Mean Multiple Comparison Sig. Obtained 3.12 ne ne ne ne ne ne ne ne 21

22 The influence of Years of Service on ratings of campus climate is shown in Table 2-3. The group of staff members serving the University 5 years or less scored the highest on five items: Work Environment, Support, Service, Performance Appraisal, and University Strategic Plan and Important Documents. The group of years scored the highest on two items: Safety and Facilities and Professional Development and Training. On Overall Experience, the groups of 5 years or less, 6-10 years, and 21 years or more rated at similar levels (mean = 4.10, 4.13, and 4.12 respectively). These ratings were statistically significant from the group of years (mean = 3.73). The group of years also rated the lowest on all other seven items. The difference between this group and one or all other groups was statistically significant on five items: Work Environment, Support, Safety and Facilities, Performance Appraisal, and Overall Experience. 22

23 Table 2-3: A Comparison of Years of Service and Aspects of Campus Climate (ANOVA) Demographic Questions Work Environment Support Safety and Facilities Service Performance Appraisal Professional Development and Training University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Overall Experience Years of Service 5 Years or Less 6-10 Years Years 21 Years or More 5 Years or Less 6-10 Years Years 21 Years or More 5 Years or Less 6-10 Years Years 21 Years or More 5 Years or Less 6-10 Years Years 21 Years or More 5 Years or Less 6-10 Years Years 21 Years or More 5 Years or Less 6-10 Years Years 21 Years or More 5 Years or Less 6-10 Years Years 21 Years or More 5 Years or Less 6-10 Years Years 21 Years or More Sample Size (N) Measure Mean Multiple Comparison Sig. Obtained Years or Less vs Years Years or Less vs Years 6-10 Years vs Years (P<.05) 21 Years or More vs Years (P<.05) ne 5 Years or Less vs Years (P<.05) ne ne 5 Years or Less vs Years (P<.05) 6-10 Years vs Years (P<.01) 21 Years or More vs Years (P<.05) 23

24 In examining the influence of a Prior Full-time Position, as shown in Table 2-4, staff members who held a full-time position prior to joining YSU rated lower on all eight items than their counterparts whose first full-time position was with YSU, but the difference between these two groups was statistically significant only on two aspects: Performance Appraisal and University Strategic Plan and Important Documents. Table 2-4: A Comparison of Prior Fulltime Position and Aspects of Campus Climate (T Test) Demographic Questions Work Environment Support Safety and Facilities Service Performance Appraisal Professional Development and Training University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Overall Experience Prior Fulltime Position Sample Size (N) Measure Mean Sig P>.05 P>.05 P>.05 P>.05 P<.001 P>.05 P<.05 P>.05 24

25 As shown in Table 10-5, Section One, about 27 of staff members surveyed reported having applied for another position in the past three years (see Table 10-5, Section One). While examining if Applying for Another Position made any difference in staff members rating on aspects of the Campus Climate, it was found this group rated all aspects of the campus climate lower than the group which did not apply for another position, and the differences between these two groups were statistically significant in all aspects except Professional Development and Training (see Table 2-5). Table 2-5: A Comparison of Applying for another Position and Aspects of Campus Climate (T Test) Demographic Questions Work Environment Support Safety and Facilities Service Performance Appraisal Professional Development and Training University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Overall Experience Applying for Another Position Sample Size (N) Measure Mean Sig P<.01 P<.001 P<.01 P<.05 P<.001 P>.05 P<.01 P<

26 Gender did not appear to affect staff members ratings on campus climate. Although male staff members rated the highest on five items and female staff members rated the highest on three items (Support, Performance Appraisal, and Overall Experience), there were not statistical significant differences between the two gender groups. The main differences existed between the group (14.6, see Table 10-6 of Section One) and either male or female group. This group rated the lowest on all aspects of campus climate and demonstrated significant differences with one or both gender groups on all items. Table 2-6: A Comparison of Gender and Aspects of Campus Climate (ANOVA) Demographic Questions Tenure Status Sample Size (N) Measure Mean Multiple Comparison Sig. Obtained Work Environment Female Male Female vs. Male vs. Support Safety and Facilities Female Male Female Male Female vs. Male vs. (P<.05) Female vs. (P<.05) Male vs. Service Female Male Female vs. (P<.01) Male vs. Performance Appraisal Female Male Female vs. Male vs. Professional Development and Training University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Female Male Female Male Male vs. (P<.05) Female vs. Male vs. Overall Experience Female Male Female vs. Male vs. 26

27 In studying the effect of racial/ethnic background on ratings of campus climate, due to smaller sample sizes, all racial/ethnic groups except Caucasian/White were combined into one group named All Others. The recoding resulted in three groups: Caucasian/White, All Others, and. The Caucasian/White group rated the highest on all aspects measuring campus climate except Professional Development and Training, but there was not a statistically significant difference between Caucasian/White and All Others. In contrast, the group (21.4, see Table 10-7 of Section One) rated the lowest on all aspects measuring campus climate. Statistically significant differences existed between this group and one or both other two groups on all items. Table 2-7: A Comparison of Racial/Ethnic Identity and Aspects of Campus Climate (ANOVA) Demographic Questions Work Environment Support Safety and Facilities Service Performance Appraisal Professional Development and Training University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Overall Experience Racial/Ethnic Background Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Sample Size (N) Measure Mean Multiple Comparison Sig. Obtained 3.22 Caucasian vs Caucasian vs. All Others (P<.05) All Others vs. Caucasian vs. Caucasian vs. Caucasian vs. Caucasian vs. (P<.05) Caucasian vs. Caucasian vs. All Others vs. (P<.05) 27

28 PART THREE FACTORS INFLUENCING STAFF MEMBERS VIEWS OF CAMPUS CLIMATE AND DISCUSSION 28

29 This section is a summary of the survey findings and a discussion of ways in which YSU s campus climate could be improved. Staff members ratings of eight aspects of campus climate are summarized in Table 3-1. On the 5-point scale (1 = strongly, 2 =, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree), seven items achieved a mean greater than 3.00 (or neutral, which is highlighted in green): Overall Experience, Safety and Facilities, Support, Work Environment, Professional Development and Training, and Performance Appraisal. The only category that was a little short of a mean of 3.00 (highlighted in red) was University Strategic Plan and Important Documents. Questions concerning Campus Climate for Diversity were excluded from comparison since a different scale (1=yes, 0=no) was used. Table 3-1: A Rank-Order of Mean Scores on Aspects of Campus Climate Aspects of Campus Climate Sample Size Mean S.D. (N) 1) Overall Experience ) Safety and Facilities ) Support ) Service ) Work Environment ) Professional Development and Training ) Performance Appraisal ) University Strategic Plan and Important Documents One positive finding was that among the eight aspects of the Campus Climate Survey, staff members ratings on Overall Experience was the highest, very close to (mean = 3.97 or agree ). This variable could be considered as the staff members encompassing experience with the campus climate, and the other seven aspects could be considered contributing factors to staff members Overall Experience. Multiple regression thus was performed to study the effects of the seven aspects of campus climate on staff members Overall Experience. The results shown in Table 3-2 indicate (1) the extent to which staff members overall experience was affected by these seven factors and (2) the relative effect of each factor on the outcome. The following findings surfaced: 1. In this model, R 2 =.444 indicates about 44 of variance of (or reasons why) staff members Overall Experience with YSU was explained by the seven factors in combination. From the statistical point of view, R 2 =.444 indicates a valid model since 44 of a complex matter was explained by a relatively small number of factors shared by a diverse population. 2. In assessing the relative effects of various aspects of campus climate on staff members Overall Experience, the larger the Beta, the larger the effect. Betas were rank-ordered for ease of reading. It is clear from Table 3-1 that the following four 29

30 aspects of campus climate (highlighted in red) seemed to have the greatest effects on staff s Overall Experience: (1) Work Environment; (2) University Strategic Plan and Important Documents; (3) Safety and Facilities; and (4) Performance Appraisal (although the Beta is statistically insignificant). In the table below, Sig. indicates if the effect of a particular factor is statistically significant. The top three factors indicate statistically significant effects on the outcome. Table 3-2: Relative Effect of Aspects of Campus Climate on Staff Members Overall Experience with YSU (Multiple Regression) R 2 =.444 Relative Effect on Overall Experience (Beta) (Rank-ordered) Sig. Work Environment.247 P<.001 University Strategic Plan and Important Documents.236 P<.001 Safety and Facilities.174 P<.001 Performance Appraisal.119 P>.05 Service.043 P>.05 Professional Development and Training P>.05 Support.025 P>.05 Based on the research findings, to improve YSU s campus climate it is necessary to: (1) improve staff members overall experience with the University; (2) address the four most important factors that may have contributed to staff members overall experience (in particular, the Work Environment and University Strategic Plan and Important Documents); (3) improve aspects of the campus climate that scored ratings lower than 3.00 (although a mean of 4.00 or higher would be most desirable); and (4) examine specific items with lower ratings within each aspect of the campus climate survey so that particular problems within the category can be identified (see Section One). To gain deeper understanding of the first three issues, the seven demographic variables were employed for further analysis. The findings are displayed in Table 3-3, whereby staff member groups based on demographic variables are rank-ordered by their ratings (or means) from high to low on particular factors. Since means by demographic variables already were shown in Tables 2-1 to 2-6, they are not repeated in Table 3-3. Furthermore, since the only item with a mean short of is University Strategic Plan and Important Documents, it is discussed under Contributing Factors to Staff s Overall Experience without repeating separately under Factors that Obtained Ratings Lower than

31 Table 3-3: Contributing Factors and Staff Members Rating based on Demographic Data Staff s Overall Experience Contributing Factors to Staff s Overall Experience Work Environment University Strategic Plan and Important Documents Safety and Facilities Performance Appraisal Staff Rank Part-time Exempt Prof. Prof. & Adm. Classified Staff Rank Exempt Prof. Part-time Prof. & Adm. Classified Exempt Prof. Prof. & Adm. Part-time Classified Exempt Prof. Classified Part-time Prof. & Adm. Exempt Prof. Part-time Prof. & Adm. Classified Staff Ratings Based on Demographic Variables (Rank-ordered) Fulltime Applied University Years of Position Fulltime Gender Division Service Pre-YSU Position Univ. Advancemt years Female Academic Affairs 21 years or Male Finance & Adm. more Student Affairs 5 years or less President s Office years Staff Ratings Based on Demographic Variables (Rank-ordered) Fulltime Applied University Years of Position Fulltime Gender Division Service Pre-YSU Position President s Office 5 years or less Male Univ. Advancemt. 21 years or Female Academic Affairs more Student Affairs 6-10 years Finance and Adm years President s Office 5 years or less Male Univ. Advancemt Years Female Student Affairs 21 years or Finance and Adm. more Academic Affairs years President s Office 21 years or Female Univ. Advancemt. more Male Student Affairs 6-10 years Academic Affairs 5 years or less Finance and Adm years President s Office 5 years or less Male Univ. Advancemt. 21 years or Female Student Affairs more Academic Affairs 6-10 years Finance and Adm years Racial/ Ethnic Background Caucasian All Others Racial/ Ethnic Background Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others Caucasian All Others In Staff Rank, the group of Exempt Professional rated the highest mean on all four categories that had the most effect on staff members Overall Experience. Although the mean for this group on Overall Experience is the second highest (mean = 4.18) next to Part-time Staff (mean = 4.48), the difference between these two group was not statistically significant. The group of Classified staff rated the lowest mean on all categories except Safety and Facilities. This group also rated the lowest on Overall Experience. In terms of University Divisions, the President s Office and University Advancement rated the highest means on all four categories that had the most effect on staff members Overall Experience. University Advancement also rated the highest on Overall Experience. Finance and Administration scored the lowest on three items: Work Environment, Safety and Facilities (along with Academic Affairs), and Performance Appraisal. Although ratings differed across various University divisions, statistically significant differences across these divisions were not found in any of the areas studied. 31

32 In Years of Service, the group of years rated the lowest on all items including Overall Experience. The difference between this group and one or all other groups was statistically significant on all items except University Strategic Plan and Important Documents. As shown in Tables 10-4 in Section One, 85 of staff members reported having held a full-time position prior to joining YSU. The findings suggest that staff members who assumed full-time positions prior to joining YSU rated lower on all categories than those who did not hold other full-time positions. However, the differences between these two groups were not statistically significant except on one item: University Strategic Plan and Important Documents. As shown in Tables 10-5 in Section One, 27 of staff members reported having applied for another position in the past three years. The findings suggest that those staff members who applied for another position in the past three years rated lower on all categories than those who did not apply for another position in the past three years, and the differences between these two groups were statistically significant on all items studied. Gender did not appear to affect staff members ratings of campus climate. The ratings were alternately higher for either the male or female staff, but there was not a statistically significant difference in ratings due to gender. The main differences existed between the group and the other gender groups. About 15 of staff members (see Table 10-6, Section One) chose not to reveal their gender identity. This group rated the lowest on all aspects of the Campus Climate Survey and demonstrated significant differences with one or both gender groups on all items. Racial/Ethnic background also did not appear to affect staff members ratings of campus climate. Although staff members with Caucasian/White background rated higher on all categories, the differences between the Caucasian/White group and the All Others group were not statistically significant on all issues studied. The main differences existed between the group and the other gender groups. About 21 of staff chose not to reveal their racial/ethnic background (see Table 10-7, Section One). This group rated all items lower than others. The mean difference is statistically significant between the group and the Caucasian/White group on the four contributing factors and also is statistically significant with both the Caucasian/White group and the All Others group. Although it appeared that Gender and Race/Ethnicity did not seem to affect staff members ratings, staff members who rated all items lower were those who were unwilling to reveal either their gender or racial/ethnic background or both gender and racial/ethnic background (N = 48 or 92 of the group). In several categories, the group s rating was significantly lower than the other two racial/ethnic groups (see Table 2-6 and 2-7, Section Two). Hopefully these findings shed light on areas that may need to be given more attention, in particular the connection between unique aspects of campus climate and demographic groups, so that staff members overall experience can be improved. 32

33 Appendix: Reliability Test of Index Variables Index Variables WORK ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT SAFETY AND FACILITIES SERVICE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLAN OVERALL EXPERIENCE SURVEY QUESTIONS 1) I am sufficiently involved in campus decision-making 2) I am sufficiently involved in decision-making within my work unit 3) I am kept well-informed of University policies 4) I am kept well-informed of matters important to my position 5) In general, campus work relationships are positive 6) In general, campus morale is positive 7) Institutional procedures are streamlined to make it easy for me to do my job 8) My supervisor values my input on work-related issues 9) I feel free to voice my concerns to my supervisor 1) Divisional Vice President 2) Executive Director 3) Immediate Supervisor 4) Human Resources (HR) 5) Payroll 6) I received adequate support for submitting a proposal for external funding 7) I received adequate support for the administration of external funded projects 1) I am prepared to respond to emergency situations on campus 2) I received sufficient support to respond to disruptive situations (discipline, interpersonal, verbal/physical violence, etc.) in my work environment 3) YSU is a safe place to work 4) Technology in my office is sufficient to accomplish my job 5) Technology used at YSU (e.g. Office 365, Web Time Entry, Banner) has improved efficiency in my work 4) I have opportunities to serve on committees at YSU 5) I have opportunities to provide community services 6) Time available for service is sufficient 1) I have a clear understanding of the University s expectations of my job as a staff member 2) My performance evaluation is consistent with the guidelines outlined in the Bargaining Unit s Agreement and/or BOT policy 3) Advancement processes are transparent 4) Advancement requirements are consistent with the guidelines outlined in the Bargaining Unit s Agreement and/or BOT policy 5) I have sufficient opportunities for advancement 6) Appeal/grievance processes are transparent 1) The process of obtaining Staff Development (SD) leave is transparent 2) I was satisfied with the orientation I received to the University 3) I was satisfied with the orientation I received to my Position 1) YSU s Strategic Plan is congruent with its mission 2) I understand how the Strategic Plan applies to me 3) I support YSU s Strategic Plan 4) The activities of YSU are consistent with its Strategic Plan 5) I understand how the University s Guide Book applies to me 6) I am confident in the YSU Board of Trustee s ability to lead 1) Overall, work at YSU is a rewarding experience 2) I am proud to work at YSU 3) I would recommend YSU to friends or family members as a place to work 4) I would recommend YSU to friends or family members as a school for higher education Reliability Test (alpha)