University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report November 2-3, 2008.

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

Campus Climate Assessment

Results of Report

November 2-3, 2008

Why Assess Climate?

What was the Process?

Assessing College Climate

Why conduct a climate assessment?

To foster a caring University community that provides leadership for constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. To open the doors wider for underrepresented groups is to create a welcoming environment.To improve the environment for working and learning on campus.

Project Objectives

Provide UW-Milwaukee with information, analysis, and recommendations as they relate to campus climate.

This information will be used in conjunction with other data to provide UW-Milwaukee with an inclusive view of their campus and a system-wide review.

Projected Outcomes

UW-Milwaukee will add to their knowledge base with regard to how constituent groups currently feel about their particular campus climate and how the community responds to them (e.g., pedagogy, curricular issues, professional development, inter-group/intra-group relations, respect issues).UW-Milwaukee will use the results of the assessment to inform current/on-going work regarding diversity (e.g., Equity Scorecard).

Setting the Context

Examine the Research Review work already completed

Preparation Readiness of the campus

Assessment Examine the climate

Follow-up Building on the successes and addressing the challenges

Research on Climate In Higher Education

Campus climate not only affects creating knowledge, but also impacts members of academic community who, in turn, contribute to creating campus environment (Hurtado, 2003; Milem, Chang, & antonio, 2005).Preserving climate that offers equal learning opportunities for all students and academic freedom for all faculty – an environment free from discrimination – is a primary responsibility of educational institutions.

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.

Current Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy

UniversityPolicies/Service

Intergroup &IntragroupRelations

Transformational Tapestry Model©

Baseline Organizational

Challenges

SystemsAnalysis

Local / Sate /Regional

Environments

Contextualized Campus Wide Assessment

AdvancedOrganizational

Challenges

ConsultantRecommendations

Assessment

Transformationvia

Intervention

FiscalActions

Symbolic Actions

AdministrativeActions

EducationalActions

Transformed Campus Climate

Access

Retention

Research

Scholarship

Curriculum Pedagogy

UniversityPolicies/Service

Intergroup &IntragroupRelations

© 2001

External Relations

External Relations

University of Wisconsin System Mission

The mission of the system is to develop human resources, to discover and disseminate knowledge, to extend knowledge and its application beyond the boundaries of its campuses and to serve and stimulate society by developing in students heightened intellectual, cultural and humane sensitivities, scientific, professional and technological expertise and a sense of purpose. Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended training and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.

Core Mission of the University Cluster

…“Serve the needs of women, minority, disadvantaged, disabled, and nontraditional students and seek racial and ethnic diversification of the student body and the professional faculty and staff.”

Specific Campus Mission Statements

…“To further academic and professional opportunities at all levels for women, minority, part-time, and financially or educationally disadvantaged students”

- University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Process to Date2004-2005

Academic Planner (C. Saulnier) made aware of bias incidents at several campuses & began conversation regarding systemwide campus climate project

Taskforce committee formed to investigate consulting firms who conduct climate assessments in higher education.

Rankin & Associates identified as leading expert in multiple identity studies in higher education


Conversations at system level continued

Proposal presentation made to UW System Provosts and various constituent groups in Madison in September 2006


UWS Administrators form Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) Conducted in-depth interviews with other higher

education institutions who had contracted with R&A resulting in very positive reviews

In collaboration with R&A identified potential fact-finding groups and developed protocol

Identified “next steps” in process

Process to Date 2006-2007

President Reilly pledges support for the project and agrees to finance 75% of the costs

Five campuses volunteer to participate in climate assessment in the first year

Participating institutions Provosts’ Teleconference with R&A to discuss process, Scope of the Work, Projected Time-line, Proposed Budget

At the request of R&A, the Provosts were invited to add additional members to the CSWG to ensure institutional representation

Process to Date Participating Institutions

University of Wisconsin Colleges University of Wisconsin-La CrosseUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeUniversity of Wisconsin-OshkoshUniversity of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Process to Date 2006-2007

Project Co-Chairs and Project Coordinator named Vicki Washington (Co-Chair, CSWG)

Interim Assistant Vice President of the Office of Academic Development and Diversity, UW System Administration

Ed Burgess (Co-Chair, CSWG)

Department of Dance, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Lisa Beckstrand (Project Coordinator)

Academic Planner, Director of Inclusivity Initiative, Office of Academic & Student Services, UW System Administration

Process to Date Phase I

PHASE II

Assessment Tool

Development and Implementation

Process to Date Phase II

August – December 2007 Bi-monthly meetings with CSWG to develop the survey

instrumentJanuary - February 2008

Development of Communication Plan IRB Proposal development/approval at each participating

institution UW-Milwaukee approval – March, 2008

Process to Date Phase II and III

April/May 2008 Survey Administration

May-August Data Analysis

Process to Date Phase IV

October 2008 Final report forwarded to CSWG representatives and Provost

from UW-Milwaukee and to UW System

November 2008 Presentation of survey results to the campus community

Assessment Methods

Research Model

Survey Instrument

Limitations

Survey Instrument

Final instrument 90 questions and additional space for respondents to provide

commentary On-line or paper & pencil options

Sample = Population All members of the UW-Milwaukee community were invited to

participate

Results include information regarding: Respondents’ personal experiences at UW-Milwaukee Respondents’ perceptions of climate at UW-Milwaukee Respondents’ perceptions of institutional actions Respondents’ input into recommendations for change

Survey Assessment Limitations

Self-selection biasResponse ratesCaution in generalizing results for

constituent groups with significantly lower response rates

Method Limitation

Data were not reported for groups of fewer than 10 individuals so as not to compromise identity.

Instead, small groups were combined to eliminate possibility of identifying individuals.

Results

Response Rates

Who are the respondents?

2,947 people responded to the call to participate (9% response rate overall).

Several respondents contributed remarks to the open-ended questions.

Faculty Response Rates

Assistant Professor (31%, n = 74)

Associate Professor (30%, n = 90)

Faculty = 23% (n = 366)

Instructional Academic Staff (14%, n = 105) [Full-time (n = 70); Part-time (n = 34)]

Professor (32%, n = 82)

Faculty/Staff Response Rates by Race

Faculty of Color = 21% (n = 63)

Academic Staff of Color = 43% (n = 99)

Classified Staff of Color = 33% (n = 82)

White Faculty = 22% (n = 288)

White Academic Staff = 39% (n = 355)

White Classified Staff = 38% (n = 268)

Staff Response Rates

Staff = 36% (n = 415)*

Limited Term Employee (15%, n = 25)

Non-Instructional Academic Staff (44%, n = 360)

Limited Academic Staff (20%, n = 30)

Administrator (n = 52)

Classified Staff Non-Exempt (37%, n = 249)

Classified Staff Exempt Staff (40%, n = 115)

*Response rate does not include administrators due to missing data.

Student Response Rates

Students 5% (n = 1510)*

Master Degree Student = (11%, n = 360)

Other Students = (n = 165) [Transfer, Associate, Dual Enrollment, Non-degree, Professional degree]

Bachelor Degree Student = (4%, n = 970)

Doctoral Degree Student = (14%, n = 146)

*Response rate does not include transfer, associate degree, dual enrollment, and professional degree students due to missing data.

Student Response Rates

Students 5% (n = 1510)

White Students = 6% (n = 1339)

Men Students = 3% (n = 466)

Students of Color = 6% (n = 263)

Women Students = 7% (n = 1153)

Transgender Students = (n = 7)

Results

Demographic Characteristics

Student Respondents by Year (n)

321

138

15

204222

266223

196

Students

First year 2nd yr3rd yr4th yr5th yr or moreMaster's degreeDoctoral degreeProfessional degree

Student Residence

11% of student respondents lived in Residence Halls

56% student respondents lived in off-campus houses and apartments

Income by Undergraduate Status (n)

310

6092

131

53

220

1

91

1

49

Undergrads - Independent

Undergrads - Dependent

Employee Respondents by Position Status (n)

15

105

7490

82

25

249

115

360

3052

109

Adjunt professorInstructional academic staffAssistant professorAssociate professorProfessorLimited term employeeClassified staff non-exemptClassified staff exemptNon-instructional academic staffLimited academic staffAdministratorOther

Collapsed Employee Status (n)

366

467

364

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Respondents by Gender (n)

There were 11 respondents who identified as transgender

777

220134

317

147207 152

327

139

376

Female Male

Undergraduate Students

Graduate Students

Faculty

Academic Staff

Classified Staff

Respondents by Sexual Orientation & UW-Milwaukee Status (n)

1481

42 19120

316

34

407327

Heterosexual LGB

StudentsFaculty

Academic StaffClassified Staff

Respondents by Racial Identity(Duplicated Total)

30

235

155 38 19 5

2387

19107

15 49 6 70

AfricanAfrican American/BlackAlaksan NativeAsianAsian AmericanSoutheast AsianCaribbean/West IndianCaucasian/WhiteIndian subcontinentLatino(a)/HispanicMiddle EasternNative American IndianPacific IslanderOther

Respondents by Racial Identity (Unduplicated Total)

537

2311

People of Color White People

Respondents by Racial Identity by Status (Unduplicated Total)

263

1339

244

911

Students Employees

People of Color

White People

Respondents by Spiritual Affiliation (n)

1573

239

966

84

ChristianOther than ChristianNo AffiliationOther

Respondents with Conditions that Substantially Affect a Major Life Activity (n)

40

9

16 1421

46

4

62

4

10 8

Physical Disability Learning Disability Psychological Condition

StudentsFacultyAcademic StaffClassified Staff

Citizenship Status by Position

Students Employeesn % n %

US citizen 1553 95.3 1088 92.5

US citizen – naturalized 15 0.9 37 3.1

Dual citizenship 6 0.4 13 1.1

Permanent resident (immigrant) 17 1.0 26 2.2

International (F-1, J-1, or H1-B, or other visa) 35 2.1 10 0.9

Findings

Aggregate Findings

72% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate at UW-Milwaukee.

72% of respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their department/work unit.

80% of student/faculty respondents were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes.

Aggregate Findings

75% of respondents have not personally experienced any exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that has interfered with their ability to work or learn at UW-Milwaukee.

73% percent of UW-Milwaukee faculty and staff respondents were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW-Milwaukee.

79% of student respondents were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education at UW-Milwaukee.

Challenges and Opportunities

Personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct that interfered with one’s

ability to work or learn at UW-Milwaukee

n %

Yes 738 25.3

Personally Experienced Based on…(%)

31 31

24

1917

15

1110 10

Institutional Status (n=232)Gender (n=226)Age (n=176)Race (n=142)Ethnicity (n=128)Educational Level (n=98)Physical Characteristics (n=83)Political Views (n=73)Religion/Spiritual Status (n=73)

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct

the Percent Due to Gender Identity

¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct.

2623

36

17

Female Male

Overall experienced conduct¹

Experienced conduct due to gender²

(n=503)¹

(n=183)²

(n=215)¹

(n=37)²

Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and, of that Conduct, the Percent

Due to Institutional Status (%)


19

31 29

38

23

41

33

40

Students Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff


Experienced conduct due to status²

(n=311)¹

(n=71)²

(n=113)¹

(n=46)²

(n=134)¹

(n=53)²

(n=135)¹

(n=45)²

Overall Personal Experiences of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct and of that Conduct

the Percent Due to Race


37

22

53

6

People of Color White


Experienced conduct due to race²

(n=196)¹

(n=104)²

(n=510)¹

(n=28)²


Due to Sexual Orientation (%)


36

24

51

1

LGB respondents Heterosexual respondents


Experienced conduct due to sexual orientation²

(n=80)¹

(n=41)²

(n=625)¹

(n=8)²


Due to Disability (%)

¹ Percentages are based on total n split by group.² Percentages are based on n split by group for those who believed they had personally experienced this conduct..

24

51

60

46

37

50

22

No disability Physical Disability Learning Disability Psychologocal condition


Experienced conduct due to disability²

(n=628)¹ (n=43)¹

(n=16)²

(n=22)¹

(n=11)²

(n=41)¹

(n=9)²

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

n %

Deliberately ignored or excluded 382 51.8

Felt intimidated/bullied 256 34.7

Isolated or left out when working in groups 144 19.5

Derogatory remarks 142 19.2

Stares 121 16.4

Isolated or left out because of my identity 99 13.4

Received a low performance evaluation 93 12.6

Feared getting a poor grade because of hostile classroom environment 81 11.0

Derogatory written comments 73 9.9

Target of racial/ethnic profiling 58 7.9

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct

n %

Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity 58 7.9

Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity 54 7.3

Feared for my physical safety 53 7.2

Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails 52 7.0

Threats of physical violence 27 3.7

Derogatory phone calls 19 2.6

Victim of a crime 14 1.9

Target of physical violence 12 1.6

Feared for my family’s safety 11 1.5

Graffiti 10 1.4

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Demographic

Characteristics (Race)

WhiteRespondents

n = 510

Respondents of Color

n = 196

n % n %

Target of racial/ethnic profiling 11 2.2 36 18.4

Someone assumed I was admitted or hired because of my identity 25 4.9 32 16.3

Received a low performance evaluation 50 9.8 39 19.9

Isolated or left out because of my identity 57 11.2 38 19.4

Isolated or left out when working in groups 90 17.6 50 25.5

Stares 77 15.1 42 21.4

Singled out as the “resident authority” regarding my identity 32 6.3 20 10.2

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Demographic

Characteristics (Sexual Orientation)

HeterosexualRespondents

n = 625

LGB Respondents

n = 80

n % n %

Derogatory remarks 105 16.8 33 41.2

Singled out as “resident authority” regarding my identity 34 5.4 18 22.5

Isolated or left out because of my identity 73 11.7 23 28.8

Stares 93 14.9 24 30.0

Feared for my physical safety 40 6.4 11 13.8

Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails 41 6.6 11 13.8

Deliberately ignored or excluded 322 51.5 45 56.2

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur?

Of the respondents who believed they had been deliberately ignored or excluded

• 46 percent (n = 174) said it happened while working at a campus job• 30 percent (n = 116) said it happened in a meeting with a group of people• 30 percent (n = 116) said it happened in a class• 24 percent (n = 90) said it happened in a campus office

Where Did The Perceived Conduct Occur?

Of the respondents who indicated that they were intimated or bullied:

• 51 percent (n = 130) said it happened while working at a campus job• 25 percent (n = 63) said it happened in a meeting with a group of people• 23 percent (n = 60) said it happened in a campus office

Source of Perceived Conduct by Position Status (n)

116

11 104

99

57

18

8

3023

42

3037

12

3238

158

37

49

Student Respondents Faculty Respondents Academic StaffRespondents

Classified StaffRespondents

Source = UndergradSource = FacultySource = AdministratorSource = StaffSource = Supervisor

What did you do?1

Personal responses: Was angry (60%) Felt embarrassed (38%) Told a friend (36%) Ignored it (30%) Avoided the harasser (30%)

Reporting responses: Did not report the incident for fear of retaliation (22%) Didn’t know who to go to (20% ) Made a complaint to a UW-Milwaukee employee/official (18%) Didn’t report it for fear my complaint would not be taken seriously (13%) Did report it but my complaint was not taken seriously (13%)

1Respondents could mark more than one response

Sexual Harassment/Sexual Assault

The survey defined sexual harassment as “A repeated course of conduct whereby one person engages in verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, that is unwelcome, serves no legitimate purpose, intimidates another person, and has the effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or classroom environment.”

The survey defined sexual assault as “Intentional physical contact, such as sexual intercourse or touching, of a person’s intimate body parts by someone who did not have permission to make such contact.”

Respondents Who Believed They Have Personally Been a Victim of Sexual Harassment by Primary

Status*

Students Employees

n % n %

22 1.3 9 0.8

* Responses sometimes, often, and very often were collapsed into one category for this analysis.

Respondents Who Believed That They Had Been The Victim of Sexual Assault

While at UW-Milwaukee

n %

Yes 46 2.0

40 of the 46 victims were women

32 were students; 6 were academic staff


Where did it occur?On-campus (n = 23)

Off-campus (n = 14)

Who was the offender?Stranger (n = 11)

Student (n = 8)

Acquaintance (n = 7)

Friend (n = 7)


What did you do1?Told a friend (n = 17)

Told a family member (n = 11)

Did nothing (n = 8)

Contacted my local law enforcement official (n = 6)

1Respondents could mark more than one response

Respondent Comments With Regard ToWhy They Did Not Report The Alleged

Sexual Assault

Several commented that they were too embarrassed or did not want others to know the assault occurred.

Some respondents offered that they thought they would not be believed or dreaded reporting the incident.

Several said they did not report the incidents because the perpetrators were their friends and didn’t want to get them in trouble.

Still others seemed to blame themselves for the assaults because they were drinking or somehow felt responsible in other ways.

Satisfaction with UW-Milwaukee

Employees

Students

Employee Satisfaction with Their Jobs at UW-Milwaukee

73% (n = 872) percent of UW-Milwaukee faculty and staff were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their jobs at UW-Milwaukee. Two differences were found among demographic

categories:Classified staff members were less satisfied than

faculty and academic staff with their jobs at UW-Milwaukee.

People of color were less satisfied than other employee groups.

Faculty and Staff Members’ Satisfaction with Their Jobs (%)

79 77

63

1118

12

Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Employee Satisfaction with The Way Their Careers have Progressed at UW-Milwaukee

63% (n = 730) were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Milwaukee. Classified staff members were less satisfied than

faculty and academic staff with the way their careers have progressed at UW-Milwaukee.

People of color and women employees were less satisfied than other employee groups.

Employee Satisfaction With The Way Their Careers Have Progressed

By Position Status (%)

7266

49

18

29

17

Faculty Academic Staff Classified Staff

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Employee Satisfaction with the Way Their Careers Have Progressed by Selected

Demographic Categories (%)

6067

5764 67

63

17 20 21 212023

Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Employee Comments With Regard To The Way Their Careers Have Progressed

Employees who were satisfied with the way their careers have progressed appreciated the opportunity to accomplish personal and professional goals.

Some said poor communication with and among departments, and unsupportive supervisors impacted their career progression.

Others indicated the lack of opportunities for job advancement, excessive workloads, and the institution’s failure to promote lifelong learning and human development of employees as impediments.

Dissatisfied faculty indicated the University lacked financial and technical support to foster faculty members’ research agendas.

Student Satisfaction With Their Education at UW-Milwaukee

79% (n = 1297) of students were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with their education at UW-Milwaukee. Little difference found between demographic categories

with the exception of: Men, Students of Color, and sexual minority students were

slightly less satisfied with their educations at UW-Milwaukee than were other students.

Student Satisfaction With Their Education at UW-Milwaukee

66% (n = 1057) were “highly satisfied” or “satisfied” with the way their academic careers have progressed at UW-Milwaukee. Men, Students of Color and sexual minority students

were less satisfied than their majority counterparts.

Student Satisfaction with the Way Their Academic Careers Have Progressed (%)

6763 62

6759

66

16 18 15 151815

Women Men People of Color White LGB Heterosexual

Satisfied*

Dissatisfied**

Student Respondents’ Comments in Regard to Satisfaction

Students who were satisfied with the way their academic careers have progressed said they established relationships with supportive advisors and faculty members, earned good grades, recognized the value in getting a college education, and felt challenged by the course work.

Dissatisfied students said their advisors hindered their academic progression, thought their peers lacked necessary academic skills, thought UW-Milwaukee coursework was not challenging, thought UW-Milwaukee lacked enough evening courses, said their personal lives slowed their academic progression, and believed UW-Milwaukee required too many pre-requisites.

Have You Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Milwaukee?

68 percent of faculty respondents

Faculty women (67%); Faculty men (69%)

White faculty (70%); Faculty of Color (69%) 67 percent of academic staff and 64 percent of

classified staff respondents

Staff men (66%); Staff women (63%)

Staff of Color (65%); White staff (64%)

Have You Seriously Considered Leaving UW-Milwaukee?

42% of Undergraduate Respondents

41% of Graduate Respondents

Men (42%); Women (42%) Students of Color (48%); White students (41%) LGB (53%); Heterosexual (41%)

Perceptions

Perceived or Were Personally Made Aware of Conduct That Created an Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive

and/or Hostile Working Or Learning Environment

% n

Yes 33.0 942

Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Race (%)

31

38

White People (n=713)

People of Color (n=196)

Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Gender (%)

33 32

Women (n=631)

Men (n=293)

Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Sexual Orientation (%)

51

31

LGB (n=113)Heterosexual (n=803)

Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct by Position Status (%)

30

4036 36

Students (n=479)

Faculty (n=144)

Academic Staff (n=167)

Classified Staff (n=125)

Form of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, Exclusionary, or Intimidating Conduct

n %Deliberately ignored or excluded 359 38.1Derogatory remarks 339 36.0Stares 305 32.4Racial/ethnic profiling 299 31.7Intimidation/bullying 239 25.4Someone isolated or left out because of their identity 215 22.8Assumption that someone was admitted or hired because of their identity 210 22.3Graffiti 167 17.7Someone isolated or left out when working in groups 163 17.3Derogatory written comments 154 16.3Someone receiving a low performance evaluation 145 15.4Someone singled out as the “resident authority” regarding their identity 131 13.9

Source of Perceived Offensive, Hostile, or Intimidating Conduct (%)

Undergraduate Students (30%) Faculty (25%) Colleagues (19%) Staff Members (15%)

Perceived Discriminatory Practices

Perceived Discriminatory Hiring (28%) Due to race (32%) Due to ethnicity (26%) Due to gender (22%) Due to institutional status (12%) Due to age (12%)

Perceived Discriminatory Promotion (26%) Due to gender (31%) Due to race (31%) Due to ethnicity (22%) Due to institutional status (19%)

Perceived Discriminatory Firing (16%) Due to race (39%) Due to gender (28%) Due to ethnicity (21%) Due to age (16%)

The majority of respondents expressed positive attitudes about work-life issues. There were, however, responses that demonstrated less positive attitudes towards their work unit, the process of tenure/promotion, and the fairness of salary/compensation.

Work-Life Issues

Work-Life Issues

72% (n = 851) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that they were comfortable asking questions about performance expectations.

47% (n = 549) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that there are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units.

31% (n = 369) of respondents “strongly agree/agree” that they were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear than it will affect their performance evaluation or tenure decision.

Work-Life Issues

65% ( n = 770) of employees “strongly agree/agree” that they are able to balance their professional and personal lives.

33% (n = 422) find that UW-Milwaukee is supportive of family leave.

29% (n = 343) of faculty and staff members have to miss out on important things in their personal lives because of professional responsibilities.

20% (n = 235) of respondents felt that employees who do not have children were often burdened with work responsibilities.

16% (n = 176) “strongly agree/agree” that they have equitable access to domestic partner benefits.

Work-Life Issues

64% (n = 749) of employee respondents believe that they have colleagues or peers at UW-Milwaukee who give them career advice or guidance when they need it.

56% (n = 653) of employee respondents believe that they have support from decision makers/colleagues who support their career advancement.

35% (n = 411) of employee respondents reported that their compensation was equitable to their peers with similar levels of experience.

More than half of the respondents “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the Multicultural Student Center, LGBT Resource Center, Women’s Resource Center, Student Accessibility Center, and Office of the Chancellor provided visible leadership that fosters inclusion of diverse members of the campus community.

Institutional Actions

Inclusive Curriculum

More than half of all students and faculty felt the courses they took or taught included materials, perspectives, and/or experiences of people based on “difference”

The exceptions included psychological, physical, and learning disability status, gender identity, gender expression, immigrant status, physical characteristics, sexual orientation, and veteran/military status

Welcoming Classroom Climate

The majority of students found the classroom climate to be welcoming of “difference.” Two exceptions include:

Racial Differences White Students (65%); Students of Color (53%)

Sexual Orientation Differences Heterosexual (58%); LGB (37%)

Welcoming Workplace Climate

More than half of all employees found the workplace climate to be welcoming of “difference.”

Respondents of Color and women were least likely to believe that the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on gender.

Respondents of Color and sexual minority respondents were least likely to believe the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on race and sexual orientation.

Next Steps…

Process ForwardFall/Winter 2008

Share report results with community Community dialogue regarding the assessment results Community feedback on recommended actions Executive Summary available at:

http://www4.uwm.edu/acad_aff/climate/ Full Report will be available at

http://www4.uwm.edu/acad_aff/climate/

Paper copy: UWM Golda Meir Library

Recommend a planning “advance” to begin a “call to action” regarding the challenges uncovered in the report

Potential Recommendations Provided by Respondents

70% of employee respondents thought it would be a good idea to train mentors and leaders within departments to model positive climate behavior

55% of employee respondents thought providing tenure clock options with more flexibility for promotion/tenure for faculty/staff with families would positively affect the climate.


Employees also thought the following immersion experiences would positively affect the climate at UW-Milwaukee

Faculty/staff/students should learn a second language Faculty/staff/students should participate in service-learning projects

with lower SES populations Faculty/staff/students should work with

underrepresented/underserved populations


Employees felt the following would positively affect the climate at UW-Milwaukee

Provide a clear protocol for responding to hate/hostile incidents at the campus level (81%) and departmental level (80%)

Provide on-campus child care services (72%) Provide mentors for minority faculty/students/staff new to campus

(71%) Provide gender neutral/family friendly facilities (59%)

Tell Us What You Think…

Additional questions/comments on results?

Thoughts on process?Suggested actions?

Questions..? Other Ideas..?

Last Thoughts

“Resistance begins with people confronting pain, whether it’s theirs or somebody else’s, and wanting to do something to change it”

--- bell hooks,“Yearning”

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report November 2-3, 2008.

Documents

Transcript of University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Campus Climate Assessment Results of Report November 2-3, 2008.