Q. Rankin 8L Associates, Consulting Assessment 0 Planning 0 Interventions University of California Los Angeles Campus Climate Project Final Report March 2014 - . luan n\ lk witsultmu Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i Introduction ...................................................................................................................... i Project Structure and Process........................................................................................... i Description of the Sample at UCLA ............................................................................... ii Key Findings - Areas of Strength .................................................................................. iv Key Findings - Opportunities for Improvement ............................................................. v Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Review of the Literature: Campus Climate’s Influence on Academic and Professional Success ............................................................................................................................ 5 UC Campus Climate Assessment Project Structure and Process ................................... 8 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 10 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 10 Research Design............................................................................................................ 10 Results ............................................................................................................................... 14 Description of the Sample............................................................................................. 14 Sample Characteristics .................................................................................................. 19 Campus Climate Assessment Findings ............................................................................. 46 Comfort with the Climate at UCLA.............................................................................. 46 Perceptions of Level of Respect ................................................................................... 65 Perceptions of Campus Accessibility............................................................................ 67 Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct ... 68 Observations of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct ................ 86 Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact .................................................................... 95 Faculty and Staff Perceptions of Climate ..................................................................... 97 Campus Climate and Work-Life Issues .................................................................. 106 Perceptions of Employment Practices ........................................................................ 115 Faculty Members’ Views on University Policies ................................................... 118 Faculty, Staff, and Post-Docs/Trainees Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving UCLA ...................................................................................................................... 122 Students Perceptions of Campus Climate ................................................................... 124 Student Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact ................................................. 124 Students’ Academic Experiences ............................................................................ 126 Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate.............................................................. 131 Students Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving UCLA ................................... 140 Institutional Actions ........................................................................................................ 143 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................... 149 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 References ....................................................................................................................... 150 Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 153 Appendix A - Crosstabulations by Selected Demographics……………...154 Appendix B – Data Tables………………………………………………..156 Appendix C – Survey Instrument…………………………………………245 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Executive Summary Introduction The University of California (UC) is dedicated to fostering a caring university community that provides leadership for constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. The University has a long history of supporting initiatives that foster an inclusive living, learning, and working environment. 1 A common recommendation offered by these initiatives was the need for a comprehensive tool that would provide campus climate metrics for students, faculty, staff, post-doctoral scholars, and trainees across the system. To that end, the University contracted with Rankin & Associates, Consulting (R&A) to conduct a system-wide “Campus Climate” survey. The purpose of the survey was to gather a wide variety of data related to institutional climate, inclusion, and work-life issues so that the University is better informed about the living and working environments for students, faculty, staff, post-doctoral scholars, and trainees at the ten UC campuses as well as the Office of the President, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Based on the findings, each UC campus and the three locations will develop action plans and strategic initiatives to improve the overall campus climate. Project Structure and Process The development of the survey instrument was a collaborative effort between R&A and a System-wide Work Team (SWT). The SWT was comprised of at least two representatives from each UC campus/location as well as representatives from student associations, employee unions, and the faculty. The UCLA survey contained 93 questions including several open-ended questions for respondents to provide commentary. The survey was offered in English and Spanish and distributed from January 8, 2013 through February 23, 2013 through a secure on-line portal. 2 Confidential 1 For example: Declaration of Community, 1993; Study Group on Diversity, 2006; Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion, 2010. 2 All translations were provided by Kern translation services http://www.e-kern.com/us.html. i Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 paper surveys were available to those who did not have access to an Internet-connected computer or preferred a paper survey. The survey data were analyzed to compare the responses of various groups. Descriptive statistics were calculated by salient group memberships (e.g., position status, gender identity, racial identity) to provide additional information regarding participant responses. Meaningful and notable findings were included in the report based on chi-square analyses, information gleaned from the literature, and/or experiences of the consultant. Additional narrative was requested for several questions in the survey. For the purposes of this report, content analyses were conducted on questions where there was limited quantitative data. Description of the Sample at UCLA UCLA community members completed 16,242 surveys for a response rate of 22%. Response rates by constituent group varied: 19% for Undergraduate Students (n = 5,382), 24% for Graduate/Professional Students (n = 2,979), and 12% for Union Staff (n = 1,850), 19% for Faculty (n = 1380), and 35% for non-union staff (n = 3,861). Table 1 provides a summary of selected demographic characteristics of survey respondents. The percentages offered in Table 1 are based on the numbers of respondents in the sample (n) for the specific demographic characteristic. 3 Only surveys that were at least 50% completed were included in the final data set for analyses. 3 The total n for each demographic characteristic will differ due to missing data. Definitions for each demographic characteristic used for analysis purposes are provided at the conclusion of the Executive Summary. ii Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 1. UCLA Sample Demographics Characteristic Position Status Subgroup Undergraduate Students i Graduate/Professional Students Faculty ii iii 407 3% 9519 59% 6540 40% 24 <1% 101 <1% 5,795 3,507 36% 22% 6,408 40% 234 1% 13,315 82% 1,378 8% 152 1% 742 5% 14,807 91% 1,280 8% 77 <1% 12,649 78% 2,414 15% Christian affiliation xiii 5,808 36% Other Religious/Spiritual affiliation xiv 1,019 6% 227 1% 727 5% 6,723 41% 1,027 6% 711 4% Women vi Genderqueer vii White Underrepresented Minority viii Other People of Color ix Multi-Minority x Heterosexual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer Questioning xi Asexual xii U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen Undocumented Disability Status Religious/Spiritual Affiliation 18% 9% Transgender Citizenship Status 2,979 38% Men Sexual Identity 33% 6,094 Post-Doctoral Scholars/Trainees v Racial Identity 5,382 1,380 Staff iv Gender Identity % of Sample n No disability Disability (physical, learning, mental health/psychological condition) Muslim Jewish xv xvi No affiliation xvii Multiple affiliations xviii Unknown iii Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Key Findings - Areas of Strength 1. High levels of comfort with the climate at UCLA • 80% of all respondents (n = 13,026) were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate at UCLA while 6% of all respondents (n = 997) indicated that they were “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable.” • 75% of all respondents (n = 12,131) were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate for diversity in their department/work unit/academic unit/college/school/clinical setting while 10% of all respondents (n = 1,681) indicated that they were “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable.” • 71% of Undergraduate Students (n = 3,823), 78% of Graduate/Professional Students (n = 2,315), and 90% of Faculty and PostDoc respondents (n = 896) were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in their classes, while 7% of Undergraduates (n = 380), 6% of Graduate/Professional Students (n =176), and 2% of Faculty/PostDocs (n = 20) were “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable.” 2. Faculty and Staff - Positive attitudes about work-life issues • 76% of all Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, Graduate/Professional Student and Trainee respondents (n = 8,095) offered that UCLA values a diverse faculty and 80% offered that the campus values a diverse staff (n = 8,595). • 63% of all Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, Graduate/Professional Student, and Trainee respondents (n = 6,721) indicated that their supervisors provided them career advice or guidance when they needed it and that their supervisors provided ongoing feedback to improve their performance (60%, n = 6,447). • 83% of health sciences employees (n = 1,681) believed their patient-care load was manageable. 3. Students - Positive attitudes about academic experiences • 68% of Undergraduate Student respondents (n = 3,648) and 76% of Graduate/Professional Student respondents (n = 2,260) were satisfied with their academic experience at UCLA. iv Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Key Findings - Opportunities for Improvement 1. Some members of the community experience exclusionary conduct • 24% of respondents (n = 3,946) believed that they had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct; eight percent of respondents (n = 1,347) indicated that the conduct interfered with their ability to work or learn. 4 • Differences emerged based on various demographic characteristics including position status, ethnic identity, racial identity, and discipline of study. For example, o A higher percentage of Staff and Post-Doc/Trainee respondents reported experiencing this conduct as compared to Faculty or Students. o A higher percentage of ethnic and racial minority respondents and LGBQ respondents reported experiencing this conduct as compared to their majority counterparts. 2. Several constituent groups indicated that they were less comfortable with the overall campus climate, workplace climate, and classroom climate • Faculty respondents were less comfortable when compared with Staff, Student, and Post-Doctoral Scholar/Trainee respondents with the overall campus climate at UCLA and with the climate in their departments/work units. • Women, Genderqueer, and Transgender respondents were less comfortable than men respondents with the overall climate and less comfortable with the climate in their classes. 4 The literature on microaggressions is clear that this type of conduct has a negative influence on people who experience the conduct even if they feel at the time that it had no impact (Sue, 2010; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009). v Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 • Underrepresented Minority respondents and Multi-Minority respondents were less comfortable than White respondents and Other People of Color respondents with the overall climate and the workplace climate. White respondents were more comfortable with the climate in their classes than other racial groups. 3. A small but meaningful percentage of respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact • 3% of respondents (n = 419) believed they had experienced unwanted sexual contact while at UCLA within the last five years. Subsequent analyses of the data revealed the following: • Higher percentages of Undergraduate Students (5%, n = 252) experienced unwanted sexual contact in the past five years as compared to Graduate/Professional Students (2%, n = 50), Staff (2%, n = 102), or Faculty (1%, n = 13). • For Undergraduate Student respondents in terms of gender identity, higher percentages of women respondents (7%, n = 213), experienced this conduct as compared to men respondents (2%, n = 37). Additional findings disaggregated by position and other selected demographic characteristics are provided in more detail in the full report. The findings are consistent with those found in higher education institutions across the country based on the work of the consultant (Rankin & Associates, 2013). For example, 70% to 80% of all respondents in similar reports found the campus climate to be “comfortable” or “very comfortable.” Eighty percent of all respondents in the UCLA survey reported that they were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate at UCLA. Similarly, 20% to 25% in similar reports believed that they had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct. At UCLA, 24% of respondents believed that they had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct. The results also parallel the findings of other climate studies of specific constituent groups offered in the literature (Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, vi Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 & Seward, 2008; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Sears, 2002; Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006; Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solórzano, 2009). i Undergraduate Student refers to students who were taking classes at a UC campus when the survey was administered who had not yet completed a bachelor’s degree. ii Graduate/Professional Student refers to students who were taking classes at a UC campus when the survey was administered who had completed a bachelor’s degree and were in one of the following statuses: non-degree, certificate/teacher credential program candidate, Master’s degree student, Doctoral degree student (Ph.D., Ed.D.), and Professional degree student (e.g., MD, JD, MBA) iii Faculty refers to a UC employee in one of the following statuses: Faculty Administrator (e.g. Vice Provost, Dean, Department Chair, Director), General Campus Faculty, and Health Sciences Campus Faculty iv Staff refers to a UC employee in one of the following statuses: Non-Union, Union, and Other Academic Series (e.g., Librarian, Continuing Educator, Reader, Research titles) v Postdoctoral scholars refers to individuals holding a doctoral degree who are engaged in a temporary period of mentored research and/or scholarly training for the purpose of acquiring the professional skills needed to pursue a career path of his or her choosing. This includes both Employees and Paid-Directs. Trainees refer to Health Science campus Residents/Fellows/Housestaff/Interns - including Post MD and Post-MD II-IV and Chief Post MD-Officer. vi Transgender was defined for this project as an umbrella term referring to those whose gender identity (a person’s inner sense of being man, woman, both, or neither. One’s internal identity may or may not be expressed outwardly, and may or may not correspond to one’s physical characteristics) or gender expression (the manner in which a person outwardly represents gender, regardless of the physical characteristics that might typically define the individual as male or female) is different from that traditionally associated with their sex assigned at birth (refers to the assigning (naming) of the biological sex of a baby at birth). Self-identification as transgender does not preclude identification as male or female, nor do all those who might fit the definition self-identify as transgender. Here, those who chose to selfidentify as transgender have been reported separately in order to reveal the presence of a relatively new campus identity that might otherwise have been overlooked. vii Genderqueer refers to a person whose gender identity is neither man nor woman, is between or beyond genders, or is some combination of genders. This identity is usually related to or in reaction to the social construction of gender, gender stereotypes and the gender binary system. Some genderqueer people identify under the transgender umbrella while others do not. Self-identification as genderqueer does not preclude identification as male or female, nor do all those who might fit the definition self-identify as genderqueer. Here, those who chose to self-identify as genderqueer have been reported separately in order to reveal the presence of a relatively new campus identity that might otherwise have been overlooked. viii The Underrepresented Minority variable includes African American/African/Black respondents, American Indian/Alaskan Native respondents, and Hispanic/Latino respondents AND individuals who checked both the Underrepresented Minority and White responses. ix The Other People of Color variable includes Asian/Asian American respondents, Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North African respondents, and Pacific Islanders AND individuals who checked both the Other People of Color and White responses. x The Multi-Minority variable includes respondents who checked any of the responses included under the aforementioned “Underrepresented Minority” and “Other People of Color” categories AND respondents who checked “Underrepresented Minority,” “Other People of Color,” and White. vii Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 xi Questioning refers to a person who questions his or her sexual identity or gender identity and does not necessarily identify as definitively gay, for example. xii Asexual refers to a person who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of an individual. xiii The Christian Affiliation variable includes respondents who chose any Christian religious/spiritual affiliation. xiv The Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliation variable includes respondents who chose Buddhist, Confucianist, Druid, Hindu, Jain, Native American Traditional Practitioner, Pagan, Rastafarian, Scientologist, Secular Humanist, Shinto, Sikh, Taoist, Unitarian Universalist, and Wiccan. xv The Muslim variable includes respondents who chose Ahmadi Muslim, Muslim, Shi’ite, Sufi, and Sunni. xvi The Jewish variable includes respondents who chose Jewish Conservative, Jewish Orthodox, and Jewish Reform. xvii The No Affiliation variable includes respondents who chose agnostic; atheist; no affiliation; and spiritual, but no affiliation. xviii The Multiple Affiliations variable includes respondents who chose more than one spirituality/religious affiliation. viii Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Introduction The University of California is dedicated to fostering a caring university community that provides leadership for constructive participation in a diverse, multicultural world. The University has a long history of supporting initiatives that foster an inclusive living, learning, and working environment. For example, in 1993 a University-wide campus community task force offered A Declaration of Community that adopted seven principles to assess the state of community at the University. “These principles, derived from the core values which define and sustain the University, delineate both the individual's rights and responsibilities that flow from being a member of the campus community, as well as define the community's obligations to its members” (Handel & Caloss, p.2). In 2006, a University’s Board of Regents’ Study Group on University Diversity was established to examine the current state of diversity and identify actions for improving diversity at the University. The Study Group identified three key principles and policy recommendations. Acting on the initial set of recommendations, the Board of Regents affirmed the centrality of diversity to the University’s mission and the need for improvements in this area and adopted as University policy a Diversity Statement (Regents Policy 4400), which reads in part: “Because the core mission of the University of California is to serve the interests of the State of California, it must seek to achieve diversity among its student bodies and among its employees” (Parsky & Hume, 2007, p. E-1). One of five reports produced by the Study Group, the Campus Climate Report, offered that while a “number of studies have been conducted that address climate for a specific constituent group (e.g., UCUES, 5 NSSE, 6 SERU, 7 HERI8), or at a specific campus/location (e.g., UC Faculty Survey, UC Riverside Campus Climate Study), no data currently exist that supports a conclusive understanding of the climate at any of our campuses and the system as a whole” (Study Group on University Diversity-Campus Climate Report, p. 5). The authors stated that the University “has not conducted or 5 6 7 8 UCUES - University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey NSSE – National Survey of Student Engagement SERU – Student Experience in the Research University HERI – Higher Education Research Institute – Faculty Survey 1 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 reported any comprehensive assessments of campus climate…without data and comprehensive, sustained assessment, the source and significance of individual perceptions and anecdotes regarding climate cannot be quantified or understood” (Study Group on University Diversity, p. 12). In 2008, the Staff Diversity Council and the UC Regents Study Group on Campus Climate both recommended regular climate assessments. They reiterated the findings from the 2007 report suggesting that the only system-wide data available is embedded in the UC Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES), an instrument which is not designed to measure campus/location climate. Despite the fact that UCUES was not intended to specifically survey campus/location climate, a small portion of the questions can be useful in beginning to understand undergraduate students’ perceptions of climate. For example, UCUES can demonstrate certain behaviors and attitudes regarding interactions with peers and faculty, perspectives on the level of tolerance on campus or at a specific location, and the impact of the UC experience on students’ appreciation for diversity, understanding of racial and ethnic differences, and awareness of their own ethnic identity. However, it was recommended that additional and more specific assessment means were needed to draw solid conclusions regarding campus/location climate for all members of the University community. In February 2010, UC experienced a wave of incidents that generated significant attention to the need of the University to actively and collaboratively address campus/location climate challenges and complex intergroup dynamics. In early February 2010, members of a UC San Diego fraternity held an off-campus party mocking Black History Month. Later that same month at UC, a noose was discovered hanging from a lamp on a bookshelf in the Geisel Library at the University. The incidents sparked student and community demonstrations and calls for changes in the campus climate. In late February 2010, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Resource Center at UC Davis experienced acts of vandalism – the entrance to the Center was defaced with derogatory and hateful words that target the LGBT community. In response, thenPresident Mark G. Yudof formed a UC Advisory Council to the President on Campus 2 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Climate, Culture, and Inclusion which included the appointment of several prominent Californians long associated with the struggle for equal rights and representatives from UC’s faculty, administration, student body, alumni, and the local community. The Advisory Council was charged to identify, evaluate, and share best practices in order to ensure a welcoming, inclusive and nurturing environment across UC’s campuses. The Advisory Council was asked to look broadly at other institutions, both public and private, in higher education and elsewhere, and to examine policies across the state and the nation. The President also directed each of UC’s Chancellors to create similar advisory councils at the campus level, which would set metrics, monitor progress, and report regularly to the system-wide Advisory Council. While most campuses/locations already had existing bodies that do this work on an ongoing basis, then-President Yudof asked them to redouble their efforts and, in some instances, adjust their mission or composition to be more broadly inclusive. The Advisory Council revitalized discussions on the need for a comprehensive and regularized tool that can provide campus/location climate metrics for students, faculty, and staff across the system. The Advisory Council reviewed analysis that had been conducted by a UC Office of the President committee on nearly 50 assessment tools and findings that had been conducted across the UC system which include some campus/location climate or diversity indicators, in addition to reviewing efforts by other Universities to conduct comprehensive climate studies. The review resulted in the identification of seven best practices in University campus/location climate studies: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Conduct a full study, not just a survey. Study should be comprehensive, including all constituent groups. Administer follow-up regularly. Administered by an external agency. Solicit significant input from internal constituencies. Develop communications plan. Develop action plan. Particularly important in the review of best practices was the need for external expertise in survey administration. In the committee’s assessment, administration of a survey relating to a very sensitive subject like campus/location climate is likely to yield higher 3 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 response rates and provide more credible findings if led by an independent, outside agency. Staff may feel particularly inhibited to respond honestly to a survey administered by their own institution for fear of retaliation. Following a national vetting, Rankin & Associates (R&A) was identified as a leader in conducting multiple studies examining multiple identities in higher education. Following presentations to the President and his Cabinet, the Chancellors, and the Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion, the UC Office of the President contracted with R&A to facilitate a system-wide climate assessment. The system-wide assessment was further evidence of the University’s commitment to ensuring that all members of the community live in an environment that nurtures a culture of inclusiveness and respect at every campus and location in the system. The primary purpose of the project was to conduct a system-wide assessment to gather data related to institutional climate, inclusion, and work-life issues in order to assess the learning, living, and working environments for students, faculty, and staff at the ten campuses, including five medical centers, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR), and the UC Office of the President (UCOP). The study includes two major phases: 1) the gathering of data from a population survey informed by extensive campus/location community input; and 2) the development of strategic initiatives by the University (and based on the findings) to build on institutional successes, address institutional climate challenges and promote institutional change. Reports have been developed for each campus/location as well as an overall system-wide report for the University. At the beginning of the project, then-President Yudof reiterated that the findings should drive action and not just “sit on a shelf and gather dust” – that is, each campus/location will use the results to identify one to three annual, measurable actions based on study’s findings to improve campus/location climate. 4 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Review of the Literature: Campus Climate’s Influence on Academic and Professional Success Climate, for the purposes of this project is considered “the current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of faculty, staff, administrators and students concerning the level of respect for individual needs, abilities, and potential” (Rankin & Reason, 2008, p. 264). This includes the experience of individuals and groups on a campus—and the quality and extent of the interaction between those various groups and individuals. Diversity is one aspect of campus climate. As confirmed by the 2007 Work Team on Campus Climate (as part of the UC Regents’ Study Group on University Diversity), “diversity and inclusion efforts are not complete unless they also address climate [and] addressing campus climate is an important and necessary component in any comprehensive plan for diversity” (Study Group on University Diversity Campus Climate Report, p.1). Nearly two decades ago, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the American Council on Education (ACE) suggested that in order to build a vital community of learning, a college or university must provide a climate where …intellectual life is central and where faculty and students work together to strengthen teaching and learning, where freedom of expression is uncompromisingly protected and where civility is powerfully affirmed, where the dignity of all individuals is affirmed and where equality of opportunity is vigorously pursued, and where the well-being of each member is sensitively supported (Boyer, 1990). During that same time period, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) (1995) challenged higher education institutions “to affirm and enact a commitment to equality, fairness, and inclusion” (p. xvi). AAC&U proposed that colleges and universities commit to “the task of creating…inclusive educational environments in which all participants are equally welcome, equally valued, and equally heard” (p. xxi). The report suggested that, in order to provide a foundation for a vital community of learning, a primary duty of the academy must be to create a climate that cultivates diversity and celebrates difference. 5 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 In the ensuing years, many campuses instituted initiatives to address the challenges presented in the reports. Milem, Chang, and Antonio (2005) propose that, “Diversity must be carried out in intentional ways in order to accrue the educational benefits for students and the institution. Diversity is a process toward better learning rather than an outcome” (p. iv). The report further indicates that in order for “diversity initiatives to be successful they must engage the entire campus community” (p. v). In an exhaustive review of the literature on diversity in higher education, Smith (2009) offers that diversity like technology, is central to institutional effectiveness, excellence, and viability. She also maintains that building deep capacity for diversity requires the commitment of senior leadership and support of all members of the academic community. Ingle (2005) strongly supports the idea of a “thoughtful” process with regard to diversity initiatives in higher education. Campus environments are “complex social systems defined by the relationships between the people, bureaucratic procedures, structural arrangements, institutional goals and values, traditions, and larger socio-historical environments” (Hurtado, et al. 1998, p. 296). As such, it is likely that members of community experience the campus climate differently based on their group membership and group status on campus (Rankin & Reason, 2005). Smith (2009) provokes readers to critically examine their positions and responsibilities regarding underserved populations in higher education. A guiding question she poses is “Are special-purpose groups and locations perceived as ‘problems’ or are they valued as contributing to the diversity of the institution and its educational missions” (p. 225)? Based on the literature, campus climate influences student’s academic success and employee’s professional success and well-being. The literature also suggests that various social identity groups perceive the campus climate differently and their perceptions may adversely affect working and learning outcomes. A summary of this literature follows. Individual perceptions of discrimination or a negative campus climate for intergroup relations influence student educational outcomes. Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) note that 6 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 when stereotypes “pervade the learning environment for minority students...student academic performance can be undermined” (p. 236). The literature also suggests students of color who perceive their campus environment as hostile have higher rates of attrition, and have problems with student adjustment (Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 2008; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). Johnson et al. (2007) indicates that perceptions of the campus racial climate continue to strongly influence the sense of belonging in minority college students. Several other empirical studies reinforce the importance of the perception of non-discriminatory environments to positive learning and developmental outcomes (Aguirre & Messineo, 1997; Flowers & Pascarella, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini, & Nora, 2001). Finally, research supports the pedagogical value of a diverse student body and faculty on enhancing learning outcomes (Hale, 2004; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2004). Students in colleges or universities with more inclusive campus environments feel more equipped to participate in an increasingly multicultural society (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). When the campus climate is healthy, and students have the opportunity to interact with diverse peers, positive learning occurs and democratic skills develop (Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). Racial and ethnic diversity in the campus environment coupled with the institution’s efforts to foster opportunities for quality interactions and learning from each other promote “active thinking and personal development” (Gurin et al., 2002, p. 338). The personal and professional development of employees including faculty, administrators, and staff are also impacted by the complex nature of the campus climate. In a study by Settles, Cortina, Malley, and Stewart (2006), sexual harassment and gender discrimination had a significant negative impact on the overall attitudes toward employment for women faculty in the academic sciences. Sears (2002) found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual faculty members who judge their campus climate more positively are more likely to feel personally supported and perceive their work unit as more supportive of personnel decisions (i.e., hiring and promoting LGB faculty members) than those who view their campus climate more negatively. Research that underscores the relationships 7 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 between workplace discrimination and negative job and career attitudes, as well as workplace encounters with prejudice and lower health and well-being (i.e., anxiety and depression, lower life satisfaction and physical health) and greater occupation dysfunction (i.e., organizational withdrawal, and lower satisfaction with work, coworkers and supervisors; Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2007; Waldo, 1999) further substantiates the influence of campus climate on employee satisfaction and subsequent productivity. UC Campus Climate Assessment Project Structure and Process As noted earlier, the first phase of the current project to examine campus climate was to gather data from a population survey informed by extensive campus/location community input. The development of the survey instrument was a collaborative year-long effort between R&A and a System-wide Work Team (SWT). The SWT was comprised of at least two representatives from each UC campus/location as well as representatives from the President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, and Inclusion, Academic Senate, UC Students Association (UCSA), Council of UC Staff Assemblies (CUCSA), and union-represented employees. In addition, each campus/location charged a Local Work Team (LWT) to assist in the review of the draft survey instruments and their feedback was shared with R&A through the SWT meetings. R&A also reviewed surveys and reports produced at UC (system-wide and campus/location-specific) over the past two decades that included any information regarding campus/location climate. Informed by previous work of R&A that included a bank of over 200 questions and the review of previous UC surveys and reports, the SWT developed the final UC survey template. Because of the inherent complexity of the climate construct, it is crucial to examine the multiple dimensions of climate in higher education. The conceptual model used as the foundation for this assessment of campus climate was developed by Smith (1999) and modified by Rankin (2002). The model is presented through a power and privilege lens. The power and privilege perspective is grounded in critical theory and assumes that power differentials, both earned and unearned, are central to all human interactions (Brookfield, 2005). Unearned power and privilege are associated with membership in 8 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 certain dominant social groups (Johnson, 2005). Because we all hold multiple social identities we have the opportunity and, we assert, the responsibility to address the oppression of underserved social groups within the power/privilege social hierarchies on our campuses. The model is instituted via a transformational process that capitalizes on the inclusive power and privilege perspective. The model has been implemented by over one hundred campuses as a means of identifying successes and challenges with regard to climate issues. The final survey template contained 93 questions and was designed for respondents to provide information about their personal experiences with regard to climate issues and work-life experiences, their perceptions of the campus/location climate, and their perceptions of institutional actions at the campus/location. All members of the University community (students, faculty, staff, post-doctoral fellows and trainees) were invited to participate in the survey. Individual campuses/locations also had the opportunity to add additional campus-specific questions. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Project Specifics The UCLA survey was distributed from January 8, 2013 through February 23, 2013. The final UCLA survey contained 93 questions, including several open-ended questions for respondents to provide commentary. This report provides an overview of the results of the campus-wide UCLA survey. 9 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Methodology Conceptual Framework The UC Campus Climate Assessment project defines diversity as the “variety created in any society (and within any individual) by the presence of different points of view and ways of making meaning, which generally flow from the influence of different cultural, ethnic, and religious heritages, from the differences in how we socialize women and men, and from the differences that emerge from class, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability and other socially constructed characteristics.” 9 The inherent complexity of the topic of diversity requires the examination of the multiple dimensions of diversity in higher education. The conceptual model used as the foundation for this assessment of campus climate was developed by Smith (1999) and modified by Rankin (2002). Research Design Survey Instrument. The survey questions were constructed based on the work of Rankin (2003). The (SWT) reviewed several drafts of the survey template and UCLA further vetted the questions to be more contextually fitting for the UCLA population. The final UCLA campus-specific survey contained 93 questions, 10 including open-ended questions for respondents to provide commentary. The survey was designed so that respondents could provide information about their personal campus experiences, their perceptions of the campus climate, and their perceptions of UCLA’s institutional actions, including administrative policies and academic initiatives regarding diversity issues and concerns. The survey was available in both an on-line and pencil-and-paper formats and was offered in English and Spanish. 11 All survey responses were input into a secure site database, stripped of their IP addresses, and then tabulated for appropriate analysis. 9 Rankin & Associates (2001) adapted from AAC&U (1995). To insure reliability, evaluators must insure that instruments are properly worded (questions and response choices must be worded in such a way that they elicit consistent responses) and administered in a consistent manner. The instrument was revised numerous times, defined critical terms, and underwent "expert evaluation" of items (in addition to checks for internal consistency). 11 All translations were provided by Kern translation services http://www.e-kern.com/us.html. 10 10 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Sampling Procedure. The project proposal, including the survey instrument, was reviewed by the University’s Institutional Review Board Directors. The Review Board Directors considered the activity to be designed to assess campus/location climate within the University and to inform UCOP strategic quality improvement initiatives. The IRB directors acknowledged that the data collected from this quality improvement activity may also be used for research, subject to IRB approval. Since data collected for the UC Campus Climate Assessment were collected for non-research purposes, future research projects involving use of identifiable data from the UC Climate Assessment will be eligible for expedited IRB review under category 5. Prospective participants received a mail-merged e-mail with a personal embedded link. The link contained a personal identifier (which allowed respondents to return to the survey if not completed in one sitting) and automatically entered the respondent into an incentive prize drawing. The unique identifier tied to the respondent’s username was maintained by the respective campus/location. The campus/location did not receive the raw data matched to the identifier. Rankin & Associates received the raw data with the unique identifier, but no user name or id. This process prevented any raw data from being directly linked to a participant’s username. Respondents had to be 18 years of age or older to participate. Respondents were instructed that they did not have to answer questions and that they could withdraw from the survey at any time before submitting their responses. Each survey included information describing the purpose of the study, explaining the survey instrument, and assuring the respondents of anonymity. Only surveys that were at least 50% completed were included in the final data set. The survey results were submitted directly to a secure server where any computer identification that might identify participants was deleted. Any comments provided by participants were also separated at submission so that comments were not attributed to any individual demographic characteristics. 11 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Limitations. Some limitations to the generalizability of the data existed. The first limitation is that respondents “self-select” to participate. Self-selection bias, therefore, was possible since participants had the choice of whether to participate. The bias lies in that an individual’s decision to participate may be correlated with traits that affect the study, which could make the sample non-representative. For example, people with strong opinions or substantial knowledge regarding climate issues on campus may have been more apt to participate in the study. Data Analysis. Survey data were analyzed to compare the responses (in raw numbers and percentages) of various groups via SPSS (version 20.0). Missing data analyses (e.g., missing data patterns, survey fatigue) were conducted for each location and those analyses were provided to the University. Descriptive statistics were calculated by salient group memberships (e.g., by gender, race/ethnicity, campus/location position) to provide additional information regarding participant responses. Throughout much of this report, including the narrative and data tables within the narrative, information was presented using valid percentages. 12 Refer to the survey data tables in Appendix B for actual percentages 13 where missing or no response information can be found. The rationale for this discrepancy in reporting is to note the missing or “no response” data in the appendices for institutional information while removing such data within the report for subsequent cross tabulations. Several survey questions allowed respondents the opportunity to further describe their experiences on UCLA’s campus, to expand upon their survey responses, and to add any additional thoughts they wished. Comments were solicited to give voice to the data and to highlight areas of concern that might have been missed in the quantitative items of the survey. These open-ended comments were reviewed 14 using standard methods of thematic analysis. Rankin and Associates reviewers read all comments, and a list of 12 Valid percentages derived using the total number of respondents to a particular item (i.e., missing data were excluded). These analyses were provided in the individual campus reports and were not included in the Aggregate report. 13 Actual percentages derived using the total number of survey respondents. 14 Any comments provided in languages other than English were translated and incorporated into the qualitative analysis. 12 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 common themes was generated based on their judgment. Most themes reflected the issues raised in the survey questions and revealed in the quantitative data; however, additional themes that arose in the comments were noted in the comments analysis. This methodology does not reflect a comprehensive qualitative study. Comments were not used to develop grounded hypotheses independent of the quantitative data. Content analyses were offered in the narrative for the comments provided by participants in the text boxes after the following questions. These narratives are included in the campus/location reports but not in the system-wide report as the comments offered by participants were location-specific. In this report, narratives are included for the following questions: #8 - In the past year, have you seriously considered leaving UCLA? #19 - Within the last five years, have you experienced unwanted physical sexual contact at UCLA? #89 - Faculty, Staff, and Post-docs/Trainees Only: How does each of the following [initiatives] affect the climate for diversity at UCLA? #91 – Students Only: How does each of the following [initiatives] affect the climate for diversity at UCLA? 13 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Results This section of the report provides a description of the sample demographics, measures of internal reliability, and a discussion of validity. This section also presents the results as per the project design. The design called for examining respondents’ personal campus experiences, their perceptions of the campus climate, and their perceptions of UC’s institutional actions, including administrative policies and academic initiatives regarding climate. Description of the Sample 15 16,242 surveys were returned for a 22% overall response rate. The sample and population figures, chi-square analyses, 16 and response rates are presented in Table 2. All analyzed demographic categories showed statistically significant differences between the sample and the population. • • • • • • • Women were over-represented in the sample. American Indian/Alaskan Natives and Whites were over-represented in the sample. Two race/ethnicity categories (Pacific Islanders/Hawaiian Natives and Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North Africans) were not identified in the population. African Americans/Blacks, Asians/Asian Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos were under-represented in the sample. Graduate/Professional Students, Postdoctoral Scholars, Non-Union Staff, and Other Academic Series employees were significantly over-represented in the sample than the population. The sample had significantly smaller proportions of Undergraduate Students, Trainees, Union Staff, and Faculty than did the population. Citizenship data were not provided for the population by the institution; therefore, tests of significance were not run. 15 All frequency tables are provided in Appendix B. For any notation regarding tables in the narrative, the reader is directed to the tables in Appendix B. 16 Chi Square tests were run only on those categories that were response options in the survey and included in demographics provided by the campus/location. 14 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 2. Demographics of Population and Sample Population Characteristic Subgroup Gender a Race/Ethnicity1,b % n % Man 34,559 45.89 6,540 40.26 18.92 Woman 40,750 54.11 9,519 58.60 23.36 Transgender Not available -- 24 0.15 >100 Genderqueer Not available -- 101 0.62 >100 Other Not available -- 61 0.38 >100 5,157 6.85 1,019 5.65 19.76 349 0.46 245 1.36 70.20 Asian/Asian American 25,352 33.66 5,689 31.53 22.44 Hispanic/Latino 12,974 17.23 2,678 14.84 20.64 Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North African Not available -- 945 5.24 >100 Pacific Islander Not available -- 96 0.53 >100 28,439 37.76 40.14 25.46 3,038 4.03 7,241 Not available -- 0.00 Not available -- 128 0.71 >100 Undergraduate Student 27,941 36.33 5,382 33.14 19.26 Graduate/Professional Student 12,004 15.61 2,979 18.34 24.82 961 1.25 310 1.91 32.26 1,309 1.70 97 0.60 7.41 Staff non-Union 11,156 14.50 3,861 23.77 34.61 Staff – Union 14,946 19.43 1,850 11.39 12.38 Faculty 6,992 9.09 1,380 8.50 19.74 Other Academic Series 1,603 2.08 383 2.36 23.89 African American/African/Black White Unknown Other Postdoctoral Scholar Trainees 1 a b c Response Rate N American Indian/Alaskan Native Position c Sample Respondents were instructed to indicate all categories that apply. Χ2 (1, N = 16059) = 172.33, p = .0001 Χ2 (4, N = 16872) = 464.83, p = .0001 Χ2 (7, N = 16242) = 1811.36, p = .0001 15 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Validity. Validity is the extent to which a measure truly reflects the phenomenon or concept under study. The validation process for the survey instrument included both the development of the survey questions and consultation with subject matter experts. The survey questions were constructed based on the work of Hurtado (1999) and Smith (1997) and were further informed by instruments used in other institutional and organizational studies by the consultant. Several researchers working in the area of climate and diversity, as well as higher education survey research methodology experts, reviewed the template used for the survey, as did the members of the UC SWT and UCLA LWT. Content validity was ensured given that the items and response choices arose from literature reviews, previous surveys, and input from SWT members. Construct validity – the extent to which scores on an instrument permit inferences about underlying traits, attitudes, and behaviors – should be evaluated by examining the correlations of measures being evaluated with variables known to be related to the construct. For this investigation, correlations ideally ought to exist between item responses and known instances of exclusionary conduct, for example. However, no reliable data to that effect were available. As such, attention was given to the manner in which questions were asked and response choices given. Items were constructed to be non-biased, non-leading, and non-judgmental, and to preclude individuals from providing “socially acceptable” responses. Reliability - Internal Consistency of Responses. Correlations between the responses to questions about overall campus climate for various groups (question 76) and those that rate overall campus climate on various scales (question 75) were low to low-moderate (Bartz, 1988) and statistically significant, indicating a positive relationship between answers regarding the acceptance of various populations and the climate for that population. The consistency of these results suggests that the survey data were internally reliable (Trochim, 2000). Pertinent correlation coefficients 17 are provided in Table 3. 17 Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the degree to which two variables are related. A value of one signifies perfect correlation. Zero signifies no correlation. 16 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 All correlations in Table 3 were significantly different from zero at the .01 or .05 levels; that is, there was a relationship between all selected pairs of responses. For survey items asking for perception of degree of respect for the selected racial/ethnic/underrepresented groups, the response “don’t know” was treated as missing data. Therefore, responses of “don’t know” were not included in the correlation analysis. Strong relationships (between .5 and .7) existed for three pairs of variables – between “Respectful of Hispanics/Latinos” and “Positive for People of Color”, and between both pairs of variables for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual individuals. Moderately strong relationships (between .4 and .5) existed between 12 pairs of variables: Between Positive for People of Color and Respectful of African Americans/Blacks, American Indians/Alaskan Natives, Asian Americans/Asians, Middle Eastern/South Asian/North Africans, and Pacific Islanders; between Not Racist and Respectful of Asian Americans/Asians, Middle Eastern/South Asian/North Africans, and Hispanics/Latinos; for both pairs of variables for Females; and for Respectful of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Persons and Not Classist. The remaining four pairs showed a moderate relationship (between .3 and .4). 17 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 3. Pearson Correlations Between Ratings of Acceptance and Campus Climate for Selected Groups Climate Characteristics Positive for People of Color Not Racist African Americans/ Blacks .4181 .3761 American Indians/ Alaskan Natives .4291 .3901 Asian Americans/ Asians .4171 .4171 Middle Eastern/South Asian/North African .4291 .4311 Hispanics/Latinos .5041 .4791 Pacific Islanders .4881 .3771 Respectful of: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Individuals Females Non-Native English Speakers Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Persons Positive for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual People Not Homophobic .5401 .5341 Positive for women Not Sexist .4391 .4081 Positive for NonNative English Speakers Not Classist (SES) Positive for People of Low Socioeconomic Status .4131 .3761 .4561 1 p < 0.01 18 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Sample Characteristics 18 Table 4 depicts the respondent population by their primary position status at UCLA. Thirty-three percent of all respondents were Undergraduate Students, and 18% were Graduate/Professional Students. Twenty-four percent of all respondents were Staff Non-Union, 11% were Staff Union, 9% were Faculty, and 2% were Postdoctoral Scholars. Respondents were required to answer the Primary Position question; however, they were not required to use the drop-down menu to specify their specific positions. 18 All percentages presented in the “Sample Characteristics” section of the report are actual percentages. 19 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 4. Respondent’s Primary Position at UCLA Position* n Undergraduate Student 5,382 33.1 Started at UCLA as first year student 3,772 70.1 Transferred from a California community college 1,117 20.8 Transferred from another institution 137 2.5 Missing 356 6.6 2,979 18.3 11 0.4 Master’s degree student 1,057 35.5 Doctoral degree student (Ph.D., Ed.D.) 1,332 44.7 Professional degree student (e.g., MD, JD, MBA) 409 13.7 Missing 170 5.7 310 1.9 97 0.6 3,861 23.8 46 1.2 Management & Senior Professionals - Supervisor 676 17.5 Management & Senior Professionals – Non- Supervisor 253 6.6 Professional & Support Staff – Non-Union & Supervisor 804 20.8 1,595 41.3 Missing 487 12.6 Staff- Union 1,850 11.4 292 15.8 1,250 67.6 308 16.6 1,380 8.5 97 7.0 General Campus Faculty 627 45.4 Health Sciences Campus Faculty 402 29.1 56 9.7 254 18.4 383 2.4 Graduate/Professional Student Non-Degree Postdoctoral scholar Health Sciences Campus Trainees Staff – non-Union Senior Management Group Professional & Support Staff – Non-Union & Non-Supervisor Professional & Support Staff – Union represented & Supervisor Professional & Support Staff – Union Represented & Non-Supervisor Missing Faculty Faculty Administrator Other Faculty appointment Missing Other Academic Series (e.g. Librarian, Continuing Educator, Reader, Research titles) % Note: There are no missing data for the primary categories in this question; all respondents were required to select an answer. There are missing data for the sub-categories as indicated. *Respondents to this status were able to select all of the sub-categories that apply. 20 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 For the purposes of several analyses, primary status data were collapsed into Undergraduate Students, Graduate/Professional Students, Staff, Faculty, and Post-docs/Trainees. 19 Thirty-three percent of all respondents were Undergraduate Students (n = 5,382), and 18% were Graduate/Professional Students (n = 2,979), 38% were Staff (n = 6,094), 8% were Faculty (n = 1,380), and 3% were Post-Docs/Trainees (n = 407) (Figure 1). Ninety-four percent of respondents (n = 12,184) were full-time in their primary positions. Graduate/Professional 18% Undergraduate 33% Post-Docs/Trainees 3% Faculty 8% Staff 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 1. Respondents’ Collapsed Position Status (%) Eighty-five percent (n = 5,195) of staff respondents were primarily career employees (Table 5). Sixty-one percent of staff (n = 3,741) cited their primary campus location as the General 19 Collapsed position variables were determined by the SWT. “Students” includes all undergraduate and graduate students. “Staff “includes Senior Management; Management and Senior Professionals; Professional and Support Staff; and Other Academic Series. “Faculty” includes Faculty Administrators, General Campus Faculty, and Health Science Faculty. 21 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Campus, and 36% (n = 2,209) said their primary campus location was Health Sciences/Medical Center. Table 5. Primary Employment Status with UCLA Status n Career (including partial-year career) employee 5,195 85.2 Contract employee 408 6.7 Limited appointment employee/term employment 152 2.5 Per Diem employee 60 1.0 Floater (temporary services) employee 17 0.3 191 3.1 71 1.2 Academic employee Missing % With regard to respondents’ work unit affiliations, Table 6 indicates that 13% of Staff respondents (n = 808) were affiliated with Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, 13% of Staff respondents (n = 791) were primarily affiliated with the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and 4% with Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopedic Hospital (n = 242) or Housing and Hospitality Services (n = 219). Table 6. Staff Respondents’ Primary Work Unit Affiliations Academic Unit n UCLA Campus Academic Personnel Office Academic Planning and Budget Academic Senate Office Administration Service Centers – North and South Administrative Policies and Compliance Anderson School of Management Audit & Advisory Services Campus Human Resources Campus Service Enterprises Capital Programs Central Ticket Office Chancellor’s Office 10 11 <5 25 7 107 11 54 36 33 9 35 % 0.2 0.2 -0.4 0.1 1.8 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.6 22 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 6. (cont.) Academic Unit n % College -- Division of Humanities College -- Division of Life Sciences College -- Division of Physical Sciences College -- Division of Social Sciences College -- Division of Undergraduate Education Corporate Financial Services Environmental Health and Safety Events & Transportation External Affairs—Advancement Services 62 111 165 75 76 48 25 82 23 1.0 1.8 2.7 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.4 1.3 0.4 External Affairs—Alumni Relations External Affairs—Communications and Public Outreach External Affairs—Development External Affairs—Government & Community Relations Facilities Management Fielding School of Public Health Financial & Administrative Services Graduate Division Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science Housing and Hospitality Services Information Technology Services Institute of American Cultures Intellectual Property & Industry-Sponsored Research Intercollegiate Athletics International Institute and Studies Legal Affairs Luskin School of Public Affairs Office of Information Technology Research Administration School of Arts & Architecture School of Dentistry School of Law School of Nursing School of Theater, Film and Television Student Affairs Administration Student Affairs—Cultural & Recreational Affairs Student Affairs—Dean of Students/Campus Life 24 34 104 8 109 97 59 36 132 90 219 130 23 12 57 37 5 27 20 85 77 46 82 36 56 97 39 36 0.4 0.6 1.7 0.1 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.6 2.2 1.5 3.6 2.1 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.4 1.3 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.9 1.6 0.6 0.6 23 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 6. (cont.) Academic Unit Student Affairs—Enrollment Management Student Affairs—Residential & Student Life Student Health Services UC Police Department – Los Angeles UCLA Extension & Continuing Education University Library Other UCLA Health Sciences Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopedic Hospital Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital Mattel Children’s Hospital UCLA Faculty Practice Group David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Veterans Administration Olive View – UCLA Medical Center Harbor – UCLA Medical Center Cedars-Sinai Missing n % 47 50 37 31 160 182 487 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 2.6 3.0 8.0 808 13.3 242 96 29 140 791 5 9 <5 <5 191 4.0 1.6 0.5 2.3 13.0 0.1 0.1 --3.1 Note: Table includes staff responses only (n = 6,094). 24 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Twelve percent of Post-Docs and Faculty respondents (n = 190) were affiliated with the Humanities Division, and 34% (n = 549) were primarily affiliated with the David Geffen School of Medicine (Table 7). Table 7. Post-Doc and Faculty Respondents’ Primary Work Unit Affiliations Academic division College of Letters and Sciences Humanities Division Life Sciences Division Physical Sciences Division Social Sciences Division Life Sciences Division Professional Schools School of Arts and Architecture Graduate School of Ed and Information Studies Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science School of Law Anderson School of Management Luskin School of Public Affairs School of Theater, Film and Television School of Nursing School of Dentistry Fielding School of Public Health David Geffen School of Medicine Institute for molecular medicine n % 190 111 161 153 111 11.6 6.8 9.8 9.4 6.8 49 3.0 60 3.7 101 34 33 26 25 26 62 56 549 <5 6.2 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 3.8 3.4 33.6 -- Note: Table includes faculty and post-doc responses only (n = 1,690). Table B17 in Appendix B provides a comprehensive listing of faculty and post-doc affiliations. More than half of the sample were women (59%, n = 9,519; Figure 2). 20 Twenty-four transgender 21 individuals (0.1%) completed the survey; 101 respondents (0.6%) identified as genderqueer. 22 The number of genderqueer and transgender respondents reflects high visibility and self-identification. Sixty-one respondents marked “other” in terms of their gender identity 20 Additionally, the sex of the majority of respondents was female (59%, n = 9,558), while 41% of respondents were male (n = 6,584), and 10 (0.1%) were intersex. 21 Self-identification as transgender does not preclude identification as male or female, nor do all those who might fit the definition self-identify as transgender. Here, those who chose to self-identify as transgender have been reported separately in order to reveal the presence of a relatively new campus identity that might otherwise have been overlooked. 22 People who identify as genderqueer may consider themselves as being both male and female, as being neither male nor female, or as falling completely outside the gender binary. 25 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 and wrote comments such as “a reproducer,” “alien,” “androgynous,” “are you kidding?,” “gender is for me, like race, someone else’s hang up,” “I just feel human,” “offensive to ask these questions,” “Non-conforming,” “Sweet Jesus, is this a serious question?,” “To the extent that ‘feminine’ attaches to woman and ‘masculine’ attaches to man, my gender expression is blurry,”, etc. Those respondents who chose to self-identify as genderqueer or transgender have been reported separately in this report in order to reveal the presence of a relatively new campus Post-Docs/ Trainees Faculty Staff Undergrad Grad/Prof Students Students identity that might otherwise have been overlooked. Women Men Genderqueer Transgender Women Men Genderqueer Transgender Women Men Genderqueer Transgender Women Men Genderqueer Transgender Women Men Genderqueer Transgender 52% 46% 1% 0% 61% 38% 1% 0% 65% 34% 1% 0% 41% 59% 0% 0% 43% 57% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 2. Respondents by Gender & Position Status (%) 26 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 The majority of respondents were heterosexual 23 (82%, n = 13,315). Nine percent (n = 1,378) were LGBQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer) (Figure 3). One percent of respondents (n = 152) were questioning their sexual orientations, and 5% (n = 742) identified as asexual. Undergraduate Student Graduate/Professional Students Staff Faculty 4907 Post-Docs/Trainees 4394 2487 1182 453 Heterosexual 301 485 119 LGBQ Figure 3. Respondents by Sexual Orientation & Position Status (n) 23 Respondents who answered “other” in response to the question about their sexual orientations and wrote “straight” or “heterosexual” in the adjoining text box were recoded as heterosexual. Additionally, this report uses the terms “LGBQ” and “sexual minorities” to denote individuals who self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and those who wrote in “other” terms, such as “pan-sexual,” “homoflexible,” “fluid,” etc. 27 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Twenty-six percent of Faculty members were 50 to 59 years old, and 28% of Faculty members were 60 and over. Twenty-seven percent of Staff were between the ages of 30 and 39, and 25% were between 40 and 49 years old. Sixty-eight percent of Post-Docs/Trainees were between the ages of 30 and 39 (Figure 4). Staff Faculty Trainees/Post-Docs 1607 1512 1407 787 534 256 275 150 21 23 or younger 89 24-29 338 360 387 50-59 60 and over 32 30-39 40-49 Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure Figure 4. Employee Respondents by Age & Position Status (n) 28 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Sixty-two percent (n = 3,326) of responding Undergraduate Students were 18 to 20 years old. Fifty-seven percent (n = 1,696) of responding Graduate/Professional students were 24 to 29 years old (Figure 5). Undergraduate Students 3326 Graduate/Professional Students 1696 1658 712 431 269 79 5 18-20 21-23 24-29 30-39 29 97 40-49 8 24 50 and over Responses with n’s less than 5 are not presented in the figure Figure 5. Student Respondents’ Age (n) 29 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 With regard to race and ethnicity, 45% (n = 7,241) of all respondents identified as White. 24 Thirty-five percent (n = 5,689) were Asian/Asian American, 16% (n = 2,678) were Hispanic/Latino, 6% (n = 1,019) were African American/African/Black, 6% (n = 945) were Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North African, 2% (n = 245) were American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 1% (n = 96) were Pacific Islanders (Figure 6). 45% White 35% Asian/Asian American 16% Hispanic/Latino African American/African/Black 6% Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North African 6% American Indian/Alaskan Native 2% Pacific Islander 1% Other 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 6. Respondents’ Racial/Ethnic Identity (%), inclusive of multi-racial and/or multi-ethnic. 24 The response “White” included the subcategories “European/European American,” “North African,” and “Other White/Caucasian.” Readers will see Appendix B for a full listing of all racial/ethnic categories and subcategories included in the survey. 30 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 All Respondents were given the opportunity to mark multiple boxes regarding their racial identity, 25 allowing them to identify as bi-racial or multi-racial. Given this opportunity, many respondents chose only White (36%, n = 5,795) as their identity (Figure 7). For the purposes of some analyses, the categories White, Underrepresented Minority 26 (22%, n = 3,507), Other People of Color 27 (40%, n = 6,408), and Multi-Minority28 (1%, n = 234) were created. White 36% Other People of Color 39% Underrepresented Minority 22% Multi-Minority 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 7. Respondents’ Racial/Ethnic Identity (%) 25 While recognizing the vastly different experiences of people of various racial identities (e.g., Chicano(a) versus African-American or Latino(a) versus Asian-American), and those experiences within these identity categories (e.g., Hmong versus Chinese), Rankin and Associates found it necessary to collapse some of these categories to conduct the analyses due to the small numbers of respondents in the individual categories 26 Congruent with UC Policy and approved by the SWT for this project, the “Underrepresented Minority” category includes African American/African/Black respondents, American Indian/Alaskan Native respondents, and Hispanic/Latino respondents AND individuals who checked both the Underrepresented Minority and White responses. 27 Congruent with UC Policy and approved by the SWT for this project the “Other People of Color” category includes Asian/Asian American respondents, Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North African respondents, and Pacific Islanders AND individuals who checked both the Other People of Color and White responses. 28 Congruent with UC Policy and approved by the SWT for this project, the “Multi-Minority” category includes respondents who checked any of the responses included under in the aforementioned “Underrepresented Minority” and “Other People of Color” categories AND respondents who checked “Underrepresented Minority,” “Other People of Color,” and White. 31 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 The survey item 29 that queried respondents about their spiritual and religious affiliations offered 52 response choices and the option to “mark all that apply.” For the purposes of analyses in this report, respondents who chose any Christian religious/spiritual affiliation were recoded to “Christian” (36%, n = 5,808). Two hundred twenty-seven respondents (1%) chose a Muslim 30 affiliation, 727 individuals (5%) chose a Jewish 31 affiliation, and 1,019 people (6%) chose “other” affiliations. 32 Forty-one percent of respondents (n = 6,723) reported no affiliation, 33 and 6% (n = 1,027) reported multiple affiliations 34 (Figure 8). No Affiliation 41% Christian 36% Multiple Affiliations 6% Other Religious Affiliations 6% Jewish 4% Muslim 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 8. Respondents’ Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%) 29 Readers are referred to Appendix B for a complete listing of respondents’ religious/spiritual affiliations. Muslim affiliations include Ahmadi Muslim, Muslim, Shi’ite, Sufi, and Sunni. 31 Jewish affiliations include Jewish Conservative, Jewish Orthodox, and Jewish Reform. 32 Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliations include Buddhist, Confucianist, Druid, Hindu, Jain, Native American Traditional Practitioner, Pagan, Rastafarian, Scientologist, Secular Humanist, Shinto, Sikh, Taoist, Unitarian Universalist, and Wiccan. 33 No affiliation includes agnostic; atheist; no affiliation; and spiritual, but no affiliation. 34 Multiple affiliations include anyone who selected more than one spirituality/religious affiliation. 30 32 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Eighty-two percent of student respondents (n = 6,802) were single, never married. Fifty-five percent of employees (n = 4,242) were married or remarried, 6% (n = 454) were partnered, and 34% (n = 2,668) were single. One hundred forty-one respondents were partnered in a civil union or registered domestic partnership. Ninety-four percent of Undergraduate Students (n = 5,056) and 87% of Graduate/Professional Students (n = 2,601) had no dependent care responsibilities (Figure 9). 94% Undergraduate Students 87% Graduate/Professional Students 8% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% Figure 9. Respondents’ Dependent Care Status by Position (%) 33 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Thirty one percent of Staff respondents (n = 1,892), 38% of Faculty (n = 530), and 23% of PostDocs/Trainees (n = 95) were caring for children under the age of 18 years. Fourteen percent of Staff (n = 866), 14% of Faculty (n = 192), and 7% of Post-Docs/Trainees (n = 27) were responsible for senior or other family members. Twelve percent of Faculty (n = 165) also reported that they were caring for dependent children over the age of 18 (Figure 10). Staff Faculty Post-Docs/Trainees 69% 50% 41% 38% 31% 23% 9% 14%14% 12% 1% 3% 4% 1% 7% 2% 2% 1% Figure 10. Employee Respondents’ Dependent Care Status by Position (%) Ninety-seven percent of all respondents (n = 15,679) had never been in the military. One percent of respondents (n = 210) were veterans, 55 people were reservists (<1%), 31 were active military members (<1%), and 47 were ROTC (<1%). 34 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Twenty-eight percent of respondents (n = 4,591) considered their political views “middle of the road.” Forty-four percent (n = 7,091) were “liberal”/“far left,” while 9% (n = 1,528) considered themselves “conservative”/“far right” (Table 8). Fourteen percent (n = 2,191) were undecided. Table 8. Respondents’ Political Views Political views n % Far left 800 4.9 Liberal 6,291 38.7 Moderate or middle of the road 4,591 28.3 Conservative 1,483 9.1 45 0.3 Undecided 2,191 13.5 Libertarian 87 0.5 418 2.6 Far right Other Sixteen percent of respondents (n = 2,414) 35 had disabilities that substantially affect learning, working, or living activities. Two percent of respondents had low vision (n = 355) or ADHD (n = 346), 3% (n = 525) had medical conditions, and 5% (n = 769) had mental health/psychological conditions (Table 9). 35 Some respondents indicated they had multiple disabilities or conditions that substantially affected major life activities. The unduplicated total number of respondents with documented disabilities = 2,414 (16%). The duplicated total (n = 2,998; 18%) is reflected in Table 9 in this report and in Appendix B. 35 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 9. Respondents’ Disability Status Disability Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury n % 33 0.2 346 2.1 Asperger’s/ Autism Spectrum 39 0.2 Blind 10 0.1 355 2.2 15 0.1 Hard of Hearing 211 1.3 Learning disability 141 0.9 Medical Condition 525 3.2 Mental health/psychological condition 769 4.7 Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking 181 1.1 Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking 168 1.0 91 0.6 114 0.7 12,649 77.9 Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Low vision Deaf Speech/Communication Other I have none of the listed conditions Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses. Table 10 indicates that approximately 91% of participants who completed this survey were U.S. citizens, 36 8% were non-U.S. citizens 37, and 0.5% were undocumented residents 38 (Table 10). Subsequent analyses revealed that of the 80 undocumented resident respondents, 66 were 36 The survey allowed respondents to mark multiple response choices with regard to citizenship status. With the SWT’s approval, citizenship was recoded for some analyses to include three categories: U.S. Citizens, Non-U.S. Citizens, and Undocumented Residents. U.S. Citizens included U.S. citizens, permanent residents, other legally documented status, dual citizenship AND individuals who marked any of those responses and visa holder or undocumented resident. 37 Non-U.S. Citizens included visa holders AND individuals who marked the response choices visa holder and undocumented resident. 38 Undocumented Residents included those individuals who marked only the undocumented resident response choice. 36 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Undergraduate Students (1% of all Undergraduate Student respondents). Less than 1% of Graduate/Professional Students identified as undocumented students (n = 8). Nine percent of Undergraduate Students (n = 502), 18% of Graduate/Professional Students (n = 527), 1% of Staff (n = 72), 2% of Faculty (n = 28), and 37% of Post-Docs/Trainees (n = 151) were Non-U.S. Citizens. Table 10. Respondents’ Citizenship Status Citizenship U.S. citizen n % 13,945 85.9 946 5.8 1,294 8.0 Other legally documented status 40 0.2 Undocumented resident 80 0.5 Permanent Resident A visa holder (F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E and TN) Fifty-four percent of respondents (n = 8,801) said only English was spoken in their homes. Twelve percent (n = 2,014) indicated a language other than English was spoken in the home, while 33% (n = 5,303) indicated that English and another language were spoken in their homes. Many of those respondents indicated that they spoke Chinese (n ~ 500), Cantonese (n > 120), Mandarin (n > 160) or Spanish (n > 425). Some of the other respondents indicated the primary languages they spoke at home were African dialect, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Bahasa, Bajan, Bangla, Bengali, Brazilian Portuguese, Bulgarian, Cambodian, Dutch, Farsi, Fijian, Filipino, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Gujarti, Hakkanese, Harari, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Latvian, Marathi, Norwegian, Oriya, Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Russian, Swedish, Tagalog, Taiwanese, Thai, Tamil, Telugu, Teochew, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese, etc. Thirty-five percent of Staff respondents (n = 2,102) indicated that the highest level of education they had completed was a bachelor’s degrees. Five percent had finished an associate’s degrees (n = 331), 21% had completed a master’s degrees (n = 1,281), and 12% had competed either a doctoral or other professional degree (n = 742). 37 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 11 illustrates the level of education completed by students’ parents or legal guardians. Twenty-seven percent (n = 2,289) of all Student respondents were first-generation students. 39 Table 11. Students’ Parents’/Guardians’ Highest Level of Education Parent /Legal Guardian 1 Level of Education n % Parent/Legal Guardian 2 n % No high school 526 6.3 549 6.6 Some high school 456 5.5 452 5.4 Completed high school/GED 942 11.3 981 11.7 Some college 931 11.1 931 11.1 Business/Technical certificate/degree 200 2.4 222 2.7 Associate’s degree 337 4.0 426 5.1 Bachelor’s degree 1,965 23.5 2,130 25.5 202 2.4 278 3.3 Master’s degree 1,329 15.9 1,224 14.6 Doctoral degree 628 7.5 326 3.9 Professional degree (MD, MFA, JD) 735 8.8 551 6.6 Unknown 46 0.6 99 1.2 Not applicable 41 0.5 104 1.2 Some graduate work Note: Table reports student responses only (n = 8,361). Of 5,382 responding Undergraduate Students, 28% were first-year/freshman (n = 1,500), 20% were second-year/sophomore students (n = 1,051), 27% were third-year students/juniors (n = 1,453), and 21% were fourth year/seniors students (n = 1,136). Four percent were in their fifth year or more of their undergraduate career (n = 222). 39 With the SWT’s approval, first generation students included those students where both parents/guardians completed no high school, some high school, high school, or some college. 38 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Fifty-four percent of master’s student respondents were first-year students (n = 586), and 38% were second year students (n = 413 (Figure 11). Forty-eight percent of doctoral students were in their second or third years (n = 860), 14% advanced to candidacy (n = 242), and 15% were ABD (all but dissertation) (n = 271). ABD Candidacy 3rd Year (or more) 2nd Year 1st Year 15 14 Doctoral Students 27 21 22 Master's Students 7 38 54 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 11. Graduate/Professional Student Respondents’ Current Year in UCLA Career (%) 39 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Thirty percent of Post-Docs/Trainee respondents were in their first year at UCLA, and 27% were in their second year (Figure 11). Nineteen percent were in their fifth year or more at UCLA. 5th Year or more 19 4th Year 10 3rd Year 14 2nd Year 27 1st Year 30 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 12. Post-Doc/Trainee Respondents’ Current Year in UCLA Career (%) Five percent of Undergraduate Student respondents (n = 277) identified their academic majors 40 as Biology. Four percent were studying Anthropology (n = 192), Business Economics (n = 215), English (n = 202), Political Science (n = 213), or Psychology (n = 213); and three percent were studying Computer Science and Engineering (n = 136), Economics (n = 141), History (n = 161), Neuroscience (n = 149), Physiological Science (n = 182), or Sociology (n = 144). 40 See Appendix B, Table B19 for a comprehensive listing of undergraduate respondents’ academic majors. 40 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Eleven percent of Graduate/Professional Student respondents (n = 328) cited Management as their academic program, 41 and 9% (n = 281) were studying Law (Juris Doctor). Seven percent of Graduate/Professional Student respondents (n = 199) were enrolled in Education, 4% (n = 110) in Electrical Engineering, 3% in Medicine (n = 88), Film and Television (n = 74) or Nursing (n = 83). Undergraduate Students were asked to identify their “in-state” or “out-of-state” residency status. Forty-five percent of Undergraduate Students (n = 2,414) were in-state/resident students (Figure 13). Seven percent were out-of-state/non-resident/international students (n = 386). 42 In-state/resident Out-of-state/nonresident/international Not answered 45% 48% 7% Figure 13. Undergraduate Students’ Residency (%) 41 42 See Appendix B for a comprehensive listing of graduate/professional student respondents’ academic programs. Forty-eight percent of undergraduate student respondents (n = 2,582) did not complete this survey item. 41 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Subsequent analyses revealed that 38% of all Undergraduate Students (n = 2,017) and 55% of all Graduate/Professional Students (n = 1,636) were employed either on or off campus. Thirty-three percent of Undergraduates (n = 1,750) and 36% of Graduate/Professional Students (n = 1,064) were employed on or off campus on average one to 20 hours per week. Four percent of all Undergraduate Students (n = 195) and 10% of all Graduate/Professional Students (n = 284) were employed 21 to 40 hours per week. Less than one percent of Undergraduates (n = 17) and 8% of Graduate/Professional students (n = 232) worked more than 40 hours per week. Eleven percent of Undergraduate Student respondents (n = 581) and 78% of Graduate/Professional Students (n = 2,270) were currently the sole providers for their living/educational expenses. Eighty-nine percent of Undergraduate Student respondents (n = 4,648) and 22% of Graduate/Professional Student respondents (n = 626) had families who were assisting with their living/educational expenses (i.e., dependent). Below $30K $30K - $99,999 $100K-$149,999 $150K -$250K $250K or more 20% UG Not Sole 36% 16% 11% 18% 77% 18% UG Sole 2% 1% 2% 20% 43% Grad/Prof Not Sole 18% 12% 8% 58% 31% Grad/Prof Sole 7% 3% 2% Figure 14. Students’ Income by Dependency Status (Sole Providers, Not Sole Providers) (%) 42 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Of the students completing the survey, 59% lived in non-campus housing, and 41% lived in campus housing (Table 12). Twenty students were homeless. Table 12. Students’ Residence Students’ Residence n Campus Housing 3,403 40.7 2,354 69.2 660 19.4 88 2.6 316 9.3 4,923 58.9 3,508 71.3 Living with family member/guardian 596 12.1 Co-op 107 2.2 Fraternity house 106 2.2 2,238 45.5 Homeless (e.g. couch surfing, sleeping in car, sleeping in campus office/lab) 20 0.2 Missing 15 0.2 On-campus housing “on the hill” University owned apartments Family Housing Missing Non-Campus Housing Independently in apartment/house Missing % Note: Table includes student responses only (n = 8,361). 43 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Thirty-two percent of student respondents did not participate in any student clubs and organizations at UCLA (n = 2,652) (Table 13). Twenty percent were involved with Academic/Professional Organizations (n =1,657), and 15% participated in Special Interest Organizations (n = 1,271). Table 13. Students Participation in Clubs Organizations at the University Clubs/Organizations n % I do not participate in any student organizations 2,652 31.7 Academic/Professional Organizations 1,657 19.8 Special Interest Organizations 1,271 15.2 Intercultural/Multicultural Campus Community Groups 1,162 13.9 Intramurals/Clubs Sports 1,034 12.4 Service Organizations/Civic Engagement 935 11.2 Student Leadership Groups 889 10.6 Religious/Spiritual Organizations 867 10.4 Social fraternities or sororities 605 7.2 Honor Societies 591 7.1 Working with Under-represented communities 526 6.3 Community Programs/Working with Under-represented communities 390 4.7 Music/Performance Organizations 373 4.5 Publications and Media Organizations 300 3.6 Political Groups 176 2.1 48 0.6 NCAA Varsity Athletics Note: Table includes only student respondents (n = 8,361). Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses. 44 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 14 indicates that all student respondents earned passing grades. Table 14. Students’ Cumulative G.P.A. at the End of Last Quarter GPA n % NA 272 3.3 Below 2.49 280 3.3 2.5-2.99 960 11.5 3.0-3.49 2,392 28.6 3.5 and above 4,410 52.7 47 0.6 Missing Note: Table includes student responses only (n = 8,361). 45 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Campus Climate Assessment Findings 43 The following section 44 reviews the major findings of this study. The review explores the climate at UCLA through an examination of respondents’ personal experiences, their general perceptions of campus climate, and their perceptions of institutional actions regarding climate on campus, including administrative policies and academic initiatives. Each of these issues was examined in relation to the relevant identity and status of the respondents. Comfort with the Climate at UCLA The survey posed questions regarding respondents’ level of comfort with a variety of aspects of UCLA’s campus. Table 15 illustrates that 80% of the survey respondents (n = 13,026) were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate at UCLA. Seventy-five percent of respondents (n = 12,131) were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in their department/work unit/academic unit/college/school/clinical setting. Table 15. Respondents’ Comfort With the Climate Comfort with Climate at UCLA n % Comfort with Climate in Department/ Work Unit, College, Clinical Setting, etc. n % Very Comfortable 4,754 29.3 4,746 29.2 Comfortable 8,272 51.0 7,385 45.5 Neither Comfortable nor Uncomfortable 2,200 13.6 2,417 14.9 Uncomfortable 814 5.0 1,289 7.9 Very Uncomfortable 183 1.1 392 2.4 43 Frequency tables for all survey items are provided in Appendix B. Several pertinent tables and graphs are included in the body of the narrative to illustrate salient points. 44 The percentages presented in this section of the report are valid percentages (i.e., percentages are derived from the total number of respondents who answered an individual item). 46 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Figures 15 and 16 illustrate that when examining the results by position Faculty were least comfortable with the overall climate and the climate in their departments and work units at UCLA. Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Post-Docs/Trainees (n = 405) Faculty (n = 1378) Staff (n = 6083) Grad/Prof Student (n = 2978) Undergraduate Student (n = 5379) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 15. Comfort with Overall Climate by Position (%) 47 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Post-Docs/Trainees (n = 406) Faculty (n = 1378) Staff (n = 6087) Grad/Prof Student (n = 2979) Undergraduate Student (n = 5,379) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 16. Comfort with Climate in Department/Work Unit/ Academic Unit/College/School/Clinical Setting by Position (%) 48 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 With regard to classroom climate, 71% of Undergraduate Students (n = 3,823) and 78% of Graduate/Professional Students (n = 2,315) were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in their classes (Table 16). Readers will note that 22% of Faculty and Post-Docs indicated that this survey item was “not applicable” to them. Of the 991 Faculty and Post-Docs who found the item “applicable” to them, 90% (n = 896) were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate in their classes. Table 16. Students’ and Faculty/Post-Docs’ Comfort With the Climate in Their Classes Undergraduate Students’ Comfort with Climate in Classes* Level of Comfort Very Comfortable n % Graduate/Professional Students’ Comfort with Climate in Classes** n Faculty and Post-Docs Comfort with Climate in Classes*** % n % 910 16.9 855 28.7 442 34.7 Comfortable 2,913 54.2 1,460 49.0 454 35.7 Neither Comfortable nor Uncomfortable 1,172 21.8 384 12.9 75 5.9 328 6.1 150 5 18 1.4 Very Uncomfortable 52 1.0 26 0.9 <5 -- Not Applicable <5 -- 102 3.4 280 22.0 Uncomfortable *Note: Undergraduate Student responses only (n = 5,378). **Note: Graduate/Professional Student responses only (n = 2,977). ***Note: Faculty and Post-Doc responses only (n = 1,787). 49 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 When comparing the data by racial identity, 45 White respondents were more likely to feel “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the overall climate for diversity at UCLA and in their department/work unit/ academic unit/college/school/clinical setting (Figures 17 &18). Underrepresented Minority respondents and Multi-Minority respondents were more likely to feel “very uncomfortable”/“uncomfortable.” Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Multi-Minority (n = 233) Other People of Color (n = 6405) Underrepresented Minority (n = 3502) White (n = 5787) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 17. Comfort with Overall Climate by Race (%) 45 To review, “White” included the subcategories “European/European American,” “North African,” and “Other White/Caucasian.” The “Underrepresented Minority” category includes African American/African/Black respondents, American Indian/Alaskan Native respondents, and Hispanic/Latino respondents AND individuals who checked the Underrepresented Minority and White responses. “Other People of Color” category includes Asian/Asian American respondents, Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North African respondents, and Pacific Islanders AND individuals who checked the Other People of Color and White responses. The “Multi-Minority” category includes respondents who checked any of the responses included under in the aforementioned “Underrepresented Minority” and “Other People of Color” categories AND respondents who checked “Underrepresented Minority,” “Other People of Color,” and White. 50 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Multi-Minority (n = 234) Other People of Color (n = 6406) Underrepresented Minority (n = 3501) White (n = 5792) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 18. Comfort with Climate in Department/Work Unit/ Academic Unit/College/School/Clinical Setting by Race (%) 51 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Figure 19 (and all subsequent Figures that illustrate “comfort with classroom climate”) removed from the analyses any Student, Faculty, and Post-Doc respondents who indicated the survey item was “not applicable” to them. Again, a higher percentage of White Respondents were “very comfortable” with the climate in their classes than were other respondents. Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Multi-Minority (n = 153) Other People of Color (n = 4458) Underrepresented Minority (n = 1571) White (n = 3211) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 19. Students’, Faculty, and Post-Docs’ Comfort with Climate in Classes by Race (%) 52 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 In terms of gender, genderqueer, transgender, and women respondents were less comfortable than men with the overall climate (Figure 20). Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Genderqueer (n = 101) Transgender (n = 24) Women (n = 9507) Men (n = 6534) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 20. Comfort with Overall Climate by Gender (%) 53 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Figure 21 suggests that genderqueer, transgender, and women respondents were less comfortable than men in their department/work unit/ academic unit/college/school/clinical settings than were other groups. Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Genderqueer (n = 101) Transgender (n = 24) Women (n = 9512) Men (n = 6535) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 21. Comfort with Climate in Department/Work Unit/ Academic Unit/College/School/Clinical Setting by Gender (%) 54 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Men were more likely to be “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with the climate in their classes, than women, transgender and genderqueer respondents. Genderqueer respondents were more likely to feel “uncomfortable”/“very uncomfortable” than were other respondents (Figure 22). Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Genderqueer (n = 67) Transgender (n = 11) Women (n = 5283) Men (n = 4153) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 22. Students’, Faculty, and Post-Docs’ Comfort with Climate in Classes by Gender (%) 55 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 With respect to sexual orientation, LGBQ respondents and heterosexual respondents were similarly comfortable with the overall climate and in their departments and work units (Figures 23 & 24). Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Heterosexual (n = 13,299) LGBQ (n = 1378) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 23. Comfort with Overall Climate by Sexual Orientation (%) 56 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Heterosexual (n = 13,307) LGBQ (n = 1376) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 24. Comfort with Climate in Department/Work Unit/ Academic Unit/College/School/Clinical Setting by Sexual Orientation (%) 57 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 LGBQ Students, Faculty, and Post-Docs were similarly comfortable in their classes in comparison to heterosexual Students, Faculty, and Post-Docs (Figure 25). Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Heterosexual (n = 7858) LGBQ (n = 854) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 25. Students’, Faculty, and Post-Docs’ Comfort with Climate in Classes by Sexual Orientation (%) 58 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 With respect to disability status, respondents who self-identified as not having disabilities generally were more comfortable with the climate on campus, in their departments/work units, and in their classes than were respondents with disabilities (Figures 26 - 28). Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral 20% 40% Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Disability (n = 2412) No Disability (n = 12,637) 0% 10% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 26. Comfort with Overall Climate by Disability Status (%) 59 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Disability (n = 2410) No Disability (n = 12,644) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 27. Comfort with Climate in in Department/Work Unit/ Academic Unit/College/School/ Clinical Setting by Disability Status (%) 60 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Disability (n = 2410) No Disability (n = 12,644) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 28. Students’, Faculty, and Post-Docs’ Comfort with Climate in Classes by Disability Status (%) 61 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Small differences existed among individuals from the various religious/spiritual affiliations regarding their comfort level with the overall climate at UCLA (Figure 29). A higher percentage of Jewish respondents were “very comfortable” than were other groups. Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Multiple Affiliations (n = 1026) No Affiliation (n = 6717) Other Affiliation (n = 1018) Jewish (n = 727) Muslim (n = 227) Christian (n = 5799) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 29. Comfort with Overall Climate by Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%) 62 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Higher percentages of respondents with Jewish religious/spiritual affiliations also were “very comfortable” with the climates in their departments/work units, etc. and in their classes than were other respondents (Figures 30 & 31). Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Multiple Affiliations (n = 1026) No Affiliation (n = 6720) Other Affiliation (n = 1019) Jewish (n = 727) Muslim (n = 227) Christian (n = 5799) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 30. Comfort with Climate in Department/Work Unit/ Academic Unit/College/School/Clinical Setting by Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%) 63 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Very Comfortable Comfortable Neutral Uncomfortable Very Uncomfortable Multiple Affiliations (n = 655) No Affiliation (n = 4393) Other Affiliation (n = 672) Jewish (n = 420) Muslim (n = 156) Christian (n = 2887) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 31. Students, Faculty, and Post-Docs’ Comfort with Climate in Classes by Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%) 64 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Perceptions of Level of Respect Forty-four percent of the respondents (n = 6,829) indicated that the overall campus climate was “very respectful” of people from White racial/ethnic backgrounds (Table 17). Respondents felt that the campus was least respectful (“disrespectful”/“very disrespectful”) of African American/African/Black people (10%, n = 1,550) and Hispanic/Latino people (9%, n = 1,435). The campus climate was most respectful (“respectful”/“very respectful”) of White people (92%, n = 14,456), Asian people (84%, n = 13,113). Table 17. . Ratings of Perceptions of Campus Climate for Various Races/Ethnicities Race/Ethnicity Very Respectful n % African American/African/Black 3,895 24.8 8,521 54.1 1,196 7.6 354 2.2 1,770 11.2 American Indian/Alaskan Native 3,677 23.5 7,694 49.1 591 3.8 200 1.3 3,498 22.3 Asian 4,626 29.5 8,487 54.0 1,023 6.5 206 1.3 1,363 8.7 Hispanic/Latino 3,891 24.8 8,752 55.8 1,195 7.6 240 1.5 1,601 10.2 Middle Eastern/South Asian/North African 3,795 24.2 8,530 54.4 979 6.2 228 1.5 2,140 13.7 Pacific Islander 3,846 24.6 8,342 53.4 564 3.6 131 0.8 2,753 17.6 White 6,829 43.6 7,627 48.7 264 1.7 75 1.5 862 5.5 Respectful n % Disrespectful n % Very Disrespectful n % Don’t Know n % 65 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 18 indicates that more than half of all respondents thought that the overall campus climate was “very respectful”/ “respectful” of all of the campus groups listed in the table. The respondents believed the climate was most respectful (“respectful”/”very respectful”) for females and males (87% and 89%, respectively); LGBT people (80%); Other People of Color (81%), and socioeconomically advantaged people (80%). Respondents suggested that the campus was least respectful (“disrespectful”/ “very disrespectful”) of non-native English speakers (12%), and socioeconomically disadvantaged people (11%). Table 18. Ratings of Perceptions of Campus Climate for Various Campus Groups Very Respectful Respectful n % n % n Psychological health issues 2,913 18.8 7,312 47.3 810 5.2 123 Physical health issues 3,655 23.7 8,213 53.2 513 3.3 Female 4,472 28.9 8,929 57.7 799 From religious affiliations other than Christian 3,595 23.3 8,498 55.0 From Christian affiliations 3,864 25.1 8,388 Gay, lesbian, bisexual 3,812 24.7 Immigrants 3,475 International students, staff, or faculty Group Disrespectful % Very Disrespectful n % Don’t Know n % 0.8 4,301 27.8 81 0.5 2,971 19.3 5.2 114 0.7 1,173 7.6 709 4.6 114 0.7 2,522 16.3 54.4 617 4.0 100 0.6 2,453 15.9 8,531 55.3 675 4.4 98 0.6 2,318 15.0 22.5 8,408 54.6 1,068 7.1 145 0.9 2,297 14.9 3,881 25.2 8,449 54.8 903 5.9 126 0.8 2,056 13.3 Learning disability 3,143 20.5 7,373 48.0 677 4.4 87 0.6 4,066 26.5 Male 5,657 36.6 8,125 52.6 221 1.4 50 0.3 1,400 9.1 Non-native English speakers 3,121 20.3 8,400 54.5 1,629 10.6 227 1.5 2,027 13.2 Parents/guardians 3,602 23.4 7,900 51.4 447 2.9 73 0.5 3,348 21.8 People of color 3,928 25.4 8,574 55.5 1,018 6.6 269 1.7 1,661 10.8 Providing care for adults who are disabled and/or elderly 3,308 21.5 6,935 45.2 347 2.3 88 0.6 4,674 30.4 Physical disability 3,596 23.4 7,959 51.9 508 3.3 87 0.6 3,193 20.8 Socioeconomically disadvantaged 3,244 21.1 7,608 49.4 1,412 9.2 322 2.1 2,807 18.2 Socioeconomically advantaged 4,783 31.1 7,531 49.0 352 2.3 87 0.6 2,614 17.0 Transgender 2,866 18.7 6,332 41.4 766 5.0 239 1.6 5,100 33.3 66 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Perceptions of Campus Accessibility With regard to campus accessibility for people with disabilities, the elevators (55%), restrooms (54%), walkways and pedestrian paths (52%), and UCLA Website (51%) were considered “fully accessible.” Substantial percentages of respondents did not know how accessible most aspects of campus were (Table 19). Table 19. Ratings of Campus Accessibility Area Fully Accessible n % Accessible with Accommodations n % Not Accessible n % Don’t Know n % Accessibility Athletic Facilities 5,520 35.2 4,619 29.4 477 3.0 5,071 32.3 Classroom Buildings 6,763 43.1 5,058 32.3 323 2.1 3,531 22.5 Classrooms, labs 5,954 38.1 4,993 32.0 378 2.4 4,286 27.5 University housing 4,602 29.5 3,831 24.6 560 3.6 6,588 42.3 Computer labs 5,571 35.8 4,050 26.0 323 2.1 5,620 36.1 Dining facilities 7,168 46.0 4,183 26.8 301 1.9 3,929 25.2 Elevators 8,551 54.9 4,245 27.2 438 2.8 2,346 15.1 Health and Wellness Center 6,529 42.0 3,435 22.1 234 1.5 5,337 34.4 Library 7,688 49.5 3,813 24.5 238 1.5 3,801 24.5 Off-campus UCLA buildings 3,858 24.9 3,344 21.6 541 3.5 7,762 50.1 Off campus student housing 3,374 21.8 3,041 19.7 615 4.0 8,432 54.5 On-campus transportation/parking 4,963 32.0 4,416 28.5 970 6.3 5,143 33.2 Other campus buildings 4,704 30.5 3,807 24.7 286 1.9 6,632 43.0 Recreational facilities 5,738 37.1 4,182 27.0 348 2.2 5,205 33.6 Restrooms 8,445 54.3 4,499 28.9 386 2.5 2,216 14.3 Studios/ Performing Arts spaces 3,720 24.2 2,834 18.4 512 3.3 8,328 54.1 Walkways and pedestrian paths 8,095 52.2 4,504 29.1 408 2.6 2,490 16.1 Braille signage 2,909 18.8 2,046 13.3 447 2.9 10,038 65.0 Hearing loops 2,285 14.9 1,595 10.4 400 2.6 11,068 72.1 Information in alternate formats 3,299 21.6 3,519 23.0 798 5.2 7,661 50.1 Instructors 4,018 26.3 4,492 29.4 569 3.7 6,181 40.5 7,700 51.7 3,671 24.6 368 2.5 3,169 21.3 Course Instruction/Materials UCLA Campus Website Website 67 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Twenty-four percent of respondents (n = 3,946) believed that they had personally experienced exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct at UCLA within the past year. Eight percent of respondents (n = 1,347) said that the conduct interfered with their ability to work or learn 46 at UCLA, and 16% of respondents (n = 2,599) felt the conduct did not interfere with their ability to work or learn on campus. Table 20 reflects the total number of respondents who chose response choices very often, often, sometimes, seldom, and not applicable for a particular area (i.e., academic performance, age, ancestry). Of the 3,946 respondents who experienced such conduct, 21% of respondents said the conduct was “very often”/”often” based on their ethnicity (n = 747) or their position status (n = 747). Others said they “very often”/”often” experienced such conduct based on their race (18%, n = 644), ancestry (14%, n = 507), discipline of study (13%, n = 458), etc. 46 The literature on microaggressions is clear that this type of conduct has a negative influence on people who experience the conduct even if they feel at the time that it had no impact (Sue, 2010; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009). 68 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 20. Bases and Frequency of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Only answered by respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 3,946) Very often Area n Often % n Sometimes % n Seldom % n % Academic Performance 131 3.7 257 7.2 496 13.8 702 19.6 Age 166 4.6 280 7.7 675 18.6 916 25.2 Ancestry 206 5.8 301 8.4 581 16.3 746 20.9 Country of origin 161 4.5 237 6.6 451 12.6 796 22.3 Discipline of study 155 4.3 303 8.5 549 15.4 701 19.6 Educational level 151 4.2 238 6.7 479 13.4 864 24.2 42 1.2 81 2.3 162 4.6 712 20.3 English language proficiency/accent 120 3.4 170 4.8 340 9.6 687 19.3 Ethnicity 333 9.2 414 11.4 730 20.2 654 18.1 Gender identity 178 4.9 252 7.0 426 11.8 749 20.8 Gender expression 116 3.2 187 5.2 322 9.0 774 21.6 Immigrant/citizen status 92 2.6 129 3.6 196 5.5 669 18.9 International Status 72 2.0 104 2.9 166 4.7 580 16.3 Learning disability 35 1.0 55 1.6 131 3.7 570 16.1 Marital status (e.g. single, married, partnered) 52 1.5 106 3.0 268 7.6 778 21.9 Medical condition 68 1.9 97 2.7 213 6.0 661 18.7 Military/veteran status 10 0.3 23 0.6 54 1.5 394 11.1 Parental status (e.g., having children) 70 2.0 99 2.8 215 6.1 492 13.9 Participation in an organization/team 92 2.6 105 3.0 226 6.5 457 13.1 135 3.8 213 6.0 501 14.1 721 20.3 37 1.1 56 1.6 123 3.5 510 14.5 142 4.0 228 6.4 539 15.2 735 20.7 Educational modality (online, classroom) Physical characteristics Physical disability Philosophical views 69 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 20 (cont.) Very often Area n Often % n Sometimes % n Seldom % n % Political views 160 4.5 225 6.3 476 13.4 772 21.7 Position (staff, faculty, student) 334 9.2 431 11.8 678 18.6 709 19.5 Pregnancy 26 0.7 39 1.1 87 2.5 413 11.7 Psychological condition 58 1.6 98 2.8 199 5.6 543 15.4 310 8.7 334 9.3 625 17.5 643 18.0 Religious/spiritual views 72 2.3 116 3.7 254 8.2 544 17.5 Sexual orientation 59 1.8 87 2.7 160 5.0 487 15.3 125 4.1 137 4.4 290 9.4 478 15.5 Don’t Know 73 2.6 80 2.8 186 6.6 194 6.8 Other 84 3.5 86 3.6 129 5.4 73 3.1 Race Socioeconomic status Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. Respondents had the option to choose “Not Applicable.” Those numbers are presented in Appendix B, Table B42. The percentages in Tables 20 and B42 are based on the total number of respondents who chose response choices very often, often, sometimes, seldom, and not applicable for a particular area (i.e., academic performance, age, ancestry). The following figures 47 depict the responses by selected characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, position, sexual orientation, religious/spiritual affiliation) of individuals who responded “yes” to the question, “Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile (bullied, harassing) behavior at UCLA?” 47 For Figures 32 through 38, the responses were recoded into a binary variable where 1 = experienced conduct “very often,” “often,” “sometimes,” and “seldom” based on characteristics (e.g., political views, socioeconomic status, race, gender, position, sexual orientation) and 2 = did not experience conduct based on those characteristics (e.g., political views, socioeconomic status, race, gender, position, sexual orientation). 70 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 When reviewing these results in terms of race (Figure 32), 22% (n = 1,296) of White Respondents, 32% (n = 1,128) of Underrepresented Minority respondents, 21% (n = 1,322) of Other People of Color, and 36% (n = 85) of Multi-Minority respondents believed they had experienced this conduct. Of those respondents who believed they had experienced the conduct, 55% of Multi-Minority Respondents (n = 47), 59% (n = 670) of Underrepresented Minority respondents, and 58% (n = 1,322) of Other People of Color said it was based on their race, while 30% of White respondents (n = 391) thought the conduct was based on race. Overall experienced conduct¹ Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct due to race² 59 30 58 36 32 22 55 21 White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority (n=1296)¹ (n=1128)¹ (n=1322)¹ (n=85)¹ (n=391)² (n=670)² (n=761)² (n=47)² 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. Figure 32. Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Race (by Race) (%) 71 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 When reviewing the data by gender (Figure 33), higher percentages of genderqueer respondents (52%, n = 52) and transgender respondents (46%, n = 11) than men (19%, n = 1,251) or women (28%, n = 2,611) believed they had experienced offensive, hostile, or intimidating conduct. Almost all of the transgender respondents (91%, n = 10) who believed they experienced exclusionary conduct and 79% of genderqueer respondents (n = 41) who believed they had experienced this said it was based on gender identity. Overall experienced conduct¹ Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct due to gender identity² 91 79 44 38 52 46 28 19 Men Women Transgender Genderqueer (n=1251)¹ (n=2611)¹ (n=11)¹ (n=52)¹ (n=472)² (n=1081)² (n=10)² (n=41)² 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. Figure 33. Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Gender Identity (by Gender) (%) 72 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 As depicted in Figure 34, a greater percentage of Staff respondents believed that they had experienced exclusionary conduct than did other respondents. Many Staff (61%, n = 1,026) and Post-Docs/Trainees (69%, n = 46) who believed they had experienced exclusionary conduct indicated that the conduct was based on their position status at UCLA. Overall experienced conduct¹ Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct due to position status² 69 61 56 50 44 23 22 Undergraduate Grad/Prof Student Student (n=1210)¹ 28 24 17 Staff Faculty (n=655)¹ (n=1678)¹ (n=336)¹ (n=371)² (n=1026)² (n=168)² (n=541)² PostDocs/Trainees (n=67)¹ (n=46)² 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. Figure 34. Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Position Status (%) 73 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Figure 35 illustrates that similar percentages of Conservative/Far Right (24%, n = 363), Far Left/Liberal (26%, n = 1,803), and politically Middle of the Road respondents (24%, n = 1,087) experienced exclusionary conduct. Of those who believed they had experienced this type of conduct, a higher percentage of politically Conservative/Far Right respondents (48%, n = 174) and Far Left/Liberal (44%, n = 801) than Undecided respondents (33%, n = 144) and Middle of the Road (24%, n = 406) indicated that this conduct was based on political views. Overall experienced conduct¹ Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct due to political views² 48 44 26 37 24 Far Left/Liberal Middle of the Road (n=1803)¹ (n=1087)¹ (n=801)² (n=406)² 33 24 Conservative/Far Right (n=363)¹ (n=174)² 20 Undecided (n=430)¹ (n=144)² 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. Figure 35. Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Political Views (%) 74 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Figure 36 illustrates that a higher percentage of LGBQ respondents than heterosexual respondents believed they had experienced this conduct (36% versus 23%). Of those who believed they had experienced this type of conduct, 45% of LGBQ respondents (n = 223) versus 16% of heterosexual respondents (n = 485) indicated that this conduct was based on sexual orientation. Overall experienced conduct¹ Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct due to sexual orientation² 45 36 23 LGBQ respondents 16 Heterosexual Respondents (n=491)¹ (n=3077)¹ (n=223)² (n=485)² 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. Figure 36. Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Sexual Orientation (%) 75 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 A slightly higher percentage of respondents with Multiple Spiritual Affiliations (28%, n = 291) than respondents with other religious/spiritual affiliations experienced exclusionary conduct in the past year (Figure 37). Forty-one percent of Muslim respondents (n = 24) attributed the exclusionary conduct to their religious/spiritual affiliation. Overall experienced conduct¹ Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct due to religious/spiritual affiliation² 41 25 27 Christian 26 Muslim 32 30 24 23 Jewish Other 28 23 29 21 No Affiliation Multiple Affiliations (n=1457)¹ (n=59)¹ (n=171)¹ (n=231)¹ (n=1532)¹ (n=291)¹ (n=388)² (n=24)² (n=51)² (n=73)² (n=324)² (n=84)² 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. Figure 37. Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%) 76 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Twenty-five percent (n = 3,683) of U.S. Citizens, 17% (n = 213) of Non-U.S. Citizens, and 27% of Undocumented Residents (n = 21) experienced exclusionary (e.g., stigmatized, shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct at UCLA. Of the respondents who experienced such conduct 39% (n = 1,443) of U.S. Citizens, 13% (n = 170) of Non-U.S. Citizens, and 56% of Undocumented Residents (n = 15) indicated it was based on country of origin. Twenty-five percent (n = 919) of U.S. Citizens, 11% (n = 141) of Non-U.S. Citizens, and 48% of Undocumented Residents (n = 16) indicated it was based on immigrant/citizen status (Figure 38). Overall experienced conduct¹ Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct due to country of origin² Of those who experienced exclusionary conduct, said they experienced conduct due to immigrant status 56 43 39 25 25 US Citizen 48 27 13 11 Non-US Citizen Undocumented (n = 1278)¹ (n = 21)¹ (n = 1443)² (n =170)² (n = 11)² (n = 919)3 141)3 (n = 76)3 (n = 3,683)¹ (n = 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. Figure 38. Personal Experiences of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Due to Country of Origin and Immigrant/Citizen Status (%) 77 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 21 illustrates the manners in which the individuals experienced the exclusionary conduct. Fifty-two percent felt isolated or left out, 48% felt deliberately ignored or excluded, and 41% felt intimidated and bullied. Table 21. Form of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct % of those who experienced the conduct Only answered by respondents who believed they had experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 3,946) n I felt isolated or left out 2,056 52.1 I felt I was deliberately ignored or excluded 1,890 47.9 I felt intimidated/bullied 1,603 40.6 I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks 736 18.7 I observed others staring at me 720 18.2 I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group 442 11.2 I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling 420 10.6 I received a low performance evaluation 410 10.4 Someone assumed I was admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity 407 10.3 I feared getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment 405 10.3 I feared for my physical safety 338 8.6 I received derogatory written comments 321 8.1 I was the victim of derogatory/unsolicited emails, text messages, Facebook posts, Twitter posts 147 3.7 Someone assumed I was not admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity 145 3.7 I received derogatory phone calls 91 2.3 I feared for my family’s safety 63 1.6 I was the target of graffiti/vandalism 60 1.5 I was the target of stalking 60 1.5 I received threats of physical violence 55 1.4 I was the victim of a crime 50 1.3 I was the target of physical violence 30 0.8 Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 78 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Thirty-two percent of respondents who experienced exclusionary conduct said it occurred while working at UCLA job or in a public space at UCLA (Table 22). Twenty-six percent said the incidents occurred in a meeting with a group of people, and 20% indicated the incidents happened in a public space on campus (Table 22). Respondents who marked “other” described the specific office, meeting, building, campus location or event where the incidents occurred (e.g., “Graffiti happened to my car in a UCLA structure,” “Among teammates in various settings,” “At work every day,” “Daily Bruin,” “Faculty meeting,” “Through decisions made by administrators,” “In a social setting,” “While participating in a student organization” ). 79 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 22. Location of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct % of respondents who experienced conduct Only answered by respondents who believed they had experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 3,946) n While working at a UCLA job 1,271 32.2 In a meeting with a group of people 1,017 25.8 In a public space at UCLA 968 24.5 In a class/lab/clinical setting 950 24.1 In a UCLA office 935 23.7 In a meeting with one other person 594 15.1 While walking on campus 409 10.4 At a UCLA event 407 10.3 In campus housing 370 9.4 Off campus 369 9.4 In a faculty office 296 7.5 In a health care setting 259 6.6 On a social networking sites/Facebook/ Twitter/cell phone/other form of technological communication 225 5.7 In a UCLA dining facility 207 5.2 In off-campus housing 143 3.6 In athletic facilities 78 2.0 On campus transportation 40 1.0 In an on-line class <5 -- 253 6.4 Other Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 80 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Thirty-four percent of the respondents identified students, 23% identified faculty members, 22% identified co-workers, and 17% identified administrators as the sources of the conduct (Table 23). “Other” sources of exclusionary conduct included people such as “Dept. Head,” “A temp,” “Alumni serving in capacity of campus board volunteers,” “ASHE Center,” “Charge Nurse,” “Director,” “Human Resources,” “UCPD,” “Van pool passengers,” etc. 81 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 % of respondents who experienced conduct Table 23. Source of Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Only answered by respondents who believed they had experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 3,946) n Student 1,357 34.4 Faculty member 898 22.8 Co-worker 877 22.2 Administrator 669 17.0 Staff member 613 15.5 Supervisor 585 14.8 Department head 447 11.3 Stranger 365 9.2 Friend 286 7.2 Don’t know source 266 6.7 Campus organizations or groups 256 6.5 UCLA visitor(s) 177 4.5 Medical Staff 147 3.7 Teaching asst./Grad asst./Lab asst./Tutor 141 3.6 Faculty advisor 136 3.4 Campus media 124 3.1 UCLA Physician 120 3.0 Student staff 96 2.4 Social Networking site (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) 88 2.2 Off campus community member 84 2.1 Registered Campus Organization 73 1.8 Person that I supervise 67 1.7 Campus police/building security 66 1.7 Alumni 53 1.3 Patient 45 1.1 Union representative 23 0.6 Athletic coach/trainer 18 0.5 Donor 11 0.3 Partner/spouse 11 0.3 220 5.6 Other Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 82 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Figure 39 reviews the source of perceived exclusionary conduct by status. Students were the greatest source of exclusionary conduct for Undergraduate Students, and Faculty respondents most often cited other faculty as the source of the exclusionary conduct. Graduate/Professional Students offered that other students and faculty as their greatest sources of exclusionary conduct. Staff respondents identified supervisors, other staff members, and administrators as their greatest source of exclusionary conduct. Post-Docs/Trainees felt faculty members were their greatest Undergraduate Student Grad/Prof Student Staff Faculty PostDocs/Trainees sources exclusionary conduct. Supervisor Staff Administrator Faculty Student Supervisor Staff Administrator Faculty Student Supervisor Staff Administrator Faculty Student Supervisor Staff Administrator Faculty Student Supervisor Staff Administrator Faculty Student 0% 7% 10% 4% 14% 10% 4% 6% 17% 40% 10% 22% 19% 18% 10% 3% 6% 12% 15% 51% 57% 3% 10% 11% 50% 97% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Figure 39. Source of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%) 83 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 In response to this conduct, 52% of respondents were angry, 37% told a friend, 37% felt embarrassed, 32% ignored it, and 30% told a family member (Table 24). While 9% of participants (n = 357) reported it to UCLA officials, 11% (n = 446) did not know who to go to, and 14% (n = 557) didn’t report it for fear their complaints would not be taken seriously. “Other” responses included: “Advised my direct supervisor,” “Afraid it could jeopardize my job,” “Brushed off and went about my day,” “Changed departments,” “Contacted my attorney,” “I called the ethics hotline,” “I cried,” “I was disappointed,” “Wrote about the incidents in evaluation,” etc. 84 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 24. Reactions to Experienced Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct % of respondents who experienced conduct Only answered by respondents who believed they had experienced exclusionary conduct (n = 3,946) n I was angry 2,031 51.5 I told a friend 1,474 37.4 I felt embarrassed 1,461 37.0 I ignored it 1,260 31.9 I told a family member 1,181 29.9 I avoided the harasser 968 24.5 I did nothing 690 17.5 I felt somehow responsible 601 15.2 I was afraid 588 14.9 I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 557 14.1 I sought support from a staff person 490 12.4 I didn’t know who to go to 446 11.3 I left the situation immediately 420 10.6 I confronted the harasser at the time 384 9.7 I sought support from an administrator 365 9.2 I reported it to a UCLA employee/official 357 9.0 I sought support from a faculty member 354 9.0 I sought support from campus resource 322 8.2 I did report it but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 304 7.7 I confronted the harasser later 300 7.6 It didn’t affect me at the time 291 7.4 I sought information on-line 184 4.7 I sought support from a spiritual advisor (e.g. pastor, rabbi, priest) 116 2.9 I told my union representative 108 2.7 I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services 102 2.6 I sought support from student staff (e.g. peer counselor) 74 1.9 I sought support from a TA/grad assistant 51 1.3 Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 85 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Observations of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Respondents’ observations of others experiencing exclusionary conduct may also contribute to their perceptions of campus climate. Twenty-five percent (n = 4,020) of all survey respondents observed conduct or communications directed towards a person or group of people at UCLA that they believed created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile working or learning environment within the past year. Most of the observed exclusionary conduct was based on race (32%, n = 1,271), ethnicity (30%, n = 1,185), gender identity (16%, n = 652), and country of origin (15%, n = 620) or position (15%, n = 584). Figures 40 and 41 separate by demographic categories (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, and position status) the responses of those individuals who observed exclusionary conduct within the past year. 86 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Thirty-four percent of Multi-Minority respondents, 30% of Underrepresented Minority respondents, and 32% of respondents with Multiple Religious/Spiritual Affiliations observed conduct or communications directed towards a person or group of people at UCLA that created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or or hostile working or learning environment within the past year (Figure 40). White (n = 1,308) 23% Multi-Minority (n = 82) 34% Underrepresented Minority (n = 1,065) 30% Other People of Color (n = 1,465) 23% Conservative/Far Right (n = 318) 21% Politically Middle of the Road (n = 1,061) 23% Far Left/Liberal (n = 2,025) 29% Multiple Religious Affiliations (n = 330) 32% No Religious Affilation (n = 1,591) 24% Other Religious Affiliation (n = 234) 23% Jewish (n = 176) 25% Muslim (n = 56) 25% Christian (n = 1,430) 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 40. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct by Race, Religious Affiliation, and Political Affiliation (%) 87 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Genderqueer respondents (62%), LGBQ respondents (37%), and respondents with disabilities (37%) were more likely to have observed exclusionary conduct than were other groups (Figure 41). Within identity, LGBQ respondents were more likely than heterosexual respondents; genderqueer and transgender respondents were more likely than men and women respondents; and people with disabilities were more likely than those without disabilities to observe exclusionary conduct. Men (n = 1,331) 25% Women (n = 2,604) 27% Genderqueer (n = 58) 62% Transgender (n = 8) 42% Disability (n = 892) 37% No Disability (n = 2787) 22% Undocumented Resident (n = 19) 25% Non-US Citizen (n = 133) 10% US Citizen (n = 3840) 26% Heterosexual (n = 3160) 24% LGBQ (n = 520) 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 41. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct by Sexual Orientation, Gender, Disability Status, and Citizen Status (%) 88 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 In terms of position at UCLA, results indicated that greater percentages of Undergraduate Students (37%) and Staff (24%) believed they had observed offensive, hostile, or intimidating conduct than did Faculty (22%), Graduate Students (18%), and Post-Docs/Trainees (14%) (Figure 42). Undergraduate Students (n = 1503) Graduate/Professional Students (n = 732) Staff (n = 1436) Faculty (n = 296) Post-Docs/Trainees (n = 53) 37 18 24 22 13 Figure 42. Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct by Position Status (%) Table 25 illustrates that respondents most often believed they had observed or were made aware of this conduct in the form of someone subjected to derogatory remarks (53%), or someone being deliberately ignored or excluded (34%), racially/ethnically profiled (29%), or intimidated/bullied (28%). 89 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 25. Form of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Only answered by respondents who believed they had observed exclusionary conduct (n = 4,020) % of respondents who observed conduct n Derogatory remarks 2,131 53.0 Deliberately ignored or excluded 1,348 33.5 Racial/ethnic profiling 1,166 29.0 Intimidated/bullied 1,136 28.3 Isolated or left out 1,104 27.5 Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 1,039 25.8 Derogatory written comments 749 18.6 Isolated or left out when work was required in groups 628 15.6 Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 538 13.4 Graffiti/vandalism 509 12.7 Singled out as a spokesperson for his/her identity 473 11.8 Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails, text messages, Facebook posts, Twitter posts 458 11.4 Receipt of a low performance evaluation 411 10.2 Feared for their physical safety 343 8.5 Receipt of a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment 155 3.9 Threats of physical violence 150 3.7 Victim of a crime 134 3.3 Derogatory phone calls 118 2.9 Physical violence 100 2.5 59 1.5 Feared for their family’s safety Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 90 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Of the respondents who believed they had observed or been made aware of offensive, hostile, or intimidating conduct, 31% (n = 1,173) had witnessed such conduct six or more times (Table 26). Table 26. Number of Times Respondents Observed Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Only answered by respondents who believed they had observed exclusionary conduct (n = 4,020) Number of Times Observed % of respondents who observed conduct n 1 674 17.7 2 731 19.2 3 761 19.9 4 354 9.3 5 124 3.2 1,173 30.7 6 or more Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 91 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Additionally, 35% of the respondents who observed exclusionary conduct said it happened in a public space at UCLA (n = 1,393) (Table 27). Some respondents said the incidents occurred while working at a UCLA job (23%, n = 917), in a class/lab/clinical setting (21%, n = 857), in a UCLA office (20%, n = 803), or in a meeting with a group of people (19%, n = 757). Table 27. Location of Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Only answered by respondents who believed they had observed exclusionary conduct (n = 4,020) % of respondents who observed conduct n In a public space at UCLA 1,393 34.7 While working at a UCLA job 917 22.8 In a class/lab/clinical setting 857 21.3 In a UCLA office 803 20.0 In a meeting with a group of people 757 18.8 At a UCLA event 518 12.9 While walking on campus 506 12.6 Off campus 493 12.3 On a social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/cell phone/other form of technological communication 451 11.2 In campus housing 348 8.7 In a meeting with one other person 327 8.1 In a health care setting 231 5.7 In a faculty office 218 5.4 In off campus housing 199 5.0 In a UCLA dining facility 182 4.5 In athletic facilities 60 1.5 On campus transportation 37 0.9 In an on-line class 10 0.2 Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 92 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Fifty-one percent (n = 2,046) of respondents who observed exclusionary conduct said the targets of the conduct were students. Other respondents identified co-workers (18%, n = 741), staff members (17%, n = 673), and friends (12%, n = 500). Respondents who observed offensive, hostile, or intimidating conduct directed at others said students were also the sources of the conduct (37%, n = 1,480). Respondents identified additional sources as faculty members (20%, n = 796), and administrators (13%, n = 501). Table 28 illustrates participants’ reactions to this conduct. Respondents most often felt angry (49%, n = 1,960) or embarrassed (34%, n = 1,346). Thirty-one percent (n = 1,264) told a friend. Five percent (n = 219) reported the incidents to campus employees/officials, while 10% (n = 418) didn’t know who to go to. Some did not report out of fear the complaint would not be taken seriously (11%, n = 434). Of the respondents who sought support from campus resources (n = 152), 15% (n = 23) went to Counseling and Psychological Services, 12% went to the Faculty and Staff Counseling Center (n = 18) or Employee Relations/Labor Relations (n = 18), and 11% (n = 17) went to the Dean of Students office. 93 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 28. Reactions to Exclusionary, Intimidating, Offensive or Hostile Conduct Only answered by respondents who believed they had observed exclusionary conduct (n = 4,020) %of respondents who observed conduct n I was angry 1,960 48.8 I felt embarrassed 1,346 33.5 I told a friend 1,264 31.4 I told a family member 759 18.9 I did nothing 726 18.1 I avoided the harasser 677 16.8 I ignored it 606 15.1 I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 434 10.8 I didn’t know who to go to 418 10.4 I was afraid 415 10.3 It didn’t affect me at the time 407 10.1 I confronted the harasser at the time 344 8.6 I sought support from a staff person 341 8.5 I felt somehow responsible 337 8.4 I left the situation immediately 319 7.9 I sought support from an administrator 266 6.6 I confronted the harasser later 257 6.4 I sought support from a faculty member 234 5.8 I reported it to a campus employee/official 219 5.4 I did report it but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 178 4.4 I sought support from campus resource 152 3.8 I sought information on-line 141 3.5 I sought support from a student staff 68 1.7 I told my union representative 65 1.6 I sought support from a spiritual advisor 48 1.2 I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services 41 1.0 I contacted a local law enforcement official 28 0.7 I sought support from a TA/grad assistant 26 0.6 Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 94 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact Within the last 5 years, 419 people (3%) believed they had experienced unwanted sexual contact 48 while at UCLA. Subsequent analyses of the data suggest that higher percentages of women (4%, n = 339), students (4%, n = 302), and respondents with disabilities (5%, n = 115), experienced unwanted sexual contact than their majority counterparts. Ninety-one respondents offered additional comments about their experiences of unwanted sexual contact, most describing the event(s) in some detail. Several of those individuals described “minor incidents” such as an “unwanted hug from a volunteer,” “Co-worker touched me inappropriately under the guise of wiping some sauce off my shirt,” or “a male co-worker kept touching my back.” One student suggested, “Parties with alcohol tend to be where most of the unwanted touching, grabbing, etc. occurs,” and others’ comments reinforced the sentiment (e.g., “Groped at fraternity”). Said another student, “A lot of the frat parties here are designed to get girls drunk and have sex with them. Other individuals at other parties often have the same goal. The girl seems to be okay with it, but how can they know when she's so drunk? I have on multiple occasions awoken to a story I never consented to.” Additionally, a number of respondents said they were raped while at UCLA. Some of those individuals indicated that they and/or their attackers were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the assaults. One women said her attacker “was a ‘friend’ but more of a predator. Everyone assumed he was "taking care" of me - because I was ‘too drunk.’ However, sexual acts are not a form of taking care of someone who is intoxicated or blacked out.” 48 The survey defined unwanted sexual conduct as including “forcible fondling, sexual assault, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy, gang rape, and sexual assault with an object.” 95 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Summary More than three-quarters of all respondents were comfortable with the climate at UCLA and in their departments and work units. As noted earlier, 24% of UCLA respondents believed they had personally experienced at least subtle forms of exclusionary, intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct in the past year. The findings showed generally that members of historically underrepresented and underserved groups were slightly more likely to believe they had experienced various forms of harassment and discrimination than those in the majority. In addition, 419 respondents (3%) believed they had experienced unwanted sexual contact in the past five years at UCLA. The findings are consistent with those found in higher education institutions across the country based on the work of the consultant (Rankin & Associates, 2013). For example, 70% to 80% of all respondents in similar reports found the campus climate to be “comfortable” or “very comfortable.” Eighty percent of all respondents in the UCLA survey reported that they were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with the climate at UC. Similarly, 20% to 25% in similar reports believed that they had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct. At UCLA, 24% of respondents believed that they had personally experienced exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile conduct. The results also parallel the findings of other climate studies of specific constituent groups offered in the literature (Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 2008; Harper & Quaye, 2004; Harper, & Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Rankin & Reason, 2005; Sears, 2002; Settles, Cortina, Malley, & Stewart, 2006; Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solórzano, 2009). 96 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Faculty and Staff Perceptions of Climate This section of the report details Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff responses to survey items regarding their perceptions of the workplace climate at UCLA; their thoughts on work-life and various climate issues; and certain employment practices at UCLA (e.g., hiring, promotion, and disciplinary actions). At least half of all Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff respondents “strongly agreed”/”agreed” that the workplace climate was welcoming for employees based on all of the characteristics listed in Table 29. Three-quarters felt the workplace was welcoming for people based on educational level (75%), English language proficiency (75%), and ethnicity (75%). 97 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 29. Workplace Climate is Welcoming Based on Demographic Characteristics Group Strongly Agree n % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % Don’t Know n % Age 1,741 22.6 3,806 49.5 1,135 14.8 259 3.4 747 9.7 Ancestry 1,837 24.0 3,622 47.4 854 11.2 209 2.7 1,118 14.6 Country of origin 1,873 24.6 3,724 48.8 874 11.5 207 2.7 947 12.4 Educational level 1,826 23.9 3,939 51.5 1,031 13.5 250 3.3 601 7.9 English language proficiency/ accent 1,697 22.3 3,990 52.4 997 13.1 199 2.6 731 9.6 Ethnicity 1,865 24.5 3,817 50.1 930 12.2 238 3.1 771 10.1 Gender identity 1,710 22.5 3,457 45.4 930 12.2 230 3.0 1,281 16.8 Gender expression 1,665 21.9 3,330 43.9 958 12.6 220 2.9 1,418 18.7 Immigrant/citizen status 1,694 22.3 3,506 46.2 939 12.4 206 2.7 1,243 16.4 International Status 1,772 23.4 3,512 46.3 873 11.5 188 2.5 1,238 16.3 Learning disability 1,373 18.2 2,996 39.7 1,028 13.6 204 2.7 1,942 25.7 Marital status 1,930 25.5 3,603 47.5 874 11.5 230 3.0 945 12.5 Medical conditions 1,566 20.8 3,360 44.6 987 13.1 247 3.3 1,372 18.2 Military/veteran status 1,609 21.1 2,881 38.0 701 9.3 170 2.2 2,212 29.2 Parental status 1,848 24.3 3,492 46.0 971 12.8 234 3.1 1,050 13.8 Participation in a club 1,553 20.6 3,029 40.2 767 10.2 182 2.4 2,009 26.6 Participation on an athletic team 1,458 19.4 2,687 35.7 736 9.8 178 2.4 2,465 32.8 Philosophical views 1,497 19.8 3,329 44.1 967 12.8 210 2.8 1,553 20.6 Psychological condition 1,345 17.9 3,033 40.3 954 12.7 185 2.5 2,001 26.6 Physical characteristics 1,597 21.2 3,436 45.6 921 12.2 195 2.6 1,378 18.3 Physical disability 1,528 20.3 3,246 43.1 920 12.2 202 2.7 1,634 21.7 Political views 1,470 19.4 3,327 44.0 1,106 14.6 284 3.8 1,374 18.2 Race 1,797 23.8 3,577 47.3 970 12.8 277 3.7 939 3.7 Religious/spiritual views 1,580 21.0 3,340 44.3 1,015 13.5 256 3.4 1,343 17.8 Sexual orientation 1,743 23.2 3,354 44.7 885 11.8 225 3.0 1,304 17.4 Socioeconomic status 1,608 21.4 3,411 45.5 1,044 13.9 268 3.6 1,168 15.6 Note: Table includes post-docs, trainees, faculty, and staff responses only (n = 7,881). 98 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 When analyzed by demographic characteristics, the data reveal that 58% (n = 21) of genderqueer Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff respondents, 64% (n = 7) of transgender Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff respondents, and 67% (n = 3,018) of women, and 70% (n = 2,091) of men felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on gender identity (Figure 43). Agree* Disagree** 70 67 64 58 15 15 18 8 Men Women Transgender Genderqueer * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 43. Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, and Trainee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate Based on Gender Identity (%) 99 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 In comparison with 81% (n = 2,563) of White Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff respondents and 70% (n = 60) of Multi-Minority respondents, 65% (n = 1,260) of Underrepresented Minority respondents and 64% (n = 1,387) of Other People of Color felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on race (Figure 44). Agree* Disagree** 81 70 65 64 22 14 9 White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color 17 Multi-Minority * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 44. Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, and Trainee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate Based on Race (%) 100 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Seventy-two percent (n = 435) of LGBQ Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff respondents and 69% (n = 4,261) of heterosexual respondents believed the workplace climate was welcoming based on sexual orientation (Figure 45). Agree* Disagree** 72 69 20 13 LGBQ Heterosexual * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 45. Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, and Trainee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate Based on Sexual Orientation (%) 101 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Respondents from Jewish religious affiliations (76%, n = 313) were most likely to feel the workplace climate was welcoming based on religious/spiritual affiliations. Forty-three percent (n = 33) of Muslim Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on religious/spiritual affiliations (Figure 46), making them the least likely group to agree that the workplace climate was welcoming. Agree* Disagree** 76 72 67 65 56 43 40 26 20 13 11 Christian Muslim Jewish Other No Affiliation 13 Multiple Affiliations * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 46. Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, and Trainee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate Based on Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%) 102 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Additionally, 72% (n = 2,348) of Far Left/Liberal Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff respondents, 62% (n = 1,403) of politically Middle of the Road respondents, 57% (n = 415) of Conservative/Far Right respondents, and 46% (n = 384) of politically undecided respondents felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on political views (Figure 47). Agree* Disagree** 72 62 57 46 29 20 24 14 Far Left/Liberal Middle of the Road Conservative/Far Right Undecided * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 47. Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, and Trainee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate Based on Political Affiliation (%) 103 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 While 30% (n = 2,137) of all Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff respondents who have not been in the military did not know how welcoming their workplaces were for employees based on their military status, 53% (n = 8) of Active Military respondents, 74% (n = 117) of Veterans, 74% (n = 26) of Reservist employees, and 83% (n = 15) of ROTC employees felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on military status (Figure 48). Agree* Disagree** 83 74 74 59 53 20 17 11 Not In Military 11 Active Military Reservist ROTC 13 Veteran * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 48. Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, and Trainee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate Based On Military Status (%) 104 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Sixty-nine percent (n = 5,128) of U.S. Citizen Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff and 52% (n = 126) of Non-U.S. Citizen Post-Docs, Trainees, Faculty, and Staff felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on international status. Likewise, 69% (n = 5,047) of U.S. Citizen respondents and 52% (n = 124) of Non-U.S. Citizen respondents felt the workplace climate was welcoming based on immigrant/citizen status. Agree* Disagree** 69 52 35 33 33 15 US Citizen Non-US Citizen Undocumented Resident * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 49. Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc, and Trainee Perceptions of Welcoming Workplace Climate Based On International Status (%) 105 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Campus Climate and Work-Life Issues Several items addressed employees’ (Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc/Trainee, and Graduate/Professional Students) 49 experiences at UCLA, their perceptions of specific UCLA policies, their attitudes about the climate and work-life issues at UCLA, and faculty attitudes about tenure and advancement processes. Forty-three percent of all Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc/Trainee, and Graduate/Professional Student respondents (n = 4,556) felt that salary determinations were clear. More than three-quarters of the respondents thought UCLA demonstrated that it values a diverse faculty (76%, n = 8,095) and staff (80%, n = 8,595). Table 30 illustrates responses to these questions by gender, 50 race/ethnicity, position, disability status, and citizenship status where the responses for these groups differed from one another. 49 For the items in Tables 30 through 33 and related narrative, the term “employee” includes all Faculty, Staff, Post-Docs/Trainees, and Graduate/Professional Students. 50 Transgender respondents were not included in these analyses as their numbers were too few to assure confidentiality (n = 19). 106 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 30. Attitudes about Work-Related Issues by Position, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Disability Status, Sexual Orientation, Citizenship Status, and Religious/Spiritual Status Strongly agree Issues n I believe salary determinations are clear White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen I think that UCLA demonstrates that it values a diverse faculty Staff Faculty Post-Docs/Trainees White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability Christian Muslim Jewish Other Religious Affiliation No Religious Affiliation Multiple Religious Affiliations % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % N/A n % 813 365 195 219 13 378 423 <5 650 110 756 51 7.6 8.2 8.0 6.4 10.1 8.6 6.9 -7.6 7.5 7.7 6.6 3,743 1,591 805 1,253 39 1,645 2,071 17 3,102 428 3,368 358 35.1 35.6 33.1 36.6 30.2 37.3 33.8 27.0 36.2 29.2 34.2 46.6 2,708 1,139 626 836 41 1,025 1,647 11 2,196 361 2,576 120 25.4 25.5 25.7 24.5 31.8 23.2 26.9 17.5 25.7 24.6 26.2 15.6 1,367 522 422 362 12 497 834 11 1,042 236 1,331 24 12.8 11.7 17.4 10.6 9.3 11.3 13.6 17.5 12.2 16.1 13.5 3.1 2,039 847 384 749 24 866 1,149 20 1,569 333 1,810 216 19.1 19.0 15.8 21.9 18.6 19.6 18.8 31.7 18.3 22.7 18.4 28.1 2,097 1,203 329 73 969 433 634 29 996 1,082 10 1,700 268 780 31 142 110 826 131 19.6 20.1 24.2 18.1 21.6 17.8 18.4 22.0 22.4 17.6 15.2 19.8 18.2 20.2 22.8 25.3 17.9 19.0 19.4 5,998 3,431 710 259 2,624 1,168 2,037 61 2,511 3,435 22 4,930 733 2,154 70 320 344 2,476 363 56.0 57.3 52.3 64.1 58.6 48.1 59.3 46.2 56.6 56.0 33.3 57.4 49.9 55.8 51.5 56.9 55.9 56.9 53.9 1,153 505 205 40 435 353 309 20 387 742 19 842 240 362 17 45 53 523 102 10.8 8.4 15.1 9.9 9.7 14.5 9.0 15.2 8.7 12.1 28.8 9.8 16.3 9.4 12.5 8.0 8.6 12.0 15.1 519 255 89 13 128 244 118 11 163 345 7 367 108 199 8 21 27 192 36 4.8 4.3 6.6 3.2 2.9 10.1 3.4 8.3 3.7 5.6 10.6 4.3 7.3 5.2 5.9 3.7 4.4 4.4 5.3 936 593 25 19 325 229 339 11 380 528 8 750 121 364 10 34 81 333 42 8.7 9.9 1.8 4.7 7.3 9.4 9.9 8.3 8.6 8.6 12.1 8.7 8.2 9.4 7.4 6.0 13.2 7.7 6.2 107 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 30 (con.) Issues Strongly agree n % Agree n % I think UCLA demonstrates that it values a diverse staff Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % 2,266 21.2 6,329 59.2 1,053 9.8 425 4.0 1,059 23.7 2,728 60.9 369 8.2 98 2.2 477 19.6 1,303 53.6 328 13.5 201 8.3 663 19.3 2,116 61.7 302 8.8 99 2.9 31 23.7 67 51.1 22 16.8 6 4.6 1,079 24.4 2,601 58.8 349 7.9 135 3.1 1,166 19.0 3,666 59.7 685 11.2 274 4.5 10 15.2 28 42.4 16 24.2 8 12.1 1,838 21.4 5,193 60.5 774 9.0 289 3.4 290 19.9 777 53.3 214 14.7 99 6.8 843 21.9 2,279 59.1 355 9.2 177 4.6 30 21.9 75 54.7 18 13.1 5 3.6 153 27.5 317 56.9 41 7.4 15 2.7 115 18.8 365 59.6 53 8.7 23 3.8 887 20.4 2,622 60.2 446 10.2 158 3.6 157 23.4 378 56.4 81 12.1 20 3.0 Note: Table includes post-docs, trainees, graduate students, staff, and faculty responses only (n = 10,860). White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability Christian Muslim Jewish Other Religious Affiliation No Religious Affiliation Multiple Religious Affiliations N/A n 620 223 121 247 5 259 345 <5 496 79 203 9 31 56 242 34 % 5.8 5.0 5.0 7.2 3.8 5.9 5.6 -5.8 5.4 5.3 6.6 5.6 9.2 5.6 5.1 Twenty-eight percent of Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc/Trainee, and Graduate/Professional Student respondents (n = 3,018) were reluctant to bring up issues that concern them for fear it would affect their performance evaluations or tenure/merit/promotion decisions (Table 31). Twentyfour percent (n = 2,554) believed their colleagues expected them to represent the “point of view” of their identities. Fifty-nine percent (n = 6,370) were comfortable taking leave that they were entitled to without fear that it may affect their jobs/careers. More than one-quarter of employee respondents (30%, n = 3,202) believed they had to work harder than their colleagues do in order to achieve the same recognition, and 38% (n = 4,057) felt there were many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in their work units. Table 30 illustrates responses to these questions by gender, race/ethnicity, position, disability status, and citizenship status where the responses for these groups differed from one another. 108 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 31. Attitudes about Work-Related Issues by Position, Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Disability Status, Sexual Orientation, Citizenship Status, and Religious/Spiritual Status Strongly agree Issues n I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me for fear that it will affect my performance evaluation or tenure/merit/promotion decision Staff Faculty Post-Docs/Trainees White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen My colleagues/co-workers expect me to represent “the point of view” of my identity White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer LGBQ Heterosexual U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen Christian Muslim Jewish Other Religious Affiliation No Religious Affiliation Multiple Religious Affiliations % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % N/A n % 908 597 121 28 314 295 240 17 293 585 13 610 224 867 31 8.4 9.9 8.9 6.9 7.0 12.0 7.0 12.9 6.6 9.5 19.4 7.1 15.2 8.7 4.0 2,110 1,193 248 104 791 480 750 31 787 1,288 19 1,596 371 1,884 205 19.6 19.8 18.2 25.6 17.6 19.6 21.8 23.5 17.7 20.9 28.4 18.5 25.1 19.0 26.5 3,592 2,026 410 154 1,530 743 1,214 39 1,499 2,057 18 2,969 425 3,299 283 33.4 33.6 30.0 37.9 33.9 30.3 35.3 29.5 33.7 33.3 26.9 34.4 28.8 33.2 36.6 2,974 1,805 474 93 1,473 677 748 35 1,359 1,589 11 2,506 311 2,823 142 27.6 29.9 34.7 22.9 32.7 27.6 21.7 26.5 30.6 25.7 16.4 29.0 21.1 28.4 18.4 1,177 410 112 27 399 256 490 10 508 657 6 954 145 1,055 112 10.9 6.8 8.2 6.7 8.9 10.4 14.2 7.6 11.4 10.6 9.0 11.0 9.8 10.6 14.5 503 152 183 148 12 199 288 12 74 372 476 23 205 10 20 24 176 35 4.7 3.4 7.5 4.3 9.2 4.5 4.7 18.5 8.1 4.2 4.8 3.0 5.3 7.5 3.6 3.9 4.0 5.2 2,051 696 493 789 38 868 1,153 17 263 1,597 1,835 200 776 32 101 128 816 112 19.2 15.6 20.3 23.0 29.0 19.7 18.8 26.2 28.8 18.2 18.6 26.0 20.2 23.9 18.1 20.9 18.8 16.6 3,587 1,491 790 1,195 40 1,445 2,110 18 320 2,951 3,295 278 1,255 38 177 208 1,524 245 33.6 33.4 32.6 34.9 30.5 32.7 34.5 27.7 35.0 33.6 33.5 36.1 32.7 28.4 31.7 34.0 35.1 36.3 2,376 1,225 501 583 19 1,077 1,272 6 157 2,050 2,245 121 816 19 158 109 1,008 151 22.3 27.4 20.6 17.0 14.5 24.4 20.8 9.2 17.2 23.4 22.8 15.7 21.2 14.2 28.3 17.8 23.2 22.4 2,155 903 460 709 22 826 1,297 12 99 1,808 1,990 148 788 35 103 143 824 132 20.2 20.2 19.0 20.7 16.8 18.7 21.2 18.5 10.8 20.6 20.2 19.2 20.5 26.1 18.4 23.4 19.0 19.6 109 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 31 (con.) Issues Strongly agree n I am comfortable taking leave that I am entitled to without fear that it may affect my job/career Staff Faculty Post-Docs/Trainees White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen Christian Muslim Jewish Other Religious Affiliation No Religious Affiliation Multiple Religious Affiliations I have to work harder than I believe my colleagues/coworkers do in order to achieve the same recognition White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen % Agree n % % Strongly Disagree n % Disagree n N/A n % 2,102 1,462 373 73 977 523 549 20 963 1,122 5 1,738 250 2,015 75 813 22 139 98 812 128 19.5 24.3 27.3 17.9 21.7 21.4 16.0 15.2 21.7 18.2 7.6 20.2 17.0 20.3 9.7 20.9 16.1 24.8 16.1 18.6 18.9 4,268 2,907 506 186 1,685 1,009 1,431 52 1,745 2,481 20 3,562 463 3,931 318 1,691 50 194 244 1,659 217 39.7 48.2 37.1 45.7 37.4 41.3 41.6 39.4 39.3 40.2 30.3 41.3 31.4 39.6 41.3 43.5 36.5 34.6 40.0 38.0 32.0 1,668 959 182 90 660 365 567 30 582 1,051 14 1269 292 1,530 129 525 24 78 103 733 125 15.5 15.9 13.3 22.1 14.6 14.9 16.5 22.7 13.1 17.0 21.2 14.7 19.8 15.4 16.8 13.5 17.5 13.9 16.9 16.8 18.4 836 462 97 27 344 235 227 8 283 529 12 582 192 790 39 311 11 34 39 334 61 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.6 7.6 9.6 6.6 6.1 6.4 8.6 18.2 6.7 13.0 8.0 5.1 8.0 8.0 6.1 6.4 7.6 9.0 1,878 238 207 31 840 311 668 22 870 988 15 1,474 277 1,655 209 547 30 116 126 831 148 17.5 3.9 15.2 7.6 18.6 12.7 19.4 16.7 19.6 16.0 22.7 17.1 18.8 16.7 27.1 14.1 21.9 20.7 20.7 19.0 21.8 1,035 286 370 333 17 365 642 15 739 219 969 55 9.6 6.4 15.1 9.7 13.1 8.2 10.4 23.1 8.6 14.9 9.8 7.1 2167 675 557 861 22 798 1,346 12 1,698 323 1,943 207 20.2 15.0 22.8 25.1 16.9 18.0 21.8 18.5 19.7 21.9 19.6 26.8 4,523 2,039 955 1,378 62 1,860 2,618 20 3,727 541 4,218 296 42.1 45.3 39.1 40.1 47.7 41.9 42.5 30.8 43.3 36.7 42.6 38.3 1,767 1,011 335 378 16 857 889 7 1,469 214 1,670 88 16.5 22.5 13.7 11.0 12.3 19.3 14.4 10.8 17.1 14.5 16.9 11.4 1,242 489 226 486 13 557 666 11 981 177 1,104 126 11.6 10.9 9.3 14.1 10.0 12.6 10.8 16.9 11.4 12.0 11.1 16.3 110 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 31 (con.) Issues Strongly agree n % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % N/A n % There are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in my work unit 1,136 10.6 2,921 27.3 3,819 35.7 1,341 12.5 1,483 425 9.5 1,139 25.4 1,671 37.2 708 15.8 546 331 13.6 670 27.5 819 33.6 300 12.3 317 321 9.4 1,004 29.3 1,213 35.4 309 9.0 577 19 14.6 38 29.2 47 36.2 8 6.2 18 381 8.6 1,176 26.6 1,622 36.6 627 14.2 623 724 11.8 1,699 27.7 2,167 35.3 701 11.4 846 18 26.9 19 28.4 14 20.9 7 10.4 9 788 9.2 2,272 26.5 3,205 37.3 1,131 13.2 1,191 256 17.4 438 29.8 436 29.7 142 9.7 198 132 14.5 273 29.9 301 33.0 109 11.9 98 897 10.2 2,351 26.7 3,182 36.1 1,133 12.9 1,249 Note: Table includes faculty, staff, post-doc/trainee, and graduate/professional student responses only (n = 10,860). White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability LGBQ Heterosexual 13.9 12.2 13.0 16.9 13.8 14.1 13.8 13.4 13.9 13.5 10.7 14.2 A number of items queried Faculty, Staff, and Post-docs/Trainees about their opinions regarding work-life issues at UCLA. Fifty-nine percent (n = 6,332) found UCLA supportive of their taking leave, and 63% (n = 6,717) felt that UCLA was supportive of flexible work schedules. Nineteen percent (n = 2,017) felt that people who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work weekends) beyond those who do have children, and 12% (n = 1,266) felt that people who have children were considered by UCLA to be less committed to their jobs/careers. Forty-one percent (n = 4,291) felt that UCLA provides available resources to help employees balance work-life needs, such as childcare and elder care. Few respondents (14%, n = 1,482) were disadvantaged by a need to balance dependent care responsibilities with professional responsibilities (Table 32). 111 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 32. Attitudes about Work-Life Issues Strongly agree Issues n % Agree n % n % Strongly Disagree n % Disagree N/A n % I find that UCLA is supportive of my taking leave. Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students 1,271 172 945 39 115 11.8 12.6 15.7 9.6 1.4 5,061 684 3534 224 619 47.1 50.2 58.8 55.2 7.4 1,468 189 777 70 432 13.7 13.9 12.9 17.2 5.2 417 29 193 7 188 3.9 2.1 3.2 1.7 2.3 2,517 288 565 66 1598 23.4 21.1 9.4 16.3 19.2 I find that UCLA is supportive of flexible work schedules. Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students 1,479 245 899 74 261 13.8 18.0 14.9 18.3 3.1 5238 756 3247 24 1011 48.8 55.5 53.9 55.4 12.1 1,632 151 1166 70 245 15.2 11.1 19.4 17.3 2.9 601 44 455 6 96 5.6 3.2 7.6 1.5 1.2 1,777 166 253 30 1328 16.6 12.2 4.2 7.4 16.0 I feel that people who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work weekends) beyond those who do have children Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students 519 60 369 12 78 4.8 4.4 6.1 3.0 0.9 1,498 166 995 75 262 14.0 12.3 16.5 18.5 3.1 4,503 657 2,960 219 667 42.0 48.5 49.2 53.9 8.0 1546 276 1,039 47 184 14.4 20.4 17.3 11.6 2.2 2,658 196 656 53 1,753 24.8 14.5 10.9 13.1 21.1 I feel that people who have children are considered by UCLA to be less committed to their jobs/careers Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students 255 30 146 <5 76 2.4 2.2 2.4 -0.9 1,011 138 594 60 219 9.4 10.2 9.9 14.8 2.6 5,060 723 3,378 221 738 47.3 53.3 56.2 54.6 8.9 1,819 314 1,210 55 240 17.0 23.2 20.1 13.6 2.9 2,560 151 684 66 1,659 23.9 11.1 11.4 16.3 20.0 I feel that UCLA provides available resources to help employees balance work-life needs, such as childcare and elder care. Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students 589 90 418 16 65 5.6 6.7 7.0 4.0 0.8 3,702 532 2,512 136 522 34.9 39.7 42.3 33.7 6.3 1,697 297 1,099 76 225 16.0 22.2 18.5 18.8 2.7 589 97 383 23 86 5.6 7.2 6.4 5.7 1.0 4,031 324 1,527 153 2,027 38.0 24.2 25.7 37.9 24.4 I am disadvantaged by a need to balance my dependent care responsibilities with my professional responsibilities. 297 2.8 1,185 11.2 2,828 26.6 876 8.3 5,428 Faculty 65 4.8 231 17.2 361 26.9 158 11.8 529 Staff 155 2.6 717 12.0 2,034 34.2 565 9.5 2,484 Post-docs/Trainees 11 2.7 62 15.3 108 26.6 31 7.6 194 Graduate/Professional Students 66 0.8 175 2.1 325 3.9 122 1.5 2,221 Note: Note: Table includes faculty, staff, post-doc/trainee, and graduate/professional student responses only (n = 10,860). 51.1 39.4 41.7 47.8 26.8 112 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 More than half of all Faculty, Staff, Post-docs/Trainees, and Graduate/Professional Student respondents reported that they had colleagues or co-workers (72%, n = 7,764) and supervisors (63%, n = 6,721) at UCLA who gave them career advice or guidance when they need it (Table 33). Fifty-seven percent (n = 6,106) believed their supervisors provided them with resources to pursue professional development opportunities, and 60% (n = 6,447) felt their supervisors provided ongoing feedback to help improve their performance. The majority of Faculty, Staff, Post-doc/Trainee, and Graduate/Professional Student respondents had adequate access to administrative support (68%, n = 7,269). Eighty-percent of all Faculty, Staff, Post-doc/Trainee, and Graduate/Professional Student respondents felt the following survey item was not applicable to them: “For health sciences campus employees, my patient-care load is manageable.” Of the respondents who found that item applicable (n = 2030), 83% (n = 1,681) of health sciences employees believed their patientcare load was manageable. 113 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 33. Perceptions of Support and Resources Available at UCLA Resources I have supervisors who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students I have colleagues/co-workers who give me job/career/education advice or guidance when I need it Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue professional development opportunities. Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students My supervisor provides ongoing feedback to help me improve my performance. Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students I have adequate access to administrative support. Faculty Staff Post-docs/Trainees Graduate/Professional Students Strongly Agree n % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % n N/A % 2,010 18.7 4,711 43.8 1,627 15.1 787 7.3 1,612 15.0 220 1,116 126 548 16.1 18.5 31.0 6.6 504 2,797 215 1,195 36.8 46.4 52.8 14.4 222 1,130 46 229 16.2 18.7 11.3 14.1 110 600 10 67 8.0 10.0 2.5 8.5 313 385 10 904 22.9 6.4 2.5 56.1 2,051 19.1 5713 53.2 1,206 11.2 413 3.8 1353 12.6 288 1,060 110 593 21.1 17.6 51.5 7.1 726 3,390 234 1,363 53.1 56.3 57.8 16.4 138 859 42 167 10.1 14.3 10.4 2.0 69 306 8 30 5.0 5.1 2.0 7.3 147 405 11 790 10.7 6.7 2.7 9.5 1,810 16.8 4,296 40.0 1,864 17.4 870 8.1 1,900 17.6 169 1,073 107 461 12.4 17.8 26.3 5.5 418 2,621 217 1,040 30.7 43.5 53.3 12.5 237 1,281 55 291 17.4 21.2 13.5 3.5 112 664 17 77 8.2 11.0 4.2 0.9 426 393 11 1070 31.3 6.5 2.7 12.9 1,699 15.9 4,748 44.3 1,815 16.9 788 7.3 1656 15.5 139 1,018 102 440 10.2 17.0 25.1 5.3 405 3,020 233 1,090 29.8 50.3 57.2 13.1 304 1,160 51 300 22.4 19.3 12.5 3.6 109 584 14 81 8.0 9.7 3.4 1.0 401 218 7 1,030 29.5 3.6 1.7 12.4 1,558 14.9 5,711 53.5 1,497 14.0 692 6.5 1,223 11.5 191 854 77 436 14.1 14.2 19.1 5.2 661 3,480 240 1,330 48.8 58.1 59.4 16.0 260 918 60 259 19.2 15.3 14.9 3.1 178 442 13 59 13.1 7.4 3.2 0.7 64 300 14 845 4.7 5.0 3.5 10.2 For health sciences campus employees, my patient-care load is 291 2.8 1,390 13.5 236 2.3 113 1.1 8,292 manageable. Faculty 51 3.9 205 15.5 31 2.4 19 1.4 1,013 Staff 154 2.7 819 14.4 165 2.9 82 1.4 4,462 Post-docs/Trainees 36 9.0 113 28.3 10 2.5 <5 -236 Graduate/Professional Students 50 0.6 253 3.0 30 0.4 8 0.1 2,581 Note: Table includes Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc/Trainee, and Graduate/Professional Student responses only (n = 10,860). 80.3 76.8 78.5 59.1 31.1 114 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Perceptions of Employment Practices Regarding respondents’ observations of discriminatory employment practices, 17% of Staff respondents (n = 1,031) and 15% of Faculty respondents (n = 203) 51 reported they observed hiring practices at UCLA (e.g., hiring supervisor bias, search committee bias, limited recruiting pool, lack of effort in diversifying recruiting pool) that they perceived to be unfair or unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community within the past year/hiring cycle (Table 34). Table 34. Employee Respondents Who Believed They Had Observed Employment Practices that were Unfair, Unjust, or Would Inhibit Diversifying the Community Procedures or Practices Related to Employment-Related Promotion/Tenure/ Hiring Practices* Disciplinary Actions** Reclassification** n % n % n % No Faculty Staff Graduate/Professional Students Post-Docs/Trainees 961 3,461 69.8 60.1 1,120 4,247 81.6 70.2 883 3,388 64.4 56.0 not asked not asked not asked not asked 2,306 334 77.6 82.1 2,060 309 69.5 76.1 203 1,031 14.7 17.0 86 672 6.3 11.1 299 1,414 21.8 23.4 not asked not asked not asked not asked 94 10 3.2 2.5 191 23 6.4 5.7 189 1,250 13.8 20.7 715 74 24.1 18.2 Yes Faculty Staff Graduate/Professional Students Post-Docs/Trainees Don’t Know Faculty 213 15.5 166 12.1 Staff 1,382 22.8 1,127 18.6 Graduate/Professional Students not asked not asked 570 19.2 Post-Docs/Trainees not asked not asked 63 15.5 *Note: Answered by faculty and staff only (n = 7,474). **Note: Answered by faculty, post-docs, graduate students, trainees, faculty, and staff (n = 10,860). 51 Post-docs/trainees were not asked this question. 115 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Of those who believed that they had observed discriminatory hiring, 32% indicated it was based on personal relationships (n = 393), 19% indicated it was based on race (n = 238), 19% indicated it was based on ethnicity (n = 237), 15% indicated it was based on age (n = 189), and 14% indicated it was based on their position at UCLA (n = 173). • By gender identity: Subsequent analyses indicated that 17% of women (n = 779), 15% of men (n = 425), and 24% of genderqueer respondents (n = 9) believed they had observed discriminatory hiring practices. 52 • By racial identity: Subsequent analyses indicated that 13% of White faculty and staff (n = 419), 21% of Underrepresented Minority faculty and staff (n = 420), 16% of Other People of Color employees (n = 321), and 20% of Multi-Minority employees (n = 17) observed unfair or unjust hiring at UCLA. • By sexual orientation: Subsequent analyses indicated that 19% of LGBQ respondents (n = 116) and 16% of heterosexual respondents (n = 965) believed they had observed discriminatory hiring practices. Eight percent of Faculty, Staff, Post-docs/Trainees, and Graduate/Professional Students respondents (n = 862) believed they had observed unfair, unjust, or discriminatory employmentrelated disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal, within the past year/hiring cycle. Subsequent analyses indicate that of those individuals, 22% said they believed the discrimination was based on their position at UCLA (n = 186), 17% indicated it was based on race (n = 150), 17% indicated it was based on age (n = 148), 15% indicated it was based on ethnicity (n = 132), and 10% indicated it was based on personal relationships. • By position: Subsequent analyses indicated that 3% of Graduate Students (n = 94), 11% of Staff respondents (n = 672), 6% of Faculty respondents (n = 86), and 3% of PostDocs/Trainees (n = 10) had observed discriminatory disciplinary actions. • By gender identity: Subsequent analyses indicated that 9% of women respondents (n = 538), 7% of men respondents (n = 292), and 15% of genderqueer respondents (n = 10) believed they had observed discriminatory practices. 52 Transgender respondents were not included in these analyses because their numbers were too small to assure confidentiality. 116 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 • By racial identity: Subsequent analyses indicated that 13% of Underrepresented Minority employees (n = 311), 7% of Multi-Minority employees (n = 9), 6% of Other People of Color employees (n = 209), and 7% of White employees (n = 294) witnessed such actions. • By sexual orientation: Subsequent analyses indicated that 9% of LGBQ respondents (n = 85) and 8% of heterosexual respondents (n = 664) witnessed discriminatory disciplinary actions. Eighteen percent of Faculty, Staff, Post-docs/Trainees, and Graduate/Professional Students (n = 1,927) believed they had observed unfair or unjust practices related to promotion, tenure, reappointment, and/or reclassification at UCLA. Subsequent analyses indicate several respondents believed it was based on personal relationships (27%, n = 528), UCLA position (21%, n = 409), race (14%, n = 268), ethnicity (13%, n = 259), and age (12%, n = 221). • By position: Subsequent analyses indicated that 6% of Graduate/Professional Students (n = 191), 23% of Staff respondents (n = 1,414), 22% of Faculty respondents (n = 299), and 6% of the Post-Docs/Trainees (n = 23) believed they had observed unfair or unjust practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification. • By gender identity: Subsequent analyses indicated that 20% of women (n = 1,230), 15% of men (n = 646), and 25% of genderqueer respondents (n = 17) witnessed discriminatory promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification. • By racial identity: Subsequent analyses indicated that 16% of White respondents (n = 729), 15% of Other People of Color respondents (n = 505), 24% of Underrepresented Minority respondents (n = 590), and 21% of Multi-Minority respondents (n = 27) witnessed such conduct. • By sexual orientation: Subsequent analyses indicated that 20% of LGBQ of Faculty, Staff, Post-Doc/Trainee, and Graduate/Professional Student (n = 184) and 18% of heterosexual respondents (n = 1,555) also witnessed such conduct. 117 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Faculty Members’ Views on University Policies One survey item queried Faculty members (n = 1,380) about their opinions regarding a variety of work-life issues specific to faculty work (Table 35). The majority of Faculty respondents “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the tenure/promotion process was clear (69%, n = 949) and reasonable (73%, n = 1,000). Most believed that their service contributions were important to tenure/promotion (57%, n = 773). Fewer Faculty indicated that their diversity-related contributions have been/will be valued for promotion or tenure (34%, n = 465), and 19% (n = 251) felt pressured to change their research agendas to achieve tenure or be promoted. Table 35. Faculty Attitudes about Tenure and Advancement Processes Strongly agree % Agree n % Issues n I believe that the tenure/promotion process is clear. 258 18.8 691 I believe that the tenure/promotion standards are reasonable. 256 18.7 I feel that my service contributions are important to tenure/promotion. 171 I feel pressured to change my research agenda to achieve tenure/promotion. I feel that my diversity-related contributions have been/will be valued for promotion or tenure. Disagree Strongly Disagree n % Not Applicable n % 50.2 225 16.4 79 5.7 123 8.9 744 54.4 183 13.4 48 3.5 137 10.0 12.5 602 44.1 322 23.3 101 7.4 169 12.4 69 5.1 182 13.4 531 39.1 280 20.6 297 21.9 64 4.7 401 29.5 270 19.9 88 6.5 535 39.4 39.0 323 23.8 144 10.6 156 11.5 I believe that tenure standards/advancement standards are applied equally to all faculty. 206 15.2 529 Note: Table includes only faculty respondents (n = 1,380). n % 118 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Fifty-four percent of all Faculty (n = 735) believed tenure standards and advancement standards were equally applied to all UCLA faculty. Figure 50 illustrates that Underrepresented Minority Faculty, Multi-Minority Faculty, women faculty, and LGBQ faculty were less likely to believe that tenure standards and advancement standards were equally applied to all UCLA faculty. Agree* Disagree** 63 58 50 55 53 56 56 44 31 31 36 33 42 36 52 45 42 33 33 26 Figure 50. Tenure & Advancement Standards are Applied Equally to All Faculty (%) Sixty-three percent of Faculty (n = 859) believed their colleagues included them in opportunities that will help their careers as much as they do others in their positions (Table 36). Thirty percent (n = 405) of Faculty felt burdened by service responsibilities beyond those of their colleagues. Forty-six percent of Faculty (n = 620) believed they performed more work to help students than did their colleagues. Table 36 depicts Faculty responses by gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, and citizenship where differences emerged among the groups. 53 53 Transgender faculty (n = 1), Genderqueer faculty (n = 5), and Other Minority faculty (n = 9) were not included in these analyses as their numbers were too low to assure confidentiality. 119 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 36. Faculty Attitudes about Work-Related Issues Strongly Agree Issues Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable n % n % n % n % n % 199 140 18 39 139 59 162 20 13 178 192 7 14.6 16.7 12.8 11.6 17.5 10.8 14.8 11.0 11.2 15.2 14.5 25.0 660 417 48 172 394 258 549 83 54 573 639 17 48.5 49.6 34.0 51.2 49.6 47.2 50.0 45.9 46.6 49.0 48.2 60.7 223 109 29 73 105 112 180 29 22 182 219 <5 16.4 13.0 20.6 21.7 13.2 20.5 16.4 16.0 19.0 15.6 16.5 -- 121 67 26 24 56 62 81 32 19 96 121 <5 8.9 8.0 18.4 7.1 7.0 11.3 7.4 17.7 16.4 8.2 9.1 -- 158 107 20 28 101 56 125 17 8 141 155 <5 11.6 12.7 14.2 8.3 12.7 10.2 11.4 9.4 6.9 12.1 11.7 -- 137 68 25 41 68 64 106 25 20 109 135 <5 10.0 8.1 17.5 12.1 8.5 11.6 9.6 13.6 16.9 9.3 10.1 -- 268 161 25 73 147 116 208 42 28 225 266 <5 19.6 19.1 17.5 21.6 18.4 21.1 18.9 22.8 23.7 19.1 19.9 -- 641 411 55 150 377 256 527 82 49 552 622 14 4.8 48.7 38.5 44.4 47.2 46.5 47.8 44.6 41.5 47.0 46.6 50.0 178 118 21 34 119 57 145 21 12 159 172 <5 13.0 14.0 14.7 10.1 14.9 10.3 13.1 11.4 10.2 13.5 12.9 -- 146 86 17 40 88 58 117 14 9 130 139 7 10.7 10.2 11.9 11.8 11.0 10.5 10.6 7.6 7.6 11.1 10.4 25.0 199 14.6 421 112 13.5 258 31 21.4 31 50 14.8 118 108 13.7 229 88 16.0 183 159 14.5 332 30 16.5 63 23 19.3 40 167 14.4 357 199 15.0 412 <5 -6 Note: Table includes only faculty respondents (n = 1,380). 31.0 31.1 21.4 34.9 29.0 33.3 30.3 34.6 33.6 30.7 31.1 21.4 521 334 52 117 314 201 427 61 46 441 503 14 38.3 40.2 35.9 34.6 39.7 36.6 39.0 33.5 38.7 38.0 38.0 50.0 95 66 11 15 66 29 76 15 <5 92 94 <5 7.0 8.0 7.6 4.4 8.3 5.3 6.9 8.2 -7.9 7.1 -- 123 60 20 38 74 48 100 13 8 105 116 7 9.1 7.2 13.8 11.2 9.4 8.7 9.1 7.1 6.7 9.0 8.8 25.0 I believe that my colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my career as much as they do others in my position. White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Men Women No Disability Disability LGBQ Heterosexual U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen I feel that I am burdened by service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments, teaching load) beyond those of my colleagues. White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Men Women No Disability Disability LGBQ Heterosexual U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen I perform more work to help students (e.g., formal and informal advising, sitting for qualifying exams/dissertation committees, helping with student groups and activities, providing other support) than my colleagues. White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Men Women No Disability Disability LGBQ Heterosexual U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen 120 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Sixty-six percent of faculty members (n = 889) felt their departments created climates that were responsive and supportive of family needs, including usage of family-related leave policies (Table 37). Seven percent of faculty members (n = 97) have used/would use UCLA policies on stopping the tenure clock, and 11% (n = 150) have used university policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. Ten percent (n = 127) felt that faculty members who use family-related leave policies are disadvantaged in advancement or tenure, and 45% (n = 604) believed that perception about using family-related leave policies differ for men and women faculty. Table 37. Faculty Attitudes about Family-Related Leave Policies by Gender Strongly Agree Issues n I have used or would use university policies on stopping the clock for promotion or tenure. % Agree n % Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable n % n % n % 32 25 7 2.3 4.5 0.9 65 33 30 4.7 6.0 3.7 242 99 140 17.6 17.9 17.5 235 84 145 17.1 15.2 18.1 800 313 479 58.0 56.5 59.8 53 42 11 3.9 7.6 1.4 97 68 28 7.1 12.3 3.5 198 71 124 14.5 12.8 15.6 199 69 124 14.5 12.5 15.6 821 303 509 60.0 54.8 63.9 28 13 15 2.1 2.4 1.9 99 67 31 7.4 12.5 3.9 546 210 330 40.6 39.0 41.8 325 100 220 24.1 18.6 27.9 348 148 193 25.9 27.5 24.5 224 84 138 16.5 15.4 17.4 665 242 415 49.0 44.4 52.3 196 106 87 14.4 19.4 11.0 62 36 26 4.6 6.6 3.3 210 77 127 15.5 14.1 16.0 123 9.1 481 76 13.9 218 45 5.7 258 Note: Table includes only faculty respondents (n = 1,380). 35.4 39.9 32.6 403 124 275 29.7 22.7 34.7 119 25 92 8.8 4.6 11.6 231 103 122 17.0 18.9 15.4 Women Men I have used university policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. Women Men In my department, faculty members who use familyrelated accommodation policies are disadvantaged in promotion or tenure. Women Men I feel that my department creates a climate that is responsive and supportive of family needs, including usage of work-family policies. Women Men I believe that perceptions about using work-family policies differ for men and women faculty. Women Men 121 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Faculty, Staff, and Post-Docs/Trainees Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving UCLA Thirty-seven percent of Staff respondents (n = 2,272), 38% (n = 521) of Faculty respondents, and 28% (n = 115) of Post-Docs/Trainees have seriously considered leaving UCLA in the past year. Subsequent analyses indicate that: • By gender identity 54: 35% of men (n = 1,093), 37% of women (n = 1,746), and 64% of genderqueer respondents (n = 25) had seriously considered leaving the institution. • By racial identity: 39% of Underrepresented Minority employees (n = 753), 39% of White employees (n = 1,266), 44% of Multi-Minority employees (n = 40), and 34% of Other People of Color employees (n = 752) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By sexual orientation: 43% of LGBQ employees (n = 269) and 37% of heterosexual respondents (n = 2,395) had seriously considered leaving the institution. • By disability status: 46% of Faculty, Staff, and Post-Docs/Trainees with disabilities (n = 443) and 35% of employees without disabilities (n = 2,270) seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By citizenship status: 37% of U.S. Citizens (n = 2,821) and 25% of Non-U.S. Citizens 55 (n = 62) had seriously considered leaving. More than 2,200 Faculty, Staff, and Post-Doc/Trainee respondents further elaborated on why they seriously considered leaving UCLA during the past year. A number of respondents offered that there was a lack of advancement opportunities at UCLA, were frustrated by long commutes, lack of departmental support, absence of pay increases, lack of job stability, rampant nepotism, and increases in workload without commensurate salary adjustments. Several staff respondents felt underappreciated and non-compensated for the amount of work they were expected to complete. For example one respondent wrote, “Management doesn't appreciate how hard I work and doesn't care to listen to our complaints for a heavy workload and little pay.” Another respondent reported, “I used to be content to trade the benefits of low pay for the good benefits 54 Transgender respondents were not included in these analyses as their numbers were too low to insure confidentiality. 55 Undocumented Resident employees were too few to include in these analyses. 122 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 and pension, but more and more we now have low pay and low benefits.” Other respondents also lamented the lack of diversity at UCLA and their perceived inequities on campus. For example, one person commented, “[There is an] insensitivity towards diversity issues - especially, with regard to gender…a lot of microaggressions.” Summary The results from this section suggest that most respondents felt the workplace was welcoming for a variety of UCLA groups. Other People of Color and Underrepresented Minority respondents were less likely than White respondents to believe the workplace was welcoming based on race. Muslim respondents were less likely than other religious/spiritual affiliations to believe the workplace was welcoming based on religious/spiritual status, and Transgender and Genderqueer respondents were less likely than Men and Women to think the workplace climate was welcoming based on gender identity. Few UCLA employees had observed unfair or unjust hiring (17%), unfair or unjust disciplinary actions (8%), or unfair or unjust promotion/tenure/reclassification (18%). Additionally, the majority of Staff, Faculty, Post-Docs, and Trainees believed they had support from their coworkers, and felt positively about their ability to balance work-life issues. Not surprisingly, some differences in many of the aforementioned topics existed in the responses from people from various backgrounds and identities. 123 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate This section of the report is dedicated to survey questions that were specific to UCLA students. Several survey items queried student respondents about their academic experiences, their general perceptions of the campus climate, and their comfort with their classes and their on-campus jobs. Some questions in this section include students only, one includes student and faculty responses, and others include student, trainee, and post-doc responses. The tables are marked accordingly. Student Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact Within the last 5 years, 419 people (3%) believed they had experienced unwanted sexual contact 56 while at UCLA. Subsequent analyses indicate that of the 419 respondents, 252 were Undergraduate Students (5% of Undergraduate Students) and 50 were Graduate/Professional Students (2% of Graduate/Professional Students). Subsequent analyses offered in Figure 51 illustrate that for Undergraduate Students: • By gender identity: 7% of Women Undergraduates (n = 213), 2% of Men Undergraduates (n = 37), and 2% of Genderqueer Undergraduates (n = 3) experienced unwanted sexual contact. • By racial identity 57: 6% of White Undergraduate Students (n = 77), 4% of Underrepresented Minorities (n = 41), and 4% of Other People of Color (n = 126 experienced unwanted sexual contact. • By sexual orientation: 8% of LGBQ Undergraduate Students (n = 34) and 5% of heterosexual Undergraduate Students (n = 199) experienced unwanted sexual contact. 56 The survey defined unwanted sexual conduct as including “forcible fondling, sexual assault, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy, gang rape, and sexual assault with an object.” 57 Multi-minority respondents were not included in these analyses as their numbers were too low to insure confidentiality. 124 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Subsequent analyses offered in Figure 51 illustrate that for Graduate/Professional Students: • By gender identity: 3% of Women Graduate/Professional Students (n = 40) and 1% of Men Graduate/Professional Students (n = 8) experienced unwanted sexual contact. • By racial identity: 2% of White Graduate/Professional Students (n = 20), 1% of Underrepresented Minorities (n = 6), and 2% of Other People of Color (n = 24 experienced unwanted sexual contact. • By sexual orientation: 2% of LGBQ Graduate/Professional Students (n = 5), and 2% of heterosexual Graduate/Professional Students (n = 42) experienced unwanted sexual contact. Undergraduate Students Graduate/Professional Students 213 199 126 77 41 24 20 6 42 34 5 40 37 8 Figure 51. Student Experiences of Unwanted Sexual Contact within the Past Five Years by Race, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity (n) 125 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Students’ Academic Experiences The survey asked Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 8,768) the degree to which they agreed or disagreed about a variety of academic experiences (Table 38). Their answers were positive. Seventy-eight percent (n = 6,791) felt many of their courses this year have been intellectually stimulating. The majority were satisfied with the extent of their intellectual development since enrolling at UCLA (74%, n = 6,444). Additionally, the majority Students, Trainees, and PostDocs felt their academic experience has had a positive influence on their intellectual growth and interest in ideas (79%, n = 6,859) and that their interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming to UCLA (76%, n = 6,673). Table 38. Student, Trainee, and Post-Doc Respondents’ Academic Experiences at UCLA Strongly Agree Academic Experiences Many of my courses this year have been intellectually stimulating. Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Disagree n % n % n % n % Strongly Disagree n % 2,400 27.4 4,391 50.2 928 10.6 391 4.5 66 0.8 Undergraduate Students Graduate/Professional Students 1,474 894 27.4 30.1 2981 1318 55.5 44.4 622 285 11.6 9.6 251 134 4.7 4.5 40 23 0.7 0.8 I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at UCLA. 2,180 24.9 4,264 48.6 1,409 16.1 681 7.8 133 1.5 Undergraduate Students Graduate/Professional Students 1,191 900 22.2 30.4 2,640 1,424 49.3 48.1 967 401 18.0 13.6 468 191 8.7 6.5 91 39 1.7 1.3 My academic experience has had a positive influence on my intellectual growth and interest in ideas. 1,823 20.8 4,382 49.9 1,491 17.0 793 9.0 203 2.3 Undergraduate Students Graduate/Professional Students 1,343 1,057 25.1 35.7 2,755 1,384 51.4 46.8 846 350 15.8 11.8 327 133 6.1 4.5 83 35 1.5 1.2 2,739 31.4 3,934 45.0 1,410 16.1 476 5.4 146 1.7 My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming to UCLA. Undergraduate Students 1,618 30.2 2,518 47.0 858 16.0 272 5.1 89 1.7 Graduate/Professional Students 1,023 34.5 1,218 41.1 494 16.6 178 6.0 53 1.8 Note: Table includes students, trainees, and postdocs only (n = 8,768). Respondents were allowed to check “Not Applicable.” Those responses are available in Appendix B. 126 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Furthermore, 65% of Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 5,712) felt they were performing up to their full academic potential. Half of all Student, Trainee, and Post-Doc respondents felt they performed academically as well as they had anticipated they would (52%, n = 4,567) (Table 39). The majority of Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs were satisfied with their academic experience at UCLA (71%, n = 6,205). Table illustrates these data by student status, race, gender, 58 disability, citizenship, first-generation status, and socioeconomic status. 58 Transgender respondents were too few to include in these analyses. 127 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 39. Student, Trainee, and Post-Doc Respondents’ Academic Experiences at UCLA Strongly Agree Academic Experiences I am performing up to my full academic potential. White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen Undocumented Resident First-Generation Not First Generation Low Income Not Low Income Undergraduate Student Graduate/Professional Student Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree n % n % n % n % n 1,587 548 251 667 24 664 835 10 1,201 191 1,304 187 12 354 1,150 707 752 788 718 18.1 22.0 17.2 16.0 16.8 19.2 17.3 16.1 19.4 13.3 18.1 18.2 16.4 15.5 19.0 18.2 18.2 14.7 24.2 4,125 1,268 634 1,921 61 1,635 2,262 28 2,980 614 3,337 540 26 1,022 2,888 1,777 1,981 2,454 1,466 47.1 50.9 43.5 46.2 42.7 47.4 46.9 45.2 48.1 42.6 46.3 52.5 35.6 44.7 47.8 45.8 47.9 45.7 49.3 1,420 330 255 743 19 522 831 9 983 239 1,179 168 15 413 952 647 653 972 396 16.2 13.2 17.5 17.9 13.3 15.1 17.2 14.5 15.9 16.6 16.4 16.3 20.5 18.1 15.8 16.7 15.8 18.1 13.3 1,367 315 266 710 31 537 791 12 918 320 1,206 116 13 414 923 641 657 996 346 15.6 12.6 18.3 17.1 21.7 15.6 16.4 19.4 14.8 22.2 16.7 11.3 17.8 18.1 15.3 16.5 15.9 18.5 11.6 205 30 48 11 7 90 105 <5 109 72 179 16 5 75 125 98 90 159 41 % 2.3 1.2 3.3 2.7 4.9 2.6 2.2 -1.8 5.0 2.5 1.6 6.8 3.3 2.1 2.5 2.2 3.0 1.4 I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I would. 1,394 16.0 3,173 36.3 1,730 19.8 1,794 20.5 561 6.4 589 23.7 1,016 40.8 406 16.3 364 14.6 110 4.4 190 13.1 468 32.2 317 21.8 364 25.0 111 7.6 512 12.3 1,440 34.7 894 21.6 979 23.6 316 7.6 22 15.5 38 26.8 33 23.2 35 24.6 13 9.2 612 17.8 1,297 37.7 697 20.3 661 19.2 168 4.9 704 14.6 1,677 34.8 961 19.9 1,090 22.6 383 7.9 12 19.4 21 33.9 10 16.1 12 19.4 6 9.7 1,041 16.8 2,300 37.2 1,221 19.8 1,259 20.4 351 5.7 182 12.6 458 31.8 281 19.5 355 24.7 157 10.9 1,156 16.1 2,543 35.3 1,419 19.7 1,555 21.6 517 7.2 157 15.3 428 41.8 223 21.8 184 18.0 26 2.5 9 12.3 17 23.3 16 21.9 23 31.5 8 11.0 255 11.2 723 31.8 512 22.5 569 25.0 209 9.2 1071 17.7 2,266 37.5 1,151 19.1 1,192 19.8 346 5.7 628 16.2 1,397 36.1 778 20.1 788 20.4 265 6.9 660 16.0 1,473 35.7 805 19.5 913 22.1 274 6.6 597 11.1 1,690 31.5 1,172 21.8 1,424 26.5 475 8.9 729 24.6 1,305 44.0 498 16.8 343 11.6 81 2.7 Note: Table includes students, trainees, and postdocs only (n = 8,768). Respondents were allowed to check “Not Applicable.” Those responses are available in Appendix B. White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Men Women Genderqueer No Disability Disability U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen Undocumented Resident First-Generation Not First Generation Low Income Not Low Income Undergraduate Student Graduate/Professional Student 128 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Figure 52 illustrates the percentage of all Students who “strongly agreed”/ “agreed” that they were satisfied with their academic experiences at UCLA. With regard to race, White respondents (77%, n = 1,929) were more satisfied than Underrepresented Minority respondents (70%, n = 1,014), Other People of Color respondents (68%, n = 2,812), or Multi-Minority respondents (70%, n = 100). With regard to gender, 74% of men (n = 2,532), 69% of women (n = 3,335), 92% of transgender respondents (n =12) and 76% of genderqueer respondents (n = 47) were satisfied with their academic experiences. Seventy-three percent of respondents without disabilities (n = 4,540) and 62% of respondents with disabilities (n = 888) were satisfied with their academic experiences. A higher percentage of Not First Generation respondents (72%, n = 4,364) than First Generation respondents (67%, n = 1,536) were satisfied with their academic experiences. Non U.S. Citizens (74%, n = 756) and U.S. Citizens (71%, n = 5,091) were more satisfied with their academic experiences than were Undocumented Residents (62%, n = 45). Grad./Prof. Student (n = 2,260) Undergraduate Student (n = 3,648) 76% 68% Genderqueer (n = 47) Transgender (n = 12) Women (n = 3,335) Men (n = 2,532) 76% 92% 69% 74% White (n = 1,929) Multi-Minority (n = 100) Underrepresented Minority (n = 1,014) Other People of Color (n = 2,812) 77% 70% 70% 68% Disability (n = 888) No Disability (n = 4,540) 62% 73% Not First-Generation (n = 4,364) First-Generation (n = 1,536) 72% 67% Undocumented Resident (n = 45) Non-U.S. Citizen (n = 756) U.S. Citizen (n = 5,091) 62% 74% 71% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 52. Students Who Strongly Agreed/Agreed that they were Satisfied with Academic Experiences at UCLA by Selected Demographics (%) 129 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Ninety-five percent (n = 5,063) of all Undergraduate Students and 97% (n = 2,852) of all Graduate/Professional Students indicated that they intended to graduate from UCLA. Subsequent analyses presented in Table 40 offers an examination of Undergraduate Students’ intent to graduate from UCLA (“I intend to graduate from UCLA”) by selected demographic characteristics. • By racial identity, the majority of Undergraduate Students regardless of race “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they intended to graduate from UCLA (White, 95%, n = 1,193; Underrepresented Minorities, (96%, n = 967); Other People of Color, 94%, n = 2,747; Multi-Minority, 96%, n = 97). • By gender identity, the majority of Undergraduate Students regardless of gender “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they intended to graduate from UCLA (men, 95%, n = 1,946; women, 95%, n = 3,080; genderqueer, 91%, n = 31). • By socioeconomic status, 95% of Low Income Undergraduate Students (n = 1,907) and 95% of Not Low Income Undergraduate Students (n = 2,931) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they intended to graduate from UCLA. • By generational status, 95% of First Generation Undergraduate Students (n = 1,592) and 95% of Not First Generation Students (n = 3,457) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they intended to graduate from UCLA. • By citizenship status, U.S. Citizen Undergraduate Students (96%, n = 4,578) and Undocumented Resident Undergraduate Students (89%, n = 59) were more likely to “strongly agree” or “agree” that they intended to graduate from UCLA than were NonU.S. Citizen Undergraduate Students (81%, n = 403). 130 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 40. Undergraduate Student Respondents’ Intent to Graduate from UCLA Strongly Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree % Disagree Strongly Disagree n n n % n % n % White Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color Multi-Minority Gender Men Women Genderqueer SES status 1,002 779 2,012 75 79.9 77.1 69.1 74.3 191 188 735 22 15.2 18.6 25.3 21.8 43 38 124 3.4 3.8 4.3 <5 <5 --- 15 0.5 <5 -- <5 -- 1,511 2,375 25 73.6 73.2 73.5 435 705 6 21.2 21.7 17.6 90 121 4.4 3.7 8 13 0.4 0.4 <5 -- <5 Low Income Not Low Income 1,445 71.7 462 22.9 80 4.0 2,305 74.7 626 20.3 122 First Generation Not First Generation 1,214 2,687 72.5 73.7 378 770 22.6 21.1 U.S. Citizen Non-U.S. Citizen Undocumented Resident 3,623 227 46 76.3 45.7 69.7 955 176 13 20.1 35.4 19.7 % Race <5 <5 <5 <5 ----- -- <5 <5 <5 ---- 11 0.5 <5 -- 4.0 10 0.3 <5 -- 65 144 3.9 3.9 <5 -- <5 -- 17 0.5 5 0.1 152 51 6 3.2 10.3 9.1 11 10 0.2 2.0 5 0.1 <5 -- <5 -- <5 -- First Generation Status Citizenship Note: Table reports student responses only (n = 5,382). Students’ Perceptions of Campus Climate The survey asked students about the perceptions they held about the UCLA climate before they enrolled on campus (Table 41). Before they enrolled at UCLA, more than half of all student respondents thought the climate was “very respectful/respectful” of all of the groups listed in Table 41. 131 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 41. Students’ Pre-enrollment Perceptions of Campus Climate Group Very Respectful n % Respectful n % Disrespectful n % Very Disrespectful n % Don’t Know n % Psychological health issues 2,688 34.6 3,834 49.3 150 1.9 12 0.2 1,088 14.0 Physical health issues 2,821 36.4 3,850 49.6 91 1.2 11 0.1 983 12.7 Female 3,154 40.6 3,923 50.5 87 1.1 15 0.2 585 7.5 Religious affiliations other than Christian 2,808 36.2 3,966 51.1 171 2.2 23 0.3 791 10.2 Christian affiliations 2,876 37.1 3,874 50.0 202 2.6 32 0.4 766 9.9 Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender 2,860 36.9 3,922 50.6 217 2.8 28 0.4 726 9.4 Immigrants 2,721 35.1 3,975 51.3 262 3.4 43 0.6 751 9.7 International students, staff, or faculty 2,859 36.9 3,987 51.4 173 2.2 21 0.3 713 9.2 Learning disabled 2,730 35.3 3,866 49.9 190 2.5 17 0.2 939 12.1 Male 3,350 43.2 3,722 48.1 39 0.5 17 0.2 618 8.0 Non-native English speakers 2,664 34.4 3,976 51.4 331 4.3 39 0.5 726 9.4 Parents/guardians 2,824 36.5 3,867 50.0 91 1.2 11 0.1 942 12.2 People of color 2,905 37.5 3,986 51.4 176 2.3 40 0.5 649 8.4 Providing care for adults who are disabled and/or elderly 2,684 34.7 3,746 48.4 79 1.0 13 0.2 1,210 15.6 Physical disability 2,842 36.8 3,858 49.9 117 1.5 19 0.2 894 11.6 Socioeconomically disadvantaged 2,750 35.5 3,866 49.9 299 3.9 52 0.7 783 10.1 Socioeconomically advantaged 3,081 39.8 3,765 48.6 109 1.4 21 0.3 768 9.9 Transgender 2,588 33.5 3,677 47.6 302 3.9 50 0.6 1,106 14.3 Veterans/active military 3,131 40.6 3,553 46.1 69 0.9 18 0.2 944 12.2 Note: Table reports student responses only (n = 8,361). 132 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 The majority of all faculty and student respondents felt that the classroom/learning environment was welcoming for students based on all of the characteristics listed in Table 42. Subsequent analyses examining Student responses by selected demographics indicate that: • By gender identity, 73% of women students (n = 3,472), 73% of men students (n = 2,473), 54% (n = 7) of transgender students, and 61% (n = 38) of genderqueer students thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on gender identity. • By racial identity, 72% of Other People of Color (n = 2,951), 65% of Underrepresented Minority students (n = 932), 73% of Multi-Minority students (n = 103), and 82% of White students (n = 2,009) thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on race. • By sexual orientation, 71% of LGBQ students (n = 527) and 74% of heterosexual students (n = 5,031) thought the climate was welcoming for students based on sexual orientation. • By religious/spiritual affiliation, 72% of Christian students (n = 1,853), 63% of Muslim students (n = 89), 75% of Jewish students (n = 224), 69% of students with Other Religious/Spiritual Affiliations (n = 409), 70% of students with No Affiliation (n = 2,648), and 72% of students with Multiple Affiliations (n = 410) felt the classroom climate was welcoming based on religious/spiritual views. • By socioeconomic status, 63% of Low Income students (n = 2,408) and 75% of Not Low Income students (n = 3,061) felt the classroom climate was welcoming based on socioeconomic status. • By political affiliation, Seventy-one percent of Far Left/Liberal students (n = 2,575) and 61% of Conservative/Far Right students (n = 456) thought the classroom climate was welcoming based on political views. 133 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 42. Students’ and Faculty Perceptions of Welcoming Classroom/Learning Environment Based on Demographic Characteristics Group Strongly Agree n % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % Don’t Know n % Age 2,632 27.4 4,735 49.3 889 9.3 164 1.7 1,188 12.4 Ancestry 2,591 27.1 4,412 46.1 840 8.8 176 1.8 1,553 16.2 Country of origin 2,520 26.4 4,641 48.6 997 10.4 181 1.9 1,217 12.7 English language proficiency/ accent 2,037 21.2 4,632 48.3 1,600 16.7 296 3.1 1,021 10.7 Ethnicity 2,554 26.7 4,717 49.3 1,046 10.9 227 2.4 1,022 10.7 Gender identity 2,437 25.5 4,456 46.6 958 10.0 204 2.1 1,506 15.8 Gender expression 2,327 24.4 4,330 45.4 1,020 10.7 215 2.3 1,651 17.3 Immigrant/citizen status 2,349 24.6 4,305 45.1 1,090 11.4 256 2.7 1,555 16.3 International Status 2,489 26.1 4,470 46.8 990 10.4 220 2.3 1,376 14.4 Learning disability 2,122 22.3 4,052 42.5 1,090 11.4 220 2.3 2,050 21.5 Marital status 2,645 27.7 4,021 42.1 710 7.4 186 1.9 1,978 20.7 Medical conditions 2,281 24.0 4,018 42.3 831 8.8 170 1.8 2,188 23.1 Military/veteran status 2,702 28.3 3,614 37.8 536 5.6 116 1.2 2,581 27.0 Parental status (e.g., having children) 2,182 22.9 3,751 39.3 874 9.2 174 1.8 2,563 26.9 Participation in an campus club/organization 2,963 31.1 4,189 43.9 553 5.8 124 1.3 1,706 17.9 Psychological condition 1,933 20.3 3,748 39.4 1,008 10.6 187 2.0 2,643 27.8 Physical characteristics 2,240 23.5 4,330 45.5 973 10.2 226 2.4 1,750 18.4 Physical disability 2,181 22.9 4,184 43.9 979 10.3 178 1.9 2,001 21.0 Political views 2,024 21.2 4,314 45.3 1,339 14.1 320 3.4 1,530 16.1 Race 2,442 25.6 4,519 47.4 1,123 11.8 293 3.1 1,152 12.1 Religious/spiritual views 2,182 22.9 4,450 46.7 1,167 12.3 238 2.5 1,482 15.6 Sexual orientation 2,446 25.7 4,480 47.0 880 9.2 193 2.0 1,532 16.1 Socioeconomic status 2,195 23.1 4,328 45.5 1,245 13.1 357 3.8 1,392 14.6 Note: Table includes faculty and student respondents only (n = 9,741). 134 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 One of the survey items asked Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs the degree to which they agreed with a number of statements about their interactions with faculty, students, and staff at UCLA (Table 43). Seventy-six percent of Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 6,621) felt valued by faculty in the classroom, and 74% (n = 6,391) felt valued by other students in the classroom. Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs thought that UCLA faculty (72%, n = 6,269), staff (72%, n = 6,244), and administrators (61%, n = 5,246) were genuinely concerned with their welfare. Thirty-eight percent (n = 3,315) felt faculty pre-judged their abilities based on their perception of students’ identities/backgrounds. Seventy-four percent of Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 6,446) had faculty they perceived as role models, and 54% (n = 4,700) had staff they perceived as role models. Eighty-two percent (n = 7,113) had academic opportunities for success that were similar to those of their classmates. 135 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 43. Student, Trainee, and Post-Doc Respondents’ Perceptions of Campus Climate Strongly Agree n % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % Don’t Know n % I feel valued by faculty in the classroom/learning environment 1,767 20.3 4,854 55.8 1,317 15.1 272 3.1 491 5.6 I feel valued by other students in the classroom 1,580 18.2 4,811 55.4 1,454 16.8 223 2.6 612 7.1 I think UCLA faculty are genuinely concerned with my welfare 1,686 19.4 4,583 52.7 1,491 17.2 357 4.1 572 6.6 I think UCLA staff are genuinely concerned with my welfare 1,619 18.6 4,625 53.2 1,428 16.4 326 3.8 689 7.9 I think administrators are genuinely concerned about my welfare. 1,326 15.3 3,920 45.4 1,829 21.2 616 7.1 950 11.0 I think faculty pre-judge my abilities based on perceived identity/background 858 9.9 2,457 28.5 3,125 36.2 1,040 12.0 1,156 13.4 I believe the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics 1,966 22.6 4,663 53.6 1,232 14.2 330 3.8 503 5.8 I have faculty who I perceive as role models 2,343 26.9 4,103 47.2 1,357 15.6 205 2.4 691 7.9 I have staff who I perceive as role models 1,396 16.1 3,304 38.1 2,228 25.7 317 3.7 1,425 16.4 I have administrators who I perceive as role models 1,014 11.7 2,539 29.4 2,656 30.7 600 6.9 1,833 21.2 I don’t see enough faculty/staff with whom I identify 1,150 13.3 2,997 34.7 2,983 34.5 645 7.5 868 10.0 I have opportunities for academic success that are similar to those of my classmates 2,117 24.4 4,996 57.7 848 9.8 232 2.7 468 5.4 Note: Table reports student, trainee, and post-doc responses only (n = 8,768). 136 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Forty-eight percent of Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 4,417) don’t see enough faculty/staff with whom they identified. Seventy seven percent of transgender respondents (n = 10), 63% percent of Genderqueer Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 40) and 52% of LGBQ Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 399) did not see enough faculty and staff with whom they identified (Figure 53). Agree* Disagree** 77 63 48 44 52 48 42 41 47 43 33 23 Men Women Transgender Genderqueer LGBQ Heterosexual * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 49. Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs Who Do Not See Enough Faculty and Staff with Whom They Identified by Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation (%) 137 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Fifty-three percent of Multi-Minority Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 78), 56% of Underrepresented Minority Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 824), 52% of Other People of Color Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 2,229) did not see enough faculty and staff with whom they identified (Figure 54). Agree* 54 56 53 52 47 37 White 38 36 Underrepresented Minority Other People of Color 41 Multi-Minority 45 Far Left/Liberal Disagree** 49 42 Conservative/Far Right * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 54. Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs Who Do Not See Enough Faculty and Staff with Whom They Identified by Race and Political Views (%) 138 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Fifty-four percent of Muslim Students, Trainees and Post-Docs (n = 82), 50% of Christian Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 1,344), and 53% of Other Affiliation Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs (n = 336) did not see enough faculty and staff with whom they identified (Figure 45) (Figure 55). Agree* Disagree** 54 50 53 53 46 40 Christian 36 Muslim 37 Jewish 44 48 44 36 Other No Affiliation Multiple Affiliations * Agree and strongly agree collapsed into one category. ** Disagree and strongly disagree collapsed into one category. Figure 55. Students, Trainees, and Post-Docs Who Do Not See Enough Faculty and Staff with Whom They Identified by Religious/Spiritual Affiliation (%) 139 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Students Who Have Seriously Considered Leaving UCLA Twenty-eight percent of all respondents (n = 3,664) had seriously considered leaving UCLA in the past year. With regard to student respondents, 17% of Undergraduate Students (n = 887) and 18% of Graduate/Professional Students (n = 523) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. Subsequent analyses of selected demographics for Undergraduate Students indicate that: • By gender identity, 18% of women (n = 578), 18% of men (n = 589), 33% of transgender Undergraduate Students (n = 9), and 29% of genderqueer Undergraduate Students (n = 10) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By racial identity, 15% of White Undergraduate Students (n = 193), 16% of Other People of Color Undergraduate Students (n = 455), 19% of Underrepresented Minority Undergraduate Students (n = 197), and 27% of Multi-Minority Undergraduate Students (n = 27) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By sexual orientation, 20% of LGBQ Undergraduate Students (n = 91) and 16% of heterosexual Undergraduate Students (n = 689) had seriously considered leaving UCLA • By generational status, 18% of First-Generation Undergraduate Students (n = 295) and 16% of Undergraduate Students who were not considered first-generation (n = 589) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By citizenship status, 16% of U.S. Citizens (n = 782), 17% of Non-U.S. Citizens (n =85), and 15% of Undocumented Residents (n = 23) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By socioeconomic status, 19% of Low Income Undergraduate Students (n = 380) and 15% of Not Low Income Undergraduate Students (n = 478) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By disability status, 14% of Undergraduate Students without disabilities (n = 547) and 27% of Undergraduate Students with disabilities (n = 247) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. 140 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Subsequent analyses of selected demographics for Graduate/Professional Students indicate that: • By gender identity, 20% of women (n = 318), 14% of men (n = 193), and 43% of genderqueer Graduate/Professional Students (n = 12) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By racial identity, 18% of White Graduate/Professional Students (n = 219), 14% of Other People of Color Graduate/Professional Students (n = 176), 23% of Underrepresented Minority Graduate/Professional Students (n = 103), and 15% of Multi-Minority Graduate/Professional Students (n = 6) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By sexual orientation, 25% of LGBQ Graduate/Professional Students (n = 75) and 17% of heterosexual Graduate/Professional Students (n = 411) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By generational status, 20% of First-Generation Graduate/Professional Students (n = 121) and 17% of Graduate/Professional Students who were not considered firstgeneration (n = 399) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By citizenship status, 19% of U.S. Citizens (n = 470), 10% of Non-U.S. Citizens (n = 50), and no Undocumented Residents had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By socioeconomic status, 21% of Low Income Graduate/Professional Students (n = 381) and 12% of Not Low Income Graduate/Professional Students (n = 127) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. • By disability status, 15% of Graduate/Professional Students without disabilities (n =327) and 29% of Graduate/Professional Students with disabilities (n = 150) had seriously considered leaving UCLA. Students were invited to elaborate on why they seriously considered leaving UCLA. Some students seriously considered leaving for personal or financial reasons. Others were homesick or too far from home. Some individuals felt that UCLA was too big, and found that “enrollment is such a nightmare.” Several students were unsure of their degree choices and career aspirations or wanted to pursue a major not available at UCLA. Some Graduate/Professional Students found it “incredibly difficult to live on a graduate salary.” Students also lamented about “Excessive stress 141 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 over academics and social interactions,” difficulty forming new friendships and finding their niches on campus. Some students felt the classes were too demanding, while others searched for more academic rigor. Some students did not want to live in a city. Summary By and large, students’ responses to a variety of items indicated that they held their academic and intellectual experiences and their interactions with faculty and other students at UCLA in a very positive light. The large majority of students felt the classroom climate was welcoming for all groups of students, and most students felt valued by faculty and other students in the classroom. Students thought that UCLA faculty and staff were genuinely concerned with their welfare. Seventeen percent students of all students seriously considered leaving UCLA, while 92% of all students intended to graduate from UCLA. 142 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Institutional Actions The survey asked Faculty, Staff, Post-Docs, and Trainees to indicate how they thought the initiatives listed in Table 44 would affect the climate at UCLA. Respondents were asked to decide whether certain institutional actions positively or negatively affected the climate, or did not affect the climate. Readers will note that substantial proportions of respondents chose the “Don’t Know” response for the items in this survey question. Less than half of all Faculty, Staff, Post-Docs, and Trainees thought providing flexibility for promotion for faculty (36%, n = 2,634) and providing recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum (40%, n = 2,913) positively affects the campus climate (Table 44). Sixty-one percent (n = 4,443) thought providing access to counseling to those who experienced harassment positively affected the climate at UCLA. Some also thought that diversity training for staff (57%, n = 4,156), faculty (48%, n = 3,478), and students (47%, n = 3,394) positively affected the climate. A number of respondents felt mentorship for new faculty (49%, n = 3,561) and staff (57%, n = 4,149) positively influenced the climate. Forty-six percent (n = 3,274) of respondents felt diversity and equity training to search and tenure committees positively affected the climate. Fifty-one percent (n = 3,640) thought providing back-up family care would positively affect the campus climate at UCLA, and 47% (n = 3,329) thought providing lactation accommodations on campus would positively influence UCLA. Seventy percent of respondents (n = 4,979) thought providing career development opportunities for staff would positively influence the climate. More than 500 respondents provided additional commentary regarding institutional actions at UCLA. Several respondents were unsure whether any of the initiatives were available at UCLA; some indicated the survey was “getting too long, at this point.” A number of people felt, “There needs to be a greater effort to educate staff on diversity and social justice issues.” Others, however, believed “When the emphasis moves towards promoting diversity at the expense of quality, then we begin to create another set of issues.” Some individuals believed, “Wellmeaning policies can have an unintended negative effect on campus climate as ever-increasing 143 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 administrative burden on faculty impacts the time they can spend with students, mentoring, etc.” and that faculty were already burdened with too many trainings. Additionally, respondents were concerned about the initiatives’ impact on the institutional budget, citing “Funding is scarce and putting it into diversity-related training will take it from other more critical areas.” Table 44. Faculty/Staff /Post-Docs/Trainee Perceptions of How Initiatives Would Affect the Climate at UCLA Area Not Currently Available at UCLA n % Positively Influence the Climate n % No Influence on Campus Climate n % Negatively Influence Campus Climate n % Providing flexibility for promotion for faculty 196 2.7 2,634 36.0 317 4.3 176 2.4 Providing flexibility for computing the probationary period for tenure (e.g., family leave) 116 1.6 2,777 38.2 388 5.3 124 1.7 Providing recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum 210 2.9 2,913 40.2 489 6.8 193 2.7 Providing diversity training for staff 300 4.1 4,156 57.2 739 10.2 153 2.1 Providing diversity training for faculty 225 3.1 3,478 47.9 625 8.6 135 1.9 Providing diversity training for students 204 2.8 3,394 47.0 509 7.0 105 1.5 Providing access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment 174 2.4 4,443 61.3 306 4.2 74 1.0 Providing mentorship for new faculty 205 2.8 3,561 49.3 255 3.5 69 1.0 Providing mentorship for new staff 492 6.8 4,149 57.4 403 5.6 100 1.4 Providing a clear and fair process to resolve conflicts 311 4.3 4,501 62.6 325 4.5 159 2.2 Increasing funding to support efforts to change UCLA climate 346 4.8 3,132 43.5 648 9.0 173 2.4 Including diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty 257 3.6 2,931 40.8 738 10.3 508 7.1 144 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 44 (con.) Area Not Currently Available at UCLA n % Positively Influence the Climate n % No Influence on Campus Climate n % Negatively Influence Campus Climate n % Providing diversity and equity training to search and tenure committees 170 2.4 3,274 45.8 578 8.1 215 3.0 Increasing the diversity of the faculty 157 2.2 3,873 54.0 578 8.1 153 2.1 Increasing the diversity of the staff 143 2.0 4,141 57.5 778 10.8 155 2.2 Increasing the diversity of the administration 181 2.5 4,078 56.8 673 9.4 161 2.2 Increasing the diversity of the student body 146 2.0 3,855 54.0 640 9.0 157 2.2 Providing back-up family care 374 5.2 3,640 50.7 411 5.7 91 1.3 Providing lactation accommodations 311 4.4 3,329 46.7 457 6.4 74 1.0 Providing career development opportunities for staff 273 3.8 4,979 69.6 310 4.3 102 1.4 Note: Table reports faculty, staff, post-docs, and trainees responses only (n = 7,881). See Appendix B for “Don’t Know” responses. More than half of all Students and Trainees felt the courses offered at UCLA included sufficient materials, perspectives, and/or experiences of people based on all of the characteristics listed in Table 45. 145 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 45. Students’/Trainees’ Perception that Courses Offered at UCLA Included Sufficient Materials, Perspectives, and/or Experiences of People Based on Certain Characteristics Disagree n % Strongly Disagree n % Don’t Know n % Characteristics Strongly agree n % Age 1,555 20.3 3,525 46.0 810 10.6 160 2.1 1,612 21.0 Ancestry 1,533 20.1 3,489 45.7 805 10.5 154 2.0 1,657 21.7 Country of origin 1,559 20.4 3,583 47.0 849 11.1 162 2.1 1,471 19.3 Educational level 1,620 21.3 3,733 49.0 793 10.4 149 2.0 1,322 17.4 English language proficiency/ accent 1,449 19.1 3,549 46.7 1,000 13.1 198 2.6 1,409 18.5 Ethnicity 1,615 21.2 3,717 48.9 752 9.9 186 2.4 1,334 17.5 Gender identity 1,532 20.1 3,274 43.1 899 11.8 240 3.2 1,660 21.8 Gender expression 1,507 19.8 3,201 42.1 927 12.2 253 3.3 1,713 22.5 Immigrant/citizen status 1,465 19.3 3,395 44.7 887 11.7 210 2.8 1,637 21.6 International Status 1,490 19.6 3,438 45.3 836 11.0 181 2.4 1,643 21.7 Learning disability 1,287 17.0 2,977 39.3 991 13.1 215 2.8 2,101 27.8 Level of education 1,527 20.2 3,588 47.3 772 10.2 168 2.2 1,523 20.1 Marital status 1,371 18.2 3,082 41.0 744 9.9 160 2.1 2,164 28.8 Medical conditions 1,393 18.5 3,052 40.5 771 10.2 134 1.8 2,193 29.1 Military/veteran status 1,403 18.6 2,901 38.5 796 10.6 137 1.8 2,304 30.6 Parental status 1,315 17.5 2,958 39.3 782 10.4 150 2.0 2,330 30.9 Philosophical Views 1,563 20.7 3,518 46.6 647 8.6 148 2.0 1,668 22.1 Psychological condition 1,375 18.2 3,146 41.7 755 10.0 149 2.0 2,116 28.1 Physical characteristics 1,434 19.0 3,287 43.6 705 9.4 144 1.9 1,970 26.1 Physical disability 1,382 18.4 3,120 41.5 818 10.9 142 1.9 2,057 27.4 Political views 1,487 19.7 3,474 46.0 746 9.9 201 2.7 1,641 21.7 Position (faculty, staff) 1,535 20.4 3,433 45.7 586 7.8 113 1.5 1,851 24.6 Race 1,652 21.9 3,536 46.9 663 8.8 204 2.7 1,489 19.7 Religious/spiritual views 1,453 19.3 3,462 45.9 771 10.2 192 2.5 1,665 22.1 Sexual orientation 1,512 20.1 3,273 43.4 807 10.7 200 2.7 1,749 23.2 Socioeconomic status 1,452 19.3 3,365 44.8 794 10.6 227 3.0 1,670 22.2 Agree n % Note: Table includes only student and trainee responses (n = 8,458). 146 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Additionally, more than half of all students believed that all but three of the initiatives listed in Table 46 would positively influence the climate. Less than half of the student respondents felt providing diversity training for students, faculty, and staff would positively influence the climate. Many students (n = 455) elaborated on institutional actions regarding diversity and inclusion at UCLA. Many agreed that they were unaware of any institutional actions that might already be in place at UCLA. One respondent offered, “The above question was difficult to answer because I have not personally experienced any of the above. I can't address its impact if I have not been a beneficiary of it. I also don't even know if some of these things are available at UCLA.” Some respondents felt that “UCLA is a very diverse school, but there is still a lot of racism and biases that occur.” A number of respondents suggested that diversity cannot just be focused on race. For example, “If we keep acknowledging the differences between students solely based on race, it does nothing to unite the campus.” While many student respondents spoke about diversity in terms of race and ethnicity, some offered their thoughts regarding other issues on campus. For instance, one person commented, “This survey is largely missing the problems with the university, for example, that it is a hierarchical, winner take all system among graduate students.” Others offered that there was not a need for more training or requirements, but for informal ways in which to connect with various students, faculty, and staff. For example, on respondent said, “I honestly believe that interacting day to day with students, faculty, and staff of different backgrounds from me has helped create a better campus climate at UCLA. By whatever means this takes place, whether that be through strategic targeting of students and faculty, affirmative action programs, or otherwise, I believe this will be a step in the right direction.” Another respondent added, “The most important thing you can do to help the campus climate is to get involved and show you care. No amount of ‘training’ or forcing curricula changes can even come close to that. There is a big difference between lip-service and action.” 147 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table 46. Student Perceptions of How Initiatives Would Affect the Climate at UCLA Positively Influences Climate n % Area No Influence on Climate n % Negatively Influences Climate n % Don’t Know n % Providing diversity training for students 3,383 48.4 817 11.7 143 2.0 2,651 37.9 Providing diversity training for staff 3,408 46.3 596 8.1 93 1.3 3,268 44.4 Providing diversity training for faculty 3 403 46.6 588 8.0 98 1.3 3,221 44.1 Providing a person to address student complaints of classroom inequity 3,954 55.5 630 8.9 107 1.5 2,427 34.1 Increasing diversity of the faculty and staff 4,659 62.5 948 12.7 205 2.8 1,639 22.0 Increasing the diversity of the student body 4,882 65.4 923 12.4 287 3.8 1,378 18.4 Increasing opportunities for crosscultural dialogue among students 5,257 71.2 620 8.4 74 1.0 1,437 19.5 Increasing opportunities for crosscultural dialogue between faculty, staff and students 5,053 68.9 608 8.3 82 1.1 1,590 21.7 Incorporating issues of diversity and cross-cultural competence more effectively into the curriculum 4,763 64.8 740 10.1 208 2.8 1,635 22.3 Providing effective faculty mentorship of students 5,315 73.1 442 6.1 46 0.6 1,463 20.1 Note: Table reports student responses only (n = 8,361). Summary In addition to campus constituents’ personal experiences and perceptions of the campus climate, diversity-related actions taken by the institution, or not taken, as the case may be, may be perceived either as promoting a positive campus climate or impeding it. As the above data suggest, respondents hold divergent opinions about the degree to which UCLA does, and should, promote diversity to shape campus climate. 148 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Next Steps Embarking on this system-wide assessment is further evidence of University of California’s commitment to ensuring that all members of the community live in an environment that nurtures a culture of inclusiveness and respect in every campus and location in the system. The primary purpose of this report was to assess the climate within UCLA including how members of the community felt about issues related to inclusion and work-life issues. At a minimum the results add additional empirical data to the current knowledge base and provide more information on the experiences and perceptions for several sub-populations within the UCLA community. However, assessments and reports are not enough. A projected plan to develop strategic actions and subsequent implementation plan are critical. Failure to use the assessment data to build on the successes and address the challenges uncovered in the report will undermine the commitment offered to the UCLA members when the project was initiated. Therefore, each campus/location should develop strategies unique to the results of their respective assessments. Also, as recommended by previous reports (Parsky & Hume, 2007) and by this project’s initiators, the assessment process should be repeated regularly to respond to an ever-changing climate and to assess the influence of the actions initiated as a result of the current assessment. 149 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 References Aguirre, A., & Messineo, M. (1997). Racially motivated incidents in higher education: What do they say about the campus climate for minority students? Equity & Excellence in Education, 30(2), 26-30. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (1995). The drama of diversity and democracy. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Bartz, A. E. (1988). Basic statistical concepts. New York: Macmillan. Bauer, K. (1998). Campus climate: Understanding the critical components of today’s colleges and universities. New Directions for Institutional Research, No.98. San Diego: JosseyBass. Bensimon, E. (2005). Equality as a fact, equality as a result: A matter of institutional accountability. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen., S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods: Allyn and Bacon. Boyer, E. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brookfield, S. D. (2005). The Power of Critical Theory: Liberating Adult Learning and Teaching. San Diego, CA: Jossey-Bass. Flowers, L., & Pascarella, E. (1999). Cognitive effects of college racial composition on African American students after 3 years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 669-677. Guiffrida, D., Gouveia, A., Wall, A., & Seward, D. (2008). Development and validation of the Need for Relatedness at College Questionnaire (NRC-Q). Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 251-261. doi: 10.1037/a0014051 Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330-365. Handel, S., & Caloss, D. (1993). A Declaration of Community: Report of The University-wide Campus Community Task Force. Oakland, CA: University of California. Harper, S. & S. Hurtado. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, no.120, p7-24. 150 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 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. Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235-251. doi: 10.1177/1538192705276548 Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher educations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 26, no.8. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Ingle, G. (2005). Will your campus diversity initiative work. Academe, 91(5), 6-10. Johnson, A. (2005). Privilege, power, and difference (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Kuh, G., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 1. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Milem, J., Chang, M., & antonio, A. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A researchbased perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Diego: Jossey-Bass. Peterson, M., & Spencer, M. (1990). Understanding academic culture and climate. In W. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing academic climates and cultures. San Diego: Jossey-Bass. Rankin, S. (2006). Campus climate for sexual minority students: Challenges and best practices. In J. Jackson & M. Terrell (Eds.), Toward administrative reawakening: Creating and maintaining safe college campuses. Herndon, VA: Stylus. Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and white students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of Student College Development, 46(1), 43-61. Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people: A legal perspective. Focus on Law Studies, 19(1), 10-17. Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for LGBT people: A national perspective. New York: NGLTF Policy Institute. Rankin, S. (2012). Climate reports. Retrieved 10-28-12, www.rankin-consulting.com 151 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Sears, J. T. (2002). The Institutional Climate for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Education Faculty. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 11-37. doi: 10.1300/J082v43n01_02 Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 47-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L., Konik, J., & Magley, V. (2008). Slurs, snubs, and queer jokes: Incidence and impact of heterosexist harassment in academia. Sex Roles, 58(3-4), 179191. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9329-7 Smith, D. (2009). Diversity’s promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Smith, D. G., Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watkins, G. H., Levitan, T., Moore, L. C., Merchant, P. A., Beliak, H. D., & Figueroa, B. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1990). Assessing academic climates and cultures. San Diego: JosseyBass. Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog. Waldo, C. (1999). Out on campus: Sexual orientation and academic climate in a university context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 745-774. doi: 10.1023/A:1022110031745 Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 172-204. Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 659-690,781,785-786. 152 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Appendices Appendix A – Crosstabulations by Selected Demographics Appendix B – Data Tables Appendix C – Survey 153 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Appendix A UCLA - Crosstabs of Level 1 Demographic Categories by Primary Status Undergraduate Student* n % Unknown/Missing Gender Identity Racial Identity Sexual Identity Graduate Student n % Staff Faculty n % n % Postdoc/Trainee n % Total n % 10 0.19% 7 0.23% 58 0.95% 12 0.87% 2 0.49% 89 0.55% Man 2055 38.18% 1376 46.19% 2041 33.49% 800 57.97% 229 56.27% 6501 40.03% Woman 3253 60.44% 1554 52.17% 3936 64.59% 556 40.29% 172 42.26% 9471 58.31% Transgender 5 0.09% 5 0.17% 8 0.13% 1 0.07% 0 0.00% 19 0.12% Genderqueer 33 0.61% 25 0.84% 29 0.48% 6 0.43% 2 0.49% 95 0.58% Multiple or Other 26 0.48% 12 0.40% 22 0.36% 5 0.36% 2 0.49% 67 0.41% Unknown/ Missing/Other 61 1.13% 37 1.24% 155 2.54% 38 2.75% 7 1.72% 298 1.83% White 1263 23.47% 1235 41.46% 2306 37.84% 846 61.30% 145 35.63% 5795 35.68% Underrepresented Minority 1020 18.95% 441 14.80% 1866 30.62% 145 10.51% 35 8.60% 3507 21.59% Other Person of Color 2936 54.55% 1225 41.12% 1691 27.75% 341 24.71% 215 52.83% 6408 39.45% Multi-Minority 102 1.90% 41 1.38% 76 1.25% 10 0.72% 5 1.23% 234 1.44% Unknown/Missing 71 1.32% 30 1.01% 288 4.73% 33 2.39% 13 3.19% 435 2.68% LGBQ 453 8.42% 301 10.10% 485 7.96% 119 8.62% 20 4.91% 1378 8.48% Heterosexual 4394 81.64% 2487 83.48% 4907 80.52% 1182 85.65% 345 84.77% 13315 81.98% Other 464 8.62% 161 5.40% 414 6.79% 46 3.33% 29 7.13% 1114 6.86% Note: % is the percent of each column for that demographic category (e.g., percent of undergraduates that are men) 154 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Undergraduate Student N % Unknown/Missing Citizenship Status Disability Status Religious/ Spiritual Affiliation Graduate Student N % Staff Faculty N % N % Postdoc/Trainee N % Total N % 24 0.45% 10 0.34% 34 0.56% 8 0.58% 2 0.49% 78 0.48% US Citizen 4790 89.00% 2434 81.71% 5986 98.23% 1344 97.39% 253 62.16% 14807 91.16% Non-US Citizen 502 9.33% 527 17.69% 72 1.18% 28 2.03% 151 37.10% 1280 7.88% Undocumented 66 1.23% 8 0.27% 2 0.03% 0 0.00% 1 0.25% 77 0.47% Unknown/Missing 512 9.51% 199 6.68% 348 5.71% 85 6.16% 35 8.60% 1179 7.26% No Disability 3945 73.30% 2259 75.83% 5006 82.15% 1111 80.51% 328 80.59% 12649 77.88% Disability 925 17.19% 521 17.49% 740 12.14% 184 13.33% 44 10.81% 2414 14.86% Unknown/Missing 183 3.40% 91 3.05% 351 5.76% 71 5.14% 15 3.69% 711 4.38% Christian 1886 35.04% 748 25.11% 2746 45.06% 329 23.84% 99 24.32% 5808 35.76% Muslim 88 1.64% 56 1.88% 57 0.94% 14 1.01% 12 2.95% 227 1.40% Jewish 160 2.97% 142 4.77% 264 4.33% 141 10.22% 20 4.91% 727 4.48% Other 400 7.43% 207 6.95% 306 5.02% 71 5.14% 35 8.60% 1019 6.27% None 2318 43.07% 1501 50.39% 2040 33.48% 659 47.75% 205 50.37% 6723 41.39% Multiple 347 6.45% 234 7.85% 330 5.42% 95 6.88% 21 5.16% 1027 6.32% Note: % is the percent of each column for that demographic category (e.g., percent of undergraduates that are male) 155 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Appendix B PART I: Demographics The demographic information tables contain actual percentages except where noted. Table B1 What is your primary position at UCLA? (Question 1) Position n % 5382 33.1 Started at UCLA as first year student 3772 70.1 Transferred from a California community college 1117 20.8 Transferred from another institution 137 2.5 Missing 356 6.6 2979 18.3 11 0.4 Master’s degree student 1057 35.5 Doctoral degree student (Ph.D., Ed.D.) 1332 44.7 Professional degree student (e.g., MD, JD, MBA) 409 13.7 Missing 170 5.7 Postdoctoral scholar 310 1.9 Health Sciences Campus Trainees 97 0.6 3861 23.8 Senior Management Group 46 1.2 Management & Senior Professionals - Supervisor 676 17.5 Management & Senior Professionals – Non- Supervisor 253 6.6 Professional & Support Staff – Non-Union & Supervisor 804 20.8 Professional & Support Staff – Non-Union & NonSupervisor 1595 41.3 Missing 487 12.6 Staff- Union 1850 11.4 Professional & Support Staff – Union represented & Supervisor 292 15.8 Professional & Support Staff – Union Represented & Non-Supervisor 1250 67.6 Missing 308 16.6 Undergraduate Student Graduate/Professional Student Non-Degree Staff – non-Union 156 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 n % 1380 8.5 Faculty Administrator 97 7.0 General Campus Faculty 627 45.4 Table B1 (cont.) Faculty Professor Ladder Rank 269 187 Acting 2 Adjunct 5 In Residence 1 Emeritus 9 Recall 11 Associate Professor 109 Ladder and Equivalent Rank 91 Visiting 1 Adjunct 4 In Residence 3 Emeritus 1 Recall 1 Assistant Professor 96 Ladder Rank 73 Acting 3 Visiting 5 Adjunct 6 In Residence 1 Other Faculty appointment Health Sciences Campus Faculty Professor 153 402 29.1 151 Ladder Rank 54 In Residence 24 Clinical 16 Health Sciences Clinical 10 Emeritus 10 Recall 2 157 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B1 (cont.) Associate Professor n 69 Ladder and Equivalent Rank 10 In Residence 17 Clinical 8 Visiting 1 Adjunct 13 Health Sciences Clinical 17 Recall 1 Assistant Professor 125 Ladder and Equivalent Rank 18 In Residence 17 Clinical 10 Acting 1 Visiting 2 Adjunct 22 Health Sciences Clinical 49 Other Faculty appointment Missing Other Academic Series (e.g. Librarian, Continuing Educator, Reader, Research titles) % 56 254 18.4 383 2.4 Note: There are no missing data for the primary categories in this question; all respondents were required to select an answer. There are missing data for the sub-categories as indicated. Due to the large number of missing responses for the third and four-level categories, no percentages are provided. 158 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B2 Staff only: What is your primary employment status with UCLA? (Question 2) Status n % Career (including partial-year career) employee 5195 85.2 Contract employee 408 6.7 Limited appointment employee/term employment 152 2.5 Per Diem employee 60 1.0 Floater (temporary services) employee 17 0.3 Academic employee 191 3.1 Missing 71 1.2 Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were staff in Question 1 (n = 6094) 159 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B3 Staff only: What is your primary campus location with UCLA? (Question 3) Status n % Health Sciences/Medical Center 2209 36.2 General Campus 3741 61.4 Missing 144 2.4 Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were staff in Question 1 (n = 6094) Table B4 Are you full-time or part-time in that primary status? (Question 4) Status n % Full-time 15306 94.2 Part time 909 5.6 Missing 27 0.2 Table B5 What is your assigned birth sex? (Question 26) Gender n % Male 6584 40.5 Female 9558 58.8 Intersex 10 0.1 Missing 90 0.6 160 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B6 What is your gender/gender identity? (mark all that apply) (Question 27) Gender n % Man 6540 40.3 Woman 9519 58.6 Transgender 24 0.1 Genderqueer 101 0.6 Other 61 0.4 161 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B7 What is your race/ethnicity (If you are of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic identity, mark all that apply)? (Question 28) Position African American/ African/Black African American African Black Caribbean Other African/African American/Black American Indian/ Alaskan Native Tribal Affiliation/corporation Asian/Asian American Asian Indian Bangladeshi Cambodian Chinese/Chinese American (except Taiwanese) Filipino/Filipino American Hmong Indonesian Japanese/Japanese American Korean/Korean American Laotian Malaysian Pakistani Sri Lankan Taiwanese/ Taiwanese American Thai Vietnamese/Vietnamese American Other Asian Hispanic/Latino Cuban/Cuban American Latin American/Latino Mexican/Mexican American/Chicano n % 1019 723 73 75 6.3 4.5 0.4 0.5 134 0.8 Position Puerto Rican Other Hispanic, Latin American, or of Spanish origin Middle Easter/Southwest Asian/North African Afghan Arab/Arab American 245 126 1.5 0.8 5689 499 17 49 35.0 3.1 0.1 0.3 2254 698 13 64 515 645 19 22 51 20 13.9 4.3 567 75 3.5 0.5 514 91 3.2 0.6 2678 59 553 16.5 0.4 3.4 1707 10.5 Armenian Assyrian Azerbaijani Berber Circassian Chaldean Coptic 0.1 0.4 3.2 4.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 Druze Georgian Iranian Jewish Kurdish Maronite Turkish Other Middle Eastern/ Southwest Asian/North African Pacific Islander Fijian Guamanian/Chamorro Hawaiian Samoan Tongan Other Pacific Islander White European/European descent North African Other White/Caucasian Other n % 67 0.4 433 2.7 945 14 116 153 11 4 6 4 4 20 3 2 235 360 4 10 32 5.8 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 76 0.5 96 10 13 43 11 2 17 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 7241 6215 56 578 44.6 38.3 0.3 3.6 128 0.8 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses. Respondents had the option to choose any category, and were not required to select the primary category in order to select a sub-category. Any respondent that selected only a sub-category was automatically coded into the primary category. Because of this variation in response, percentages are not provided for the sub-categories. 162 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B8 Which term best describes your sexual orientation? (Question 29) Sexual Identity n % Asexual 742 4.7 Bisexual 416 2.6 Gay 605 3.7 13315 82.0 Lesbian 174 1.1 Queer 183 1.1 Questioning 152 0.9 Other 220 1.4 Missing 435 2.7 Heterosexual Table B9 What is your age? (Question 30) Age n % 18-20 3337 20.5 21-23 2236 13.8 24-29 2862 17.6 30-39 2929 18.0 40-49 2008 12.4 50-59 1803 11.1 60 and over 929 5.7 Missing 138 0.8 163 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B10 Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility for any of the following people? (mark all that apply) (Question 31) Group n % No one 11524 71.0 Children 18 years of age or under 2897 17.8 Children over 18 years of age, but still legally dependant (in college, disabled, etc.) 794 4.9 Independent adult children over 18 years of age 282 1.7 Sick or disabled partner 166 1.0 Senior or other family member 1322 8.1 Other 117 0.7 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses Table B11 Are/were you a member of the U.S. armed forces? (Question 32) Member Status n % 15679 96.5 Active military 31 0.2 Reservist 55 0.3 ROTC 47 0.3 Veteran 210 1.3 Missing 220 1.4 I have not been in the military 164 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B12 Students Only: What is the highest level of education achieved by your primary parent(s)/guardian(s)? (Question 33) Parent /Legal Guardian 1 Level of Education Parent/Legal Guardian 2 n % n % No high school 526 6.3 549 6.6 Some high school 456 5.5 452 5.4 Completed high school/GED 942 11.3 981 11.7 Some college 931 11.1 931 11.1 Business/Technical certificate/degree 200 2.4 222 2.7 Associate’s degree 337 4.0 426 5.1 Bachelor’s degree 1965 23.5 2130 25.5 Some graduate work 202 2.4 278 3.3 Master’s degree 1329 15.9 1224 14.6 Doctoral degree 628 7.5 326 3.9 Professional degree (MD, MFA, JD) 735 8.8 551 6.6 Unknown 46 0.6 99 1.2 Not applicable 41 0.5 104 1.2 Missing 23 0.3 88 1.1 Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were students in Question 1 (n = 8361). 165 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B13 Staff Only: What is your highest completed level of education? (Question 34) Level of Education n % No high school 24 0.4 Some high school 47 0.8 Completed high school/GED 197 3.2 Some college 734 12.0 Business/Technical certificate/degree 226 3.7 Associate’s degree 331 5.4 Bachelor’s degree 2102 34.5 Some graduate work 366 6.0 Master’s degree 1281 21.0 Doctoral degree 435 7.1 Professional degree (e.g. MD, JD, DVM) 307 5.0 Missing 44 0.7 Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were staff in Question 1 (n = 6094) 166 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B14 Undergraduate Students Only: Where are you in your college career? (Question 35) College Status n % Non-degree student 15 0.3 First year 1500 27.9 Second year 1051 19.5 Third year 1453 27.0 Fourth year 1136 21.1 Fifth year or more 222 4.1 5 0.1 Missing Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were undergraduate students in Question 1 (n = 5382). Table B15 Graduate/Professional Students Only: Where are you in your college career? (Question 36) College Status n % 1141 38.3 First year 586 51.4 Second year 413 36.2 Third (or more) year 77 6.7 1835 61.6 First year 391 21.3 Second year 376 20.5 Third (or more) year 484 26.4 Advanced to Candidacy 242 13.2 ABD (all but dissertation) 271 14.8 3 0.1 Master’s student Doctoral Student Missing Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were graduate/professional students in Question 1 (n = 2979). 167 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B16 Post-docs/Trainees Only: Where are you in your career at UCLA? (Question 37) College Status n % First year 98 31.6 Second year 64 20.6 Third year 44 14.2 Fourth year 25 8.1 Fifth year or more 71 22.9 Missing 8 2.6 Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were undergraduate students in Question 1 (n = 310). 168 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B17 Post-docs/Faculty Only: With which academic or administrative work unit are you primarily affiliated at this time? (Question 38) Academic division n % 190 2 13 19 7 3 42 5 4 3 11 6 9 7 3 5 5 111 16 18 11.6 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.4 0.2 2.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 6.8 1.0 1.1 21 36 161 16 24 23 36 36 4 153 11 3 7 4 16 11 1.3 2.2 9.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 2.2 2.2 0.2 9.4 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.7 College of Letters and Sciences Humanities Division Applied Linguistics and TESL Art History Asian Languages and Cultures Classics Comparative Literature English French and Francophone Studies Germanic Languages Italian Linguistics Musicology Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Philosophy The Scandinavian Section Slavic Languages and Literatures Spanish and Portuguese Life Sciences Division Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Integrative Biology and Physiology Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology Psychology Physical Sciences Division Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Chemistry and Biochemistry Earth and Space Sciences Mathematics Physics and Astronomy Statistics Social Sciences Division Anthropology Asian-American Studies Chicana/o Studies Communication Studies Economics Geography 169 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B17 (cont.) n % History Political Science Sociology Women’s Studies Professional Schools School of Arts and Architecture Architecture and Urban Design Art Design Media Arts Ethnomusicology Music World Arts and Cultures Graduate School of Ed and Information Studies Education Information Studies Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science Bioengineering Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering Civil and Environmental Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Materials Science and Engineering Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering School of Law Anderson School of Management Luskin School of Public Affairs Public Policy Social Welfare Urban Planning School of Theater, Film and Television Film, Television and Digital Media Theater School of Nursing School of Dentistry Fielding School of Public Health Biostatistics Community Health Sciences Environmental Health Sciences Epidemiology Health Services 15 20 15 2 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.1 49 7 7 4 7 9 10 60 46 5 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 3.7 2.7 0.3 101 9 4 16 11 25 3 19 34 33 26 3 6 14 25 14 8 26 62 56 7 14 8 9 12 6.2 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.2 1.1 2.1 2.0 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 0.8 0.5 1.6 3.8 3.4 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 170 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B17 (cont.) David Geffen School of Medicine Neurobiology Human genetics Biological chemistry Biomathematics Molecular & medical pharmacology Physiology Anesthesiology Family medicine Medicine-cardiology Medicine-dermatology Medicine-endocrinology Medicine-gastroenterology Medicine-hematology-oncology Medicine-infectious disease Medicine-nephrology Medicine-pulmonary disease Medicine-rheumatology Medicine-va wadsworth med ctr Medicine-cia Medicine-san fernando valley prog Medicine-center for human nutrition Medicine-nano medicine Neurology Neurology-loni Obstetrics & gynecology Pathology department administration Pathology laboratory medicine Pathology outreach Pediatrics-child health policy Pediatrics-pain program Pediatrics-allergy/immunology Pediatrics-endocrinology Pediatrics-gastroenterology Pediatrics-hematology/oncology Pediatrics-infectious diseases Pediatrics-neonatology Pediatrics-neurology Psychiatry/biobehavioral sci Radiation oncology Radiological sciences n % 549 13 6 18 1 21 3 14 13 12 3 5 15 7 9 1 7 4 6 2 4 1 1 25 2 7 1 22 0 3 0 2 0 1 2 2 5 4 54 6 24 33.6 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 3.5 0.4 1.6 171 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B17 (cont.) n % Surgery - orthopedic surgery Surgery-general Surgery-head & neck Surgery-neuro Surgery-oncology Surgery-cardiothoracic Urology Surgery-liver and panc. Transplant Brain research institute Jules stein eye institute Neuropsychiatric institute Crump institute for molecular imaging Institute for genomics and proteomics Institute for molecular medicine 14 12 7 7 2 1 5 2 1 15 10 2 1 0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were faculty or post-docs (n= 1690) in Question 1. Note: Due to the small numbers involved and the large number of respondents that did not answer the question, percentages are not provided for the affiliation sub-categories. 172 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B18 Staff Only: With which work unit are you primarily affiliated at this time? (Question 39) Academic Unit UCLA Campus Academic Personnel Office Academic Planning and Budget Academic Senate Office Administration Service Centers – North and South Administrative Policies and Compliance Anderson School of Management Audit & Advisory Services Campus Human Resources Campus Service Enterprises Capital Programs Central Ticket Office Chancellor’s Office College -- Division of Humanities College -- Division of Life Sciences College -- Division of Physical Sciences College -- Division of Social Sciences College -- Division of Undergraduate Education Corporate Financial Services Environmental Health and Safety Events & Transportation External Affairs—Advancement Services External Affairs—Alumni Relations External Affairs—Communications and Public Outreach External Affairs—Development External Affairs—Government & Community Relations Facilities Management Fielding School of Public Health Financial & Administrative Services Graduate Division Graduate School of Education and Information Studies Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science Housing and Hospitality Services n % 10 11 5 0.2 0.2 0.1 25 7 107 11 54 36 33 9 35 62 111 165 75 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.8 2.7 1.2 76 48 25 82 23 1.2 0.8 0.4 1.3 0.4 24 0.4 34 104 0.6 1.7 8 109 97 59 36 0.1 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.6 132 2.2 90 219 1.5 3.6 173 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B18 (cont.) Information Technology Services Institute of American Cultures Intellectual Property & Industry-Sponsored Research Intercollegiate Athletics International Institute and Studies Legal Affairs Luskin School of Public Affairs Office of Information Technology Research Administration School of Arts & Architecture School of Dentistry School of Law School of Nursing School of Theater, Film and Television Student Affairs Administration Student Affairs—Cultural & Recreational Affairs Student Affairs—Dean of Students/Campus Life Student Affairs—Enrollment Management Student Affairs—Residential & Student Life Student Health Services UC Police Department – Los Angeles UCLA Extension & Continuing Education University Library Other UCLA Health Sciences Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopedic Hospital Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital Mattel Children’s Hospital UCLA Faculty Practice Group David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Veterans Administration Olive View – UCLA Medical Center Harbor – UCLA Medical Center Cedars-Sinai Missing n % 130 23 2.1 0.4 12 57 37 5 27 20 85 77 46 82 36 56 97 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.4 1.3 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.9 1.6 39 0.6 36 47 0.6 0.8 50 37 31 160 182 487 0.8 0.6 0.5 2.6 3.0 8.0 808 13.3 242 96 29 140 4.0 1.6 0.5 2.3 791 5 9 2 0 191 13.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.1 Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were staff in Question 1 (n = 6094). 174 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B19 Undergraduate Students Only: What is your academic major? (Question 40) Academic Unit School of Arts and Architecture Architectural Studies Art Design Media Arts Ethnomusicology Music World Arts and Culture Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science (EN) Aerospace Engineering Bioengineering Chemical Engineering Civil Engineering Computer Science and Engineering Electrical Engineering Materials Engineering Mechanical Engineering Undeclared – Engineering and Applied Sciences College of Letters and Sciences (LS) African Languages Afro-American Studies American Indian Studies American Literature and Culture Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations Anthropology Applied Linguistics Applied Mathematics Arabic Art History Asian American Studies Asian Humanities Asian Religions Astrophysics Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Environmental Science Biochemistry Biology Biophysics n % 6 37 28 13 16 30 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.6 26 51 76 74 136 112 17 71 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.4 2.5 2.1 0.3 1.3 18 0.3 2 12 2 14 2 192 10 64 1 38 21 5 0 28 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.6 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 12 193 277 8 0.2 3.6 5.1 0.1 175 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B19 (cont.) Business Economics Central and East European Languages and Cultures Chemistry Chemistry, General Chemistry/Materials Science Chicana and Chicano Studies Chinese Classic Civilization Cognitive Science Communication Studies Comparative Literature Computational and Systems Biology Cybernetics Earth and Environmental Science Earth Sciences East Asian Studies Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution Economics Economics/International Area Studies English English/Greek English/Latin Environmental Science European Studies French French and Linguistics Gender Studies Geography Geography/Environmental Studies Geology Geology (Engineering Geology) Geology (Paleobiology) Geophysics (Applied Geophysics) Geophysics (Geophysics & Space Physics German Global Studies Greek Greek and Latin Hebrew History n % 215 4.0 2 65 5 8 25 5 7 30 88 11 10 2 10 1 9 12 141 1 202 0 0 75 1 6 2 32 29 41 8 4 3 3 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.6 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 2 35 0 0 1 161 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 176 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B19 (cont.) History/Art History Human Biology and Society Individual Field of Concentration International Development Studies Iranian Studies Italian Italian and Special Fields Japanese Jewish Studies Korean Latin Latin American Studies Linguistics Linguistics and Anthropology Linguistics and Asian Languages and Cultures Linguistics and Computer Science Linguistics and East Asian Languages and Cultures Linguistics and English Linguistics and French Linguistics and Italian Linguistics and Philosophy Linguistics and Psychology Linguistics and Scandinavian Languages Linguistics and Spanish Marine Biology Mathematics Mathematics/Applied Science Mathematics/Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Mathematics/Economics Mathematics for Teaching Mathematics of Computation Mathematics, General Microbiology and Molecular Genetics Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics Middle Eastern and North African Studies Middle Eastern Studies n % 0 48 0 71 1 1 2 17 3 0 0 4 24 3 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 1 11 0.0 0.2 0 1 1 3 2 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0 2 14 54 50 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.9 0 80 6 12 4 1 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 121 2.2 3 3 0.1 0.1 177 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B19 (cont.) Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology Music History Near Eastern Studies Neuroscience Philosophy Physics Physics, General Physiological Science Plant Biology Plant Biotechnology Political Science Portuguese Pre-applied Mathematics Pre-business Economics Pre-cognitive Science Pre-computational and Systems Biology Pre-cybernetics Pre-economics Pre-economics/International Area Studies Pre-global Studies Pre-history Pre-human Biology and Society Pre-international Development Studies Pre-linguistics/Computer Science Pre-mathematics Pre-mathematics/Applied Science Pre-mathematics/Economics Pre-mathematics for Teaching Pre--mathematics of Computation Pre-microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics Pre-political Science Pre-psychobiology Pre-psychology Pre-sociology Pre-statistics Psychobiology Psychology Russian Language and Literature Russian Studies n % 93 6 1 149 66 58 4 182 0 0 213 0 1 45 2 1.7 0.1 0.0 2.8 1.2 1.1 0.1 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 3 1 4 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 51 90 115 12 1 93 213 1 0 0.1 0.9 1.7 2.1 0.2 0.0 1.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 178 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B19 (cont.) Scandinavian Languages Scandinavian Languages and Cultures Slavic Languages and Literatures Sociology Southeast Asian Studies Spanish Spanish and Community and Culture Spanish and Linguistics Spanish and Portuguese Statistics Study of Religion Undeclared Undeclared-Humanities Undeclared-Life Sciences Undeclared-Physical Sciences Women's Studies School of Theater, Film and Television (TF) Film and Television Individual Field Theater School of Nursing (NS) Nursing – Generic/Pre-license Nursing-R.N. to B.S./Post-licensure Other Missing n % 0 0 0 144 1 22 6 6 3 22 6 79 73 80 20 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.5 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.0 16 0 24 0.3 0.0 0.4 37 1 0 13 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were students in Question 1 (n = 5382). 179 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B20 Graduate/Professional Students Only: What is your academic program? (Question 41) Academic Unit n % Graduate Division (GD) ACCESS Program Aerospace Engineering African Studies Afro-American Studies 13 10 3 0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 American Indian Studies Anatomy and Cell Biology 3 0 0.1 0.0 Anthropology Applied Linguistics Applied Linguistics and Teaching English as a Second Language Archaeology Architecture Art Art History Asian American Studies Asian Languages and Cultures Astronomy Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Atmospheric Sciences Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Bioinformatics Biological Chemistry Biology Biomathematics Biomedical Engineering Biomedical Physics Biostatistics Cellular and Molecular Pathology Chemical Engineering Chemistry Chicana and Chicano Studies Civil Engineering Classics Clinical Research Comparative Literature Computer Science Conservation of Archeological and Ethnographic Materials 32 10 1.1 0.3 0 27 14 8 7 10 18 4 22 4 7 35 3 58 7 18 3 18 48 0 38 9 0 7 85 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.1 1.9 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.6 1.6 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.9 7 0.2 180 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B20 (cont.) Culture and Performance Dance Design Media Arts East Asian Languages and Cultures East Asian Studies Economics Education Electrical Engineering Engineering English Environmental Health Sciences Environmental Science and Engineering Epidemiology Ethnomusicology Experimental Pathology Film and Television Financial Engineering (M.F.E.) French and Francophone Studies Gender Studies Geochemistry Geography Geology Geophysics and Space Physics Germanic Languages Greek Health Economics Health Services Hispanic Languages and Literatures History Human Genetics Indo-European Studies Information Studies (Ph.D.) Islamic Studies Italian Latin Latin American Studies Library and Information Science (M.L.I.S.) Linguistics Management Manufacturing Engineering n % 11 1 6 0 1 35 199 110 12 31 11 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 6.7 3.7 0.4 1.0 0.4 8 38 13 0 74 7 6 2 8 24 12 21 7 0 1 22 7 43 2 0 15 1 6 0 3 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 24 10 328 0 0.8 0.3 11.0 0.0 181 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B20 (cont.) Materials Science and Engineering Mathematics Mechanical Engineering Microbiology and Immunology Molecular and Medical Pharmacology Molecular Biology Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology Molecular, Cellular, and Integrative Physiology Molecular Toxicology Moving Image Archive Studies Music Musicology Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Neurobiology Neuroscience Nursing Oral Biology Philosophy Physics Physiological Science Political Science Portuguese Preventive Medicine and Public Health Psychology Public Administration Public Health Public Policy Romance Linguistics and Literature Scandinavian Slavic Languages and Literatures Social Welfare Sociology Spanish Special Education, CSULA-UCLA Statistics Teaching English as a Second Language Theater Theater and Performance Studies (Ph.D.) n % 22 43 29 9 9 16 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 10 0.3 15 4 6 10 10 12 2 23 83 4 7 42 5 37 1 1 69 0 102 46 0 1 5 59 32 9 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.8 2.8 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 3.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 1.1 0.3 5 0.2 0 2 0.0 0.1 4 0.1 182 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B20 (cont.) Urban and Regional Planning (M.U.R.P.) Urban Planning Women's Studies School of Dentistry (DN) Dentistry Post-D.D.S. Program Professional Program for International Dentists School of Law (LW) Law (International Exchange Program) Law (Juridical Science) Law (Juris Doctor) Law (Master of Laws) School of Medicine (MN) Medicine Medicine-Drew UCLA Medicine-PRIME Medicine-UC Riverside n % 40 32 1 1.3 1.1 0.0 35 2 1.2 0.1 2 0.1 1 4 281 27 0.0 0.1 9.4 0.9 88 6 13 4 3.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were graduate students in Question 1 (n = 2979). Table B21 Trainees Only: What is your academic degree or clinical/training program at UCLA? (Question 42) Academic Unit n % MD 75 86.2 MD/MBA 3 3.4 MD/MPP 0 0.0 MD/MPH 0 0.0 PD/PhD 9 10.3 Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were trainees in Question 1 (n = 97). 183 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B22 Which, if any, of the disabilities/conditions listed below impact your learning, working or living activities? (mark all that apply) (Question 43) Disability n % Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury 33 0.2 Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder 346 2.1 Asperger’s/Autism Spectrum 39 0.2 Blind 10 0.1 Low vision 355 2.2 Deaf 15 0.1 Hard of Hearing 211 1.3 Learning disability 141 0.9 Medical Condition 525 3.2 Mental health/psychological condition 769 4.7 Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking 181 1.1 Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking 168 1.0 Speech/Communication 91 0.6 Other 114 0.7 12649 77.9 I have none of the listed conditions Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses 184 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B23 What is your citizenship status? Mark all that apply. (Question 44) Citizenship status n % 13945 85.9 Permanent Resident 946 5.8 A visa holder (F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E and TN) 1294 8.0 Other legally documented status 40 0.2 Undocumented resident 80 0.5 US citizen Table B24 How would you characterize your political views? (Question 45) Political views n % Far left 800 4.9 Liberal 6291 38.7 Moderate or middle of the road 4591 28.3 Conservative 1483 9.1 45 0.3 Undecided 2191 13.5 Libertarian 87 0.5 Other 418 2.6 Missing 336 2.1 Far right 185 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B25 What language(s) is spoken in your home? (Question 46) Language spoken at home n % English only 8801 54.2 Other than English 2014 12.4 English and other language(s) 5303 32.6 Missing 124 0.8 186 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B26 What is your religious or spiritual identity? (Question 47) Spiritual Affiliation n % 2237 13.8 Ahmadi Muslim 4 African Methodist Episcopal n % Nondenominational Christian 786 4.8 0.0 Pagan 39 0.2 26 0.2 Pentecostal 115 0.7 1754 10.8 Presbyterian 419 2.6 Assembly of God 42 0.3 Protestant 436 2.7 Baha’i 21 0.1 Quaker 24 0.1 Baptist 412 2.5 Rastafarian 11 0.1 Buddhist 898 5.5 Roman Catholic 2859 17.6 Christian Orthodox 483 3.0 Russian Orthodox 23 0.1 Confucianist 56 0.3 Scientologist 8 0.0 Christian Methodist Episcopal 136 0.8 Secular Humanist 88 0.5 9 0.1 Seventh Day Adventist 44 0.3 Episcopalian 187 1.2 Shi-ite 28 0.2 Evangelical 236 1.5 Sufi 12 0.1 Greek Orthodox 42 0.3 Sunni 53 0.3 Hindu 272 1.7 Shinto 25 0.2 Jain 24 0.1 Sikh 45 0.3 Jehovah’s Witness 43 0.3 Taoist 81 0.5 Jewish Conservative 281 1.7 Jewish Orthodox 61 0.4 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 96 0.6 Jewish Reformed 647 4.0 United Methodist 111 0.7 Lutheran 216 1.3 Unitarian Universalist 96 0.6 Mennonite 10 0.1 United Church of Christ 44 0.3 Moravian 1 0.0 Wiccan 26 0.2 217 1.3 Spiritual, but no religious affiliation 1586 9.8 No affiliation 2867 17.7 Other 386 2.4 Agnostic Atheist Druid Muslim Native American Traditional Practitioner or Ceremonial 23 0.1 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses 187 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B27 Students Only: Are you currently dependent (family/guardian assisting with your living/educational expenses) or independent (you are the sole provider for your living/educational expenses)? (Question 48) Dependency status n % Dependent 5274 63.1 Independent 2851 34.1 Missing 236 2.8 Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were students in Question 1 (n = 8361) 188 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B28 Students Only: What is your best estimate of your family’s yearly income (if partnered, married, or a dependent student) or your yearly income (if single or an independent student)? (Question 49) Income n % Below $10,000 815 9.7 $10,000-$19,999 800 9.6 $20,000-$29,999 1167 14.0 $30,000-$39,999 669 8.0 $40,000-$49,999 433 5.2 $50,000-$59,999 441 5.3 $60,000-69,999 379 4.5 $70,000-$79,999 370 4.4 $80,000-$89,999 347 4.2 $90,000-$99,999 344 4.1 $100,000-124,999 744 8.9 $125,000-$149,999 342 4.1 $150,000- $199,999 379 4.5 $200,000 -$249,999 300 3.6 $250,000-$299,999 163 1.9 $300,000-$399,999 114 1.4 $400,000-$499,999 56 0.7 $500,000 and above 164 2.0 Missing 334 4.0 Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were students in Question 1 (n = 8361). 189 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B29 Students Only: Where do you live? (Question 50) Residence n % 3403 40.7 On-campus housing “on the hill” 2354 69.2 University owned apartments 660 19.4 Family Housing 88 2.6 Missing 316 9.3 4923 58.9 Independently in apartment/house 3508 71.3 Living with family member/guardian 596 12.1 Co-op 107 2.2 Fraternity house 106 2.2 Missing 2238 45.5 Homeless (e.g. couch surfing, sleeping in car, sleeping in campus office/lab) 20 0.2 Missing 15 0.2 Campus Housing Non-Campus Housing Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were students in Question 1 (n = 8361). Note: Percentages for sub-categories are valid percentages and do not include missing responses. 190 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B30 Students Only: Are you employed either on campus or off-campus? (Question 51) Employed n % No 4685 56.0 Yes 3653 43.7 1-10 hours/week 1215 33.3 11-20 hours/week 1599 43.8 21-30 hours/week 292 8.0 31-40 hours/week 187 5.1 More than 40 hours/week 249 6.8 Missing 111 3.1 23 0.3 Missing Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were students in Question 1 (n = 8361) Table B31 Undergraduate Students Only: Are you an in-state or out-of-state/international student? (Question 52) Experiential learning n % In-state/Resident 2414 44.9 Out-of-State/Non-Resident/International 386 7.2 Missing* 2582 48.0 Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were undergraduate students in Question 1 (n = 5382). *The large number of missing responses to this question appears to be valid – raw data was double-checked. 191 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B32 Students Only: Do you participate in any of the following types of clubs/organizations at UCLA? (mark all that apply) (Question 53) Clubs/Organizations n % I do not participate in any student organizations 2652 31.7 Student Leadership Groups 889 10.6 Academic/Professional Organizations 1657 19.8 Special Interest Organizations 1271 15.2 Intercultural/Multicultural Campus Community Groups 1162 13.9 Working with Under-represented communities 526 6.3 Community Programs/Working with Under-represented communities 390 4.7 Political Groups 176 2.1 Religious/Spiritual Organizations 867 10.4 Service Organizations/Civic Engagement 935 11.2 Social fraternities or sororities 605 7.2 Publications and Media Organizations 300 3.6 Intramurals/Clubs Sports 1034 12.4 Music/Performance Organizations 373 4.5 NCAA Varsity Athletics 48 0.6 Honor Societies 591 7.1 Residence Hall Organizations 426 5.1 Other 435 5.2 Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were students in Question 1 (n = 8361). Percentages may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses. 192 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B33 What is your current relationship status? (Question 54) Relationship status n % Single, never married 8856 54.5 Single, divorced 687 4.2 Single, widow (partner/spouse deceased) 96 0.6 Partnered 1173 7.2 Partnered, in civil union/ Registered Domestic Partnership 142 0.9 Married or remarried 4954 30.5 Separated 120 0.7 Other 54 0.3 Missing 160 1.0 Table B34 Students Only: At the end of your last quarter/semester, what was your cumulative UC grade point average? (Question 55) GPA n % NA 272 3.3 Below 2.49 280 3.3 2.5-2.99 960 11.5 3.0-3.49 2392 28.6 3.5 and above 4410 52.7 47 0.6 Missing Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were undergraduate students in Question 1 (n = 8361). 193 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B35 Students Only: Are you a former foster-care youth? (Question 56) Foster care n % Yes 64 0.8 No 8245 98.6 52 0.6 Missing Note: Table includes only those who indicated they were undergraduate students in Question 1 (n = 8361). 194 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 PART II: Findings **The tables in this section all contain valid percentages except where noted** Table B36 Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate at UCLA? (Question 5) Comfort n % Very comfortable 4754 29.3 Comfortable 8272 51.0 Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 2200 13.6 Uncomfortable 814 5.0 Very uncomfortable 183 1.1 Table B37 Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your department/work unit/academic unit/college/school/clinical setting? (Question 6) Comfort n % Very comfortable 4746 29.2 Comfortable 7385 45.5 Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 2417 14.9 Uncomfortable 1289 7.9 Very uncomfortable 392 2.4 195 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B38 Student/Post-doctoral/Graduate/Faculty only: Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes? (Question 7) Comfort n % Very comfortable 2322 23.1 Comfortable 4939 49.2 Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable 1674 16.7 Uncomfortable 499 5.0 Very uncomfortable 87 0.9 Not applicable 522 5.2 Note: Table includes answers from only those who indicated they were students, post-docs, graduate students or faculty in Question 1 (n = 10051). Table B39 In the past year, have you seriously considered leaving UCLA? (Question 8) Considered Leaving n % No 11897 73.4 Yes 4318 26.6 196 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B40 Post-docs/Students/Trainees Only: The following questions ask you about your academic experience (Question 10) Agree Neither agree or disagree n % I am performing up to my full academic potential. 1587 18.1 4125 47.1 1420 16.2 1367 15.6 205 2.3 48 0.5 Many of my courses this year have been intellectually stimulating. 2400 27.4 4391 50.2 928 10.6 391 4.5 66 0.8 572 6.5 I am satisfied with my academic experience at UCLA. 1823 20.9 4382 50.1 1491 17.1 793 9.1 203 2.3 50 0.6 I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at UCLA. 2180 25.0 4264 48.9 1409 16.2 681 7.8 133 1.5 57 0.7 I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I would. 1394 16.0 3173 36.3 1730 19.8 1794 20.5 561 6.4 82 0.9 My academic experience has had a positive influence on my intellectual growth and interest in ideas. 2507 28.7 4352 49.9 1227 14.1 473 5.4 122 1.4 43 0.5 My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming to UCLA. 2739 31.4 3934 45.0 1410 16.1 476 5.4 146 1.7 29 0.3 I intend to graduate from UCLA. 6099 70.2 1928 22.2 290 3.3 26 0.3 8 0.1 334 3.8 I am considering transferring to another college or university due to academic reasons. 100 1.1 323 3.7 585 6.7 1682 19.2 5022 57.4 1034 11.8 n % n Disagree % Strongly disagree n % Not Applicable n % Academic Experience Strongly agree n % Note: Table includes only those who answered that they were post-docs/students/trainees in Question 1 (n = 8768). 197 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B41 Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored) intimidating, offensive, and/or hostile conduct (bullying, harassing behavior) at UCLA? (Question 11) Experienced n % No 12268 75.7 Yes, but it did not interfere with my ability to work or learn 2599 16.0 Yes and it interfered with my ability to work or learn 1347 8.3 198 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B42 What do you believe the conduct was based upon and how often have you experienced it? (Question 12) Very often Based On: Often Sometimes Seldom Not applicable n % n % n % n % n % Academic Performance 131 3.7 257 7.2 496 13.8 702 19.6 2001 55.8 Age 166 4.6 280 7.7 675 18.6 916 25.2 1598 44.0 Ancestry 206 5.8 301 8.4 581 16.3 746 20.9 1739 48.7 Country of origin 161 4.5 237 6.6 451 12.6 796 22.3 1929 54.0 Discipline of study 155 4.3 303 8.5 549 15.4 701 19.6 1865 52.2 Educational level 151 4.2 238 6.7 479 13.4 864 24.2 1839 51.5 Educational modality (on-line, classroom) 42 1.2 81 2.3 162 4.6 712 20.3 2518 71.6 English language proficiency/accent 120 3.4 170 4.8 340 9.6 687 19.3 2240 63.0 Ethnicity 333 9.2 414 11.4 730 20.2 654 18.1 1485 41.1 Gender identity 178 4.9 252 7.0 426 11.8 749 20.8 2003 55.5 Gender expression 116 3.2 187 5.2 322 9.0 774 21.6 2182 60.9 Immigrant/citizen status 92 2.6 129 3.6 196 5.5 669 18.9 2463 69.4 International Status 72 2.0 104 2.9 166 4.7 580 16.3 2628 74.0 Learning disability 35 1.0 55 1.6 131 3.7 570 16.1 2745 77.6 Marital status (e.g. single, married, partnered) 52 1.5 106 3.0 268 7.6 778 21.9 2343 66.1 Medical condition 68 1.9 97 2.7 213 6.0 661 18.7 2503 70.7 Military/veteran status 10 0.3 23 0.6 54 1.5 394 11.1 3067 86.4 Parental status (e.g., having children) 70 2.0 99 2.8 215 6.1 492 13.9 2670 75.3 Participation in an organization/team 92 2.6 105 3.0 226 6.5 457 13.1 2600 74.7 199 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Very often Table B42 (cont.) Often Sometimes Seldom Not applicable n % n % n % n % n % Physical characteristics 135 3.8 213 6.0 501 14.1 721 20.3 1979 55.8 Physical disability 37 1.1 56 1.6 123 3.5 510 14.5 2788 79.3 Philosophical views 142 4.0 228 6.4 539 15.2 735 20.7 1910 53.7 Political views 160 4.5 225 6.3 476 13.4 772 21.7 1917 54.0 Position (staff, faculty, student) 334 9.2 431 11.8 678 18.6 709 19.5 1491 40.9 Pregnancy 26 0.7 39 1.1 87 2.5 413 11.7 2953 83.9 Psychological condition 58 1.6 98 2.8 199 5.6 543 15.4 2630 74.5 Race 310 8.7 334 9.3 625 17.5 643 18.0 1667 46.6 Religious/spiritual views 72 2.3 116 3.7 254 8.2 544 17.5 2115 68.2 Sexual orientation 59 1.8 87 2.7 160 5.0 487 15.3 2400 75.2 Socioeconomic status 125 4.1 137 4.4 290 9.4 478 15.5 2055 66.6 Don’t Know 73 2.6 80 2.8 186 6.6 194 6.8 2304 81.2 Other 84 3.5 86 3.6 129 5.4 73 3.1 2000 84.3 Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 3946). 200 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B43 How did you experience this conduct? (Question 13) Form n % I felt isolated or left out 2056 52.1 I felt I was deliberately ignored or excluded 1890 47.9 I felt intimidated/bullied 1603 40.6 I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks 736 18.7 I observed others staring at me 720 18.2 I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group 442 11.2 I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling 420 10.6 I received a low performance evaluation 410 10.4 Someone assumed I was admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity 407 10.3 I feared getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment 405 10.3 I feared for my physical safety 338 8.6 I received derogatory written comments 321 8.1 I was the victim of derogatory/unsolicited emails, text messages, Facebook posts, Twitter posts 147 3.7 Someone assumed I was not admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity 145 3.7 I received derogatory phone calls 91 2.3 I feared for my family’s safety 63 1.6 I was the target of graffiti/vandalism 60 1.5 I was the target of stalking 60 1.5 I received threats of physical violence 55 1.4 I was the victim of a crime 50 1.3 I was the target of physical violence 30 0.8 Other 436 11.0 Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 3946). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 201 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B44 Where did this conduct occur? (Question 14) Location n % While working at a UCLA job 1271 32.2 In a meeting with a group of people 1017 25.8 In a public space at UCLA 968 24.5 In a class/lab/clinical setting 950 24.1 In a UCLA office 935 23.7 In a meeting with one other person 594 15.1 While walking on campus 409 10.4 At a UCLA event 407 10.3 In campus housing 370 9.4 Off campus 369 9.4 In a faculty office 296 7.5 In a health care setting 259 6.6 On a social networking sites/Facebook/ Twitter/cell phone/other form of technological communication 225 5.7 In a UCLA dining facility 207 5.2 In off-campus housing 143 3.6 In athletic facilities 78 2.0 On campus transportation 40 1.0 In an on-line class 2 0.1 253 6.4 Other Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 3946). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 202 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B45 Who/what was the source of this conduct? (Question 15) Source n % Student 1357 34.4 Faculty member 898 22.8 Co-worker 877 22.2 Administrator 669 17.0 Staff member 613 15.5 Supervisor 585 14.8 Department head 447 11.3 Stranger 365 9.2 Friend 286 7.2 Don’t know source 266 6.7 Campus organizations or groups 256 6.5 UCLA visitor(s) 177 4.5 Medical Staff 147 3.7 Teaching asst/Grad asst/Lab asst/Tutor 141 3.6 Faculty advisor 136 3.4 Campus media 124 3.1 UCLA Physician 120 3.0 Student staff 96 2.4 Social Networking site (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) 88 2.2 Off campus community member 84 2.1 Registered Campus Organization 73 1.8 Person that I supervise 67 1.7 Campus police/building security 66 1.7 Alumni 53 1.3 Patient 45 1.1 Union representative 23 0.6 Athletic coach/trainer 18 0.5 Donor 11 0.3 Partner/spouse 11 0.3 Other 220 5.6 Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 3946). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 203 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B46 Please describe your reactions to experiencing this conduct? (Question 16) Reactions n % I was angry 2031 51.5 I told a friend 1474 37.4 I felt embarrassed 1461 37.0 I ignored it 1260 31.9 I told a family member 1181 29.9 I avoided the harasser 968 24.5 I did nothing 690 17.5 I felt somehow responsible 601 15.2 I was afraid 588 14.9 I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 557 14.1 I sought support from a staff person 490 12.4 I didn’t know who to go to 446 11.3 I left the situation immediately 420 10.6 I confronted the harasser at the time 384 9.7 I sought support from an administrator 365 9.2 I reported it to a UCLA employee/official 357 9.0 I sought support from a faculty member 354 9.0 I sought support from campus resource 322 8.2 I did report it but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 304 7.7 I confronted the harasser later 300 7.6 It didn’t affect me at the time 291 7.4 I sought information on-line 184 4.7 I sought support from a spiritual advisor (e.g. pastor, rabbi, priest) 116 2.9 I told my union representative 108 2.7 I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services 102 2.6 I sought support from student staff (e.g. peer counselor) 74 1.9 I sought support from a TA/grad assistant 51 1.3 I contacted a local law enforcement official 43 1.1 Other 374 9.5 Note: Only answered by respondents who experienced harassment (n = 3946). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 204 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B46-2 Please describe your reactions to experiencing this conduct – Sought Support From a Campus Resource… Campus Resource n % Counseling and Psychological Services 92 28.6 Office of Ombuds Services 47 14.6 Faculty and Staff Counseling Center 35 10.9 Employee Relations/Labor Relations 27 8.4 Dean of Students Office 13 4.0 Office of Residential Life 13 4.0 Ashe Student Health and Wellness Center 10 3.1 Community Programs Office 10 3.1 Graduate Departmental staff (e.g., Student Affairs Officers) 8 2.5 LGBT Resource Center 5 1.6 Bruin Resource Center 3 0.9 Student Legal Services 3 0.9 http://www.reportincidents.ucla.edu/ 3 0.9 Center for Student Programming 2 0.6 School of Medicine – Gender and Power Abuse Committee 2 0.6 Consultation and Response Team 2 0.6 Graduate Student Resource Center (GSRC) 1 0.3 Graduate Division 1 0.3 Center for Women and Men 1 0.3 Office of Students with Disabilities 0 0.0 Office of Postdoctoral & Visiting Scholars Services (OPVSS) 0 0.0 Mental Health Services for Physicians In Training 0 0.0 Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars 0 0.0 Note: Only answered by respondents who responded that they sought support from a campus resource (n = 322). Percentages may not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 205 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B47 Within the last 5 years, have you experienced unwanted sexual contact at UCLA? (Question 18) Experienced unwanted sexual contact n % Yes 419 2.6 No 15783 97.2 40 0.2 Missing 206 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B48 Post-docs//Graduate/Trainees/Staff/Faculty Only: Please respond to the following statements. (Question 20) Issues Strongly agree n % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Not applicable n % I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me for fear that it will affect my performance evaluation or tenure/merit/promotion decision 908 8.4 2110 19.6 3592 33.4 2974 27.6 1177 10.9 My colleagues/co-workers expect me to represent “the point of view” of my identity 503 4.7 2051 19.2 3587 33.6 2376 22.3 2155 20.2 I believe salary determinations are clear 813 7.6 3743 35.1 2708 25.4 1367 12.8 2039 19.1 I think that my campus demonstrates that it values a diverse faculty 2097 19.6 5998 56.0 1153 10.8 519 4.8 936 8.7 I think my campus demonstrates that it values a diverse staff 2266 21.2 6329 59.2 1053 9.8 425 4.0 620 5.8 I am comfortable taking leave that I am entitled to without fear that it may affect my job/career 2102 19.5 4268 39.7 1668 15.5 836 7.8 1878 17.5 I have to work harder than I believe my colleagues/co-workers do in order to achieve the same recognition 1035 9.6 2167 20.2 4523 42.1 1767 16.5 1242 11.6 There are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in my work unit 1136 10.6 2921 27.3 3819 35.7 1341 12.5 1483 13.9 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty or staff in Question 1 (n = 10860). 207 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B49 Faculty Only: As a faculty member… (Question 22) Issues Strongly agree n % I believe that the tenure/promotion process is clear. 258 18.8 691 50.2 225 16.4 79 5.7 123 8.9 I believe that the tenure/promotion standards are reasonable. 256 18.7 744 54.4 183 13.4 48 3.5 137 10.0 I feel that my service contributions are important to tenure/promotion. 171 12.5 602 44.1 322 23.3 101 7.4 169 12.4 I feel pressured to change my research agenda to achieve tenure/promotion. 69 5.1 182 13.4 531 39.1 280 20.6 297 21.9 I believe that my colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my career as much as they do others in my position. 199 14.6 660 48.5 223 16.4 121 8.9 158 11.6 I feel that I am burdened by university service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments) beyond those of my colleagues. 137 10.0 268 19.6 641 4.8 178 13.0 146 10.7 I perform more work to help students (e.g., formal & informal advising, sitting for qualifying exams/dissertation committees, helping with student groups/activities, providing other support) than my colleagues. 199 14.6 421 31.0 521 38.3 95 7.0 123 9.1 I feel that my diversity-related contributions have been/will be valued for promotion or tenure. 64 4.7 401 29.5 270 19.9 88 6.5 535 39.4 I have used university policies on stopping the clock for promotion or tenure. 32 2.3 65 4.7 242 17.6 235 17.1 800 58.0 I have used university policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. 53 3.9 97 7.1 198 14.5 199 14.5 821 60.0 I have used university policies on active service-modified duties. 29 2.1 62 4.6 224 16.5 187 13.8 857 63.1 In my department, faculty members who use family-related accommodation policies are disadvantaged in promotion or tenure. 28 2.1 99 7.4 546 40.6 325 24.1 348 25.9 I feel that my department creates a climate that is responsive and supportive of family needs, including usage of work-family policies. 224 16.5 665 49.0 196 14.4 62 4.6 210 15.5 123 9.1 481 35.4 403 29.7 119 8.8 231 17.0 206 15.2 529 39.0 323 23.8 144 10.6 156 11.5 I believe that perceptions about using work-family policies differ for men and women faculty. I believe that tenure standards/advancement standards are applied equally to all faculty. Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Not applicable n % Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty in Question 1 (n = 1,380). 208 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B50 Post-docs//Graduate/Trainees/Staff/Faculty Only: As a faculty/staff member… (Question 24) Issues Strongly agree n % Agree n % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Not applicable n % I find that UCLA is supportive of taking leave. 1271 11.8 5061 47.1 1468 13.7 417 3.9 2517 23.4 I find that UCLA is supportive of flexible work schedules. 1479 13.8 5238 48.8 1632 15.2 601 5.6 1777 16.6 I feel that people who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work weekends) beyond those who do have children 519 4.8 1498 14.0 4503 42.0 1546 14.4 2658 24.8 I feel that people who have children are considered by UCLA to be less committed to their jobs/careers 255 2.4 1011 9.4 5060 47.3 1819 17.0 2560 23.9 I feel that UCLA provides available resources to help employees balance work-life needs, such as childcare and elder care. 589 5.6 3702 34.9 1697 16.0 589 5.6 4031 38.0 I am disadvantaged by a need to balance my dependent care responsibilities with my professional responsibilities. 297 2.8 1185 11.2 2828 26.6 876 8.3 5428 51.1 I have supervisors who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it 2010 18.7 4711 43.8 1627 15.1 787 7.3 1612 15.0 I have colleagues/co-workers who give me job/career/education advice or guidance when I need it 2051 19.1 5713 53.2 1206 11.2 413 3.8 1353 12.6 My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue professional development opportunities. 1810 16.9 4296 40.0 1864 17.4 870 8.1 1900 17.7 My supervisor provides ongoing feedback to help me improve my performance. 1699 15.9 4748 44.3 1815 17.0 788 7.4 1656 15.5 I have adequate access to administrative support. 1558 14.6 5711 53.5 1497 14.0 692 6.5 1223 11.5 For health sciences campus employees, my patient-care load is manageable. 291 2.8 1390 13.5 236 2.3 113 1.1 8292 80.3 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty or staff in Question 1 (n = 10860). 209 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B51 Within the past year, have you observed any conduct or communications directed towards a person or group of people at UCLA that you believe created an exclusionary, intimidating, offensive and/or hostile (bullied, harassing) working or learning environment? (Question 57) Observed conduct or communications n % No 12153 75.1 Yes 4020 24.9 210 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B52 Who/what were the targets of this conduct? (Question 58) Source n % Student 2046 50.9 Co-worker 741 18.4 Staff member 673 16.7 Friend 500 12.4 Campus organizations or groups 430 10.7 Faculty member 367 9.1 Stranger 293 7.3 Don’t know target 231 5.7 Administrator 169 4.2 UCLA visitor(s) 129 3.2 Registered Campus Organization 121 3.0 Medical Staff 95 2.4 Student staff 89 2.2 Supervisor 81 2.0 Teaching assistant/Writing associate/Lab assistant/Tutor 81 2.0 Department head 56 1.4 Person that I supervise 55 1.4 UCLA Physician 51 1.3 Patient 44 1.1 Off campus community member 42 1.0 Campus police/building security 33 0.8 Union representative 28 0.7 Alumni 22 0.5 Partner/spouse 21 0.5 Athletic coach/trainer 19 0.5 Faculty advisor 15 0.4 Donor 3 0.1 Other 230 5.7 Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 4020). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 211 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B53 Who/what was the source of this behavior? (Question 59) Source n % Student 1480 36.8 Faculty member 796 19.8 Administrator 501 12.5 Don’t know source 485 12.1 Co-worker 427 10.6 Supervisor 407 10.1 Staff member 387 9.6 Stranger 353 8.8 Department head 269 6.7 Campus organizations or groups 230 5.7 Campus media (posters, brochures, flyers, handouts, web sites, etc.) 123 3.1 UCLA Physician 101 2.5 Friend 100 2.5 Medical Staff 96 2.4 Faculty advisor 95 2.4 UCLA visitor(s) 94 2.3 Social Networking site (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) 74 1.8 Off campus community member 71 1.8 Registered Campus Organization 68 1.7 Campus police/building security 61 1.5 Teaching assistant/Grad assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor 60 1.5 Student staff 48 1.2 Alumni 30 0.7 Patient 26 0.6 Athletic coach/trainer 23 0.6 Person that I supervise 23 0.6 Union representative 16 0.4 Donor 6 0.1 Partner/spouse 1 0.0 170 4.2 Other Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 4020). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 212 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B54 What do you believe was the basis for this conduct? (Question 60) Based On: n % Race 1271 31.6 Ethnicity 1185 29.5 Don’t Know 684 17.0 Gender identity 652 16.2 Country of origin 620 15.4 Position (staff, faculty, student) 584 14.5 Sexual orientation 546 13.6 Ancestry 477 11.9 Gender expression 448 11.1 Political views 433 10.8 Religious/spiritual views 369 9.2 Age 344 8.6 Socioeconomic status 334 8.3 Immigrant/citizen status 333 8.3 English language proficiency/accent 323 8.0 Academic Performance 312 7.8 Educational level 311 7.7 Philosophical views 278 6.9 Physical characteristics 262 6.5 Discipline of study 176 4.4 International Status 176 4.4 Participation in an organization/team 130 3.2 Psychological condition 116 2.9 Physical disability 105 2.6 Medical condition 95 2.4 Learning disability 84 2.1 Parental status (e.g., having children) 65 1.6 Marital status 58 1.4 Pregnancy 46 1.1 Educational modality (online, classroom) 25 0.6 Military/veteran status 17 0.4 Other 458 11.4 Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 4020). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 213 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B55 What forms of behaviors have you observed or personally been made aware of? (Question 61) Form n % Derogatory remarks 2131 53.0 Deliberately ignored or excluded 1348 33.5 Racial/ethnic profiling 1166 29.0 Intimidated/bullied 1136 28.3 Isolated or left out 1104 27.5 Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 1039 25.8 Derogatory written comments 749 18.6 Isolated or left out when work was required in groups 628 15.6 Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity 538 13.4 Graffiti/vandalism 509 12.7 Singled out as a spokesperson for his/her identity 473 11.8 Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails, text messages, Facebook posts, Twitter posts 458 11.4 Receipt of a low performance evaluation 411 10.2 Feared for their physical safety 343 8.5 Receipt of a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment 155 3.9 Threats of physical violence 150 3.7 Victim of a crime 134 3.3 Derogatory phone calls 118 2.9 Physical violence 100 2.5 Feared for their family’s safety 59 1.5 Other 238 5.9 Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 4020). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 214 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B56 How many times have you observed this type of conduct? (Question 62) Number of times observed conduct n % 1 674 17.7 2 731 19.2 3 761 19.9 4 354 9.3 5 124 3.2 6 or more 1173 30.7 Note: Only answered by respondents who believed they had observed harassment (n = 4020). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 215 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B57 Where did this conduct occur? (Question 63) Location n % In a public space at UCLA 1393 34.7 While working at a UCLA job 917 22.8 In a class/lab/clinical setting 857 21.3 In a UCLA office 803 20.0 In a meeting with a group of people 757 18.8 At a UCLA event 518 12.9 While walking on campus 506 12.6 Off campus 493 12.3 On a social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/cell phone/other form of technological communication 451 11.2 In campus housing 348 8.7 In a meeting with one other person 327 8.1 In a health care setting 231 5.7 In a faculty office 218 5.4 In off campus housing 199 5.0 In a UCLA dining facility 182 4.5 In athletic facilities 60 1.5 On campus transportation 37 0.9 In an on-line class 10 0.2 Other 236 5.9 Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 4020). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 216 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B58 Please describe your reactions to observing this conduct? (Question 64) Reactions n % I was angry 1960 48.8 I felt embarrassed 1346 33.5 I told a friend 1264 31.4 I told a family member 759 18.9 I did nothing 726 18.1 I avoided the harasser 677 16.8 I ignored it 606 15.1 I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously 434 10.8 I didn’t know who to go to 418 10.4 I was afraid 415 10.3 It didn’t affect me at the time 407 10.1 I confronted the harasser at the time 344 8.6 I sought support from a staff person 341 8.5 I felt somehow responsible 337 8.4 I left the situation immediately 319 7.9 I sought support from a administrator 266 6.6 I confronted the harasser later 257 6.4 I sought support from a faculty member 234 5.8 I reported it to a campus employee/official 219 5.4 I did report it but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously 178 4.4 I sought support from campus resource 152 3.8 I sought information on-line 141 3.5 I sought support from a student staff 68 1.7 I told my union representative 65 1.6 I sought support from a spiritual advisor 48 1.2 I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services 41 1.0 I contacted a local law enforcement official 28 0.7 I sought support from a TA/grad assistant 26 0.6 Other 373 9.3 Note: Only answered by respondents who observed harassment (n = 4020). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 217 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B58-2 Please describe your reactions to observing this conduct – Sought Support From a Campus Resource… Campus Resource n % Counseling and Psychological Services 23 15.1 Faculty and Staff Counseling Center 18 11.8 Employee Relations/Labor Relations 18 11.8 Dean of Students Office 17 11.2 Office of Ombuds Services 12 7.9 Community Programs Office 11 7.2 Office of Residential Life 4 2.6 Ashe Student Health and Wellness Center 3 2.0 Center for Student Programming 3 2.0 LGBT Resource Center 2 1.3 Office of Students with Disabilities 2 1.3 Graduate Division 2 1.3 Graduate Departmental staff (e.g., Student Affairs Officers) 2 1.3 Student Legal Services 1 0.7 Graduate Student Resource Center (GSRC) 1 0.7 School of Medicine – Gender and Power Abuse Committee 1 0.7 Consultation and Response Team 1 0.7 Bruin Resource Center 0 0.0 http://www.reportincidents.ucla.edu/ 0 0.0 Office of Postdoctoral & Visiting Scholars Services (OPVSS) 0 0.0 Mental Health Services for Physicians In Training 0 0.0 Center for Women and Men 0 0.0 Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars 0 0.0 Note: Only answered by respondents who responded that they sought support from a campus resource (n = 152). Percentages may not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 218 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B59 Faculty/Staff Only: I have observed hiring practices at UCLA that I have perceived to be unfair and/or unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community. (Question 66) Perceived Unfair/Unjust Hiring n % No 4602 61.9 Yes 1234 16.6 Don’t know 1595 21.5 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty or staff in Question 1 (n = 7474). 219 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B60 Staff/Faculty only: I believe that the unfair and unjust hiring practices were based upon: (Question 67) Based On: n % Personal relationship 393 31.8 Race 238 19.3 Ethnicity 237 19.2 Age 189 15.3 Position (staff, faculty, student) 173 14.0 Preferential re-hiring 156 12.6 Gender identity 129 10.5 Educational level 125 10.1 Country of origin 88 5.7 Ancestry 70 5.7 Discipline of study 70 5.7 Partner/spousal preferential hiring practice 65 5.3 Gender expression 53 4.3 Sexual orientation 52 4.2 English language proficiency/accent 51 4.1 Physical characteristics 51 4.1 Political views 40 3.2 Parental status (e.g., having children) 39 3.2 Marital status 38 3.1 Immigrant/citizen status 31 2.5 Socioeconomic status 31 2.5 International status 24 1.9 Participation in an organization/team 19 1.5 Religious/spiritual views 19 1.5 Medical condition 15 1.2 Pregnancy 15 1.2 Educational modality (on-line, classroom) 10 0.8 Learning disability 8 0.6 Military/veteran status 7 0.6 Physical disability 6 0.5 Psychological condition 5 0.4 218 17.7 Other Note: Only answered by employees who perceived discriminatory practices (n = 1234). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 220 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B61 Post-docs/Graduate/Trainees/Faculty/Staff only: I have observed employment-related discipline or action up to and including dismissal at UCLA that I perceive to be unfair and unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community. (Question 69) Perceived Unfair/Unjust Disciplinary Actions n % No 8007 74.2 Yes 862 8.0 Don’t know 1926 17.8 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty or staff in Question 1 (n = 10860). 221 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B62 Post-docs/Graduate/Trainees/Faculty/Staff Only: I believe that the unfair or unjust, employment-related disciplinary actions were based upon: (Question 70) Based On: n % Position (staff, faculty, student) 186 21.6 Race 150 17.4 Age 148 17.2 Ethnicity 132 15.3 Personal relationship 90 10.4 Gender identity 71 8.2 Educational level 64 7.4 Medical condition 51 5.9 Country of origin 48 5.6 Political views 47 5.5 Sexual orientation 41 4.8 Ancestry 39 4.5 English language proficiency/accent 35 4.1 Gender expression 32 3.7 Discipline of study 31 3.6 Physical characteristics 31 3.6 Immigrant/citizen status 25 2.9 Psychological condition 25 2.9 Parental status (e.g., having children) 24 2.8 Participation in an organization/team 24 2.8 Socioeconomic status 24 2.8 Religious/spiritual views 23 2.7 International status 19 2.2 Marital status 18 2.1 Physical disability 18 2.1 Pregnancy 16 1.9 Learning disability 13 1.5 Partner/spousal preferential hiring practice 12 1.4 Military/veteran status 4 0.5 Educational modality (on-line, classroom) 2 0.2 238 27.6 Other Note: Only answered by employees who perceived discriminatory practices (n = 862). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 222 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B63 Post-docs/Graduate/Trainees/Faculty/Staff only: I have observed promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification practices at UCLA that I perceive to be unfair or unjust. (Question 72) Perceived Unfair/ Unjust Promotion n % No 6640 61.5 Yes 1927 17.9 Don’t know 2228 20.6 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty or staff in Question 1 (n = 10860). 223 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B64 Post-docs/Graduate/Trainees/Faculty/Staff Only: I believe that the unfair or unjust behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification were based upon: (Question 73) Based On: n % Personal relationship 528 27.4 Position (staff, faculty, student) 409 21.2 Race 268 13.9 Ethnicity 259 13.4 Age 221 11.5 Gender identity 190 9.9 Educational level 158 8.2 Discipline of study 121 6.3 Country of origin 86 4.5 Political views 76 3.9 Ancestry 72 3.7 Partner/spousal preferential hiring practice 58 3.0 Gender expression 57 3.0 Parental status (e.g., having children) 54 2.8 Physical characteristics 53 2.8 Sexual orientation 48 2.5 Marital status 43 2.2 English language proficiency/accent 39 2.0 Socioeconomic status 32 1.7 Participation in an organization/team 31 1.6 Medical condition 24 1.2 Religious/spiritual views 23 1.2 Immigrant/citizen status 22 1.1 Pregnancy 18 0.9 International status 15 0.8 Psychological condition 14 0.7 Physical disability 11 0.6 Learning disability 7 0.4 Educational modality 6 0.3 Military/veteran status 3 0.2 485 25.2 Other Note: Only answered by employees who observed discriminatory practices (n = 1927). Percentages do not sum to 100 due to multiple responses. 224 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B65 Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall climate at UCLA on the following dimensions: (Question 75) 1 2 3 4 5 Standard Deviation n n % n % n % n % n % Mean n Friendly/Hostile 5604 34.7 7036 43.6 2889 17.9 527 3.3 100 0.6 1.9 0.8 Cooperative/Uncooperative 4537 28.2 7244 45.0 3278 20.3 860 5.3 195 1.2 2.1 0.9 Positive for persons with disabilities/Negative 5123 32.7 6059 38.0 3946 24.7 672 4.2 155 1.0 2.0 0.9 Positive for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual/Negative 5633 35.4 6315 39.6 3432 21.5 450 2.8 98 0.6 1.9 0.9 Positive for people of Christian faith/Negative 4963 31.2 5471 34.4 4662 29.3 652 4.1 146 0.9 2.1 0.9 Positive for people of other faith backgrounds faith/Negative 4226 26.6 5734 36.1 5093 32.1 686 4.3 148 0.9 2.2 0.9 Positive for people who are agnostic or atheist/Negative 4439 28.0 5468 34.6 5317 33.6 479 3.0 123 0.8 2.1 0.9 Positive for people of color/Negative 4817 30.3 6015 37.8 3668 23.0 1108 7.0 315 2.0 2.1 1.0 Positive for men/Negative 6675 41.9 5364 33.6 3532 22.1 280 1.8 96 0.6 1.9 0.9 Positive for women/Negative 5267 32.8 6049 37.6 3773 23.5 805 5.0 175 1.1 2.0 0.9 Positive for non-native English speakers/Negative 3696 23.1 5428 34.0 4787 30.0 1752 11.0 306 1.9 2.3 1.0 Positive for people who are immigrants/Negative 3989 25.1 5414 34.0 4937 31.0 1322 8.3 245 1.5 2.3 1.0 Positive for people who are not U.S. Citizens/Negative 4098 25.8 5338 33.6 4984 31.4 1212 7.6 250 1.6 2.3 1.0 Dimension 225 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 1 Table B65 (cont.) 2 3 4 5 n % n % n n % % n % Mean Standard Deviation Welcoming/Not welcoming 5472 34.0 6945 43.2 2864 17.8 644 4.0 163 1.0 1.9 0.9 Respectful/disrespectful 5220 32.5 6911 43.0 3029 18.9 710 4.4 194 1.2 2.0 0.9 Positive for people of high socioeconomic status/Negative 7194 45.1 5226 32.8 3128 19.6 279 1.7 118 0.7 1.8 0.9 Positive for people of low socioeconomic status/Negative 3649 22.9 4961 31.2 4878 30.7 1819 11.4 593 3.7 2.4 1.1 Positive for people who identify as transgender/Negative 3393 21.7 4106 26.3 6810 43.5 1016 6.5 313 2.0 2.4 1.0 226 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B66 Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall climate at UCLA on the following dimensions: (Question 76) 1 2 3 4 5 Standard Deviation n n % n % n % n % n % Mean n Not racist/racist 4404 27.3 6222 38.6 3740 23.2 1423 8.8 327 2.0 2.2 1.0 Not sexist/sexist 4498 28.0 6057 37.7 3976 24.8 1235 7.7 286 1.8 2.2 1.0 Not homophobic/homophobic 4816 30.2 6366 40.0 3834 24.1 770 4.8 145 0.9 2.1 0.9 Not transphobic/transphobic 4397 27.9 5637 35.8 4517 28.7 920 5.8 263 1.7 2.2 1.0 Not age biased/age biased 4535 28.4 5571 34.9 4103 25.7 1461 9.1 314 2.0 2.2 1.0 Not classist (socioeconomic status)/classist 3879 24.4 5285 33.2 4224 26.5 1916 12.0 607 3.8 2.4 1.1 Not classist (position: faculty, staff, student)/ classist 3592 22.6 4753 29.8 4326 27.2 2191 13.8 1065 6.7 2.5 1.2 Disability friendly/Not disability friendly 5108 32.1 6082 38.2 3811 23.9 740 4.6 183 1.1 2.0 0.9 Dimension 227 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B67 Students/Faculty Only: The classroom/learning environment is welcoming for students regardless of their: (Question 77) Characteristic Strongly agree n % n Agree % n Disagree % Strongly disagree n % n Don’t know % Age 2632 27.4 4735 49.3 889 9.3 164 1.7 1188 12.4 Ancestry 2591 27.1 4412 46.1 840 8.8 176 1.8 1553 16.2 Country of origin 2520 26.4 4641 48.6 997 10.4 181 1.9 1217 12.7 English language proficiency/ accent 2037 21.2 4632 48.3 1600 16.7 296 3.1 1021 10.7 Ethnicity 2554 26.7 4717 49.3 1046 10.9 227 2.4 1022 10.7 Gender identity 2437 25.5 4456 46.6 958 10.0 204 2.1 1506 15.8 Gender expression 2327 24.4 4330 45.4 1020 10.7 215 2.3 1651 17.3 Immigrant/citizen status 2349 24.6 4305 45.1 1090 11.4 256 2.7 1555 16.3 International Status 2489 26.1 4470 46.8 990 10.4 220 2.3 1376 14.4 Learning disability 2122 22.3 4052 42.5 1090 11.4 220 2.3 2050 21.5 Marital status 2645 27.7 4021 42.1 710 7.4 186 1.9 1978 20.7 Medical conditions 2281 24.0 4018 42.3 831 8.8 170 1.8 2188 23.1 Military/veteran status 2702 28.3 3614 37.8 536 5.6 116 1.2 2581 27.0 Parental status (e.g., having children) 2182 22.9 3751 39.3 874 9.2 174 1.8 2563 26.9 Participation in an campus club/organization 2963 31.1 4189 43.9 553 5.8 124 1.3 1706 17.9 Psychological condition 1933 20.3 3748 39.4 1008 10.6 187 2.0 2643 27.8 Physical characteristics 2240 23.5 4330 45.5 973 10.2 226 2.4 1750 18.4 Physical disability 2181 22.9 4184 43.9 979 10.3 178 1.9 2001 21.0 228 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B67 (cont.) Strongly agree n % Agree Disagree n % n % Strongly disagree n % n Don’t know % Political views 2024 21.2 4314 45.3 1339 14.1 320 3.4 1530 16.1 Race 2442 25.6 4519 47.4 1123 11.8 293 3.1 1152 12.1 Religious/spiritual views 2182 22.9 4450 46.7 1167 12.3 238 2.5 1482 15.6 Sexual orientation 2446 25.7 4480 47.0 880 9.2 193 2.0 1532 16.1 Socioeconomic status 2195 23.1 4328 45.5 1245 13.1 357 3.8 1392 14.6 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty or students in Question 1 (n = 9741). 229 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B68 Post-docs/Students/Trainees Only: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements: (Question 78) Strongly agree n % Agree Disagree n % n % Strongly disagree n % Don’t know n % I feel valued by faculty in the classroom/learning environment 1767 20.3 4854 55.8 1317 15.1 272 3.1 491 5.6 I feel valued by other students in the classroom 1580 18.2 4811 55.4 1454 16.8 223 2.6 612 7.1 I think UCLA faculty are genuinely concerned with my welfare 1686 19.4 4583 52.7 1491 17.2 357 4.1 572 6.6 I think UCLA staff are genuinely concerned with my welfare 1619 18.6 4625 53.2 1428 16.4 326 3.8 689 7.9 I think administrators are genuinely concerned about my welfare. 1326 15.3 3920 45.4 1829 21.2 616 7.1 950 11.0 I think faculty pre-judge my abilities based on perceived identity/background 858 9.9 2457 28.5 3125 36.2 1040 12.0 1156 13.4 I believe the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics 1966 22.6 4663 53.6 1232 14.2 330 3.8 503 5.8 I have faculty who I perceive as role models 2343 26.9 4103 47.2 1357 15.6 205 2.4 691 7.9 I have staff who I perceive as role models 1396 16.1 3304 38.1 2228 25.7 317 3.7 1425 16.4 I have administrators who I perceive as role models 1014 11.7 2539 29.4 2656 30.7 600 6.9 1833 21.2 I don’t see enough faculty/staff with whom I identify 1150 13.3 2997 34.7 2983 34.5 645 7.5 868 10.0 I have opportunities for academic success that are similar to those of my classmates 2117 24.4 4996 57.7 848 9.8 232 2.7 468 5.4 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were post-docs/students/trainees in Question 1 (n = 8768). 230 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B69 Undergraduate Students Only: I perceive tension in the residence halls with regard to a person’s: (Question 80) Characteristic Strongly agree n % n Agree % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Don’t know n % Age 147 2.8 597 11.4 2119 40.6 967 18.5 1392 26.7 Ancestry 105 2.0 468 9.0 2237 42.9 990 19.0 1415 27.1 Country of origin 147 2.8 789 15.1 2042 39.2 903 17.3 1327 25.5 Education level 128 2.5 582 11.2 2205 42.4 930 17.9 1353 26.0 English language proficiency/ accent 244 4.7 1116 21.4 1809 34.7 728 14.0 1314 25.2 Ethnicity 201 3.9 859 16.5 1989 38.2 853 16.4 1299 25.0 Gender identity 169 3.2 692 13.3 2042 39.2 836 16.1 1467 28.2 Gender expression 177 3.4 718 13.8 1994 38.4 841 16.2 1466 28.2 Immigrant/citizen status 143 2.8 576 11.1 2125 40.9 888 17.1 1465 28.2 International Status 169 3.3 722 13.9 2036 13.9 888 17.1 1376 26.5 Learning disability 118 2.3 425 8.2 2109 40.6 870 16.8 1667 32.1 Marital status 98 1.9 311 6.0 1999 38.5 881 17.0 1897 36.6 Medical conditions 96 1.9 333 6.4 2084 40.3 893 17.3 1759 34.1 Military/veteran status 76 1.5 194 3.7 2069 39.9 1002 19.3 1849 35.6 Parental status (e.g., having children) 98 1.9 359 6.9 1870 36.1 809 15.6 2046 39.5 Participation in an campus club/organization 123 2.4 450 8.7 2070 39.9 1130 21.8 1413 27.2 Participation on an athletic team 157 3.0 513 9.9 2006 38.7 1091 21.0 1422 27.4 Philosophical views 104 2.0 542 10.5 2131 41.1 920 17.7 1487 28.7 231 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B69 (cont.) Strongly agree n % n Agree % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Don’t know n % Psychological condition 122 2.4 534 10.3 1993 38.4 832 16.0 1706 32.9 Physical characteristics 163 3.1 697 13.5 1987 38.4 865 16.7 1466 28.3 Physical disability 103 2.0 423 8.2 2115 40.9 924 17.8 1612 31.1 Political views 147 2.8 765 14.7 2014 38.8 832 16.0 1433 27.6 Race 190 3.7 763 14.7 1997 38.5 918 17.7 1320 25.4 Religious/spiritual views 156 3.0 724 14.0 2049 39.5 865 16.7 1392 26.8 Sexual orientation 181 3.5 685 13.2 2001 38.6 867 16.7 1447 27.9 Socioeconomic status 180 3.5 646 12.5 2026 39.2 907 17.5 1414 27.3 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were faculty or students in Question 1 (n = 5382). 232 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B70 Post-docs/Trainees/Faculty/Staff Only: My workplace climate is welcoming based on a person’s: (Question 81) Characteristic Strongly agree n % n Agree % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Don’t know n % Age 1741 22.6 3806 49.5 1135 14.8 259 3.4 747 9.7 Ancestry 1837 24.0 3622 47.4 854 11.2 209 2.7 1118 14.6 Country of origin 1873 24.6 3724 48.8 874 11.5 207 2.7 947 12.4 Educational level 1826 23.9 3939 51.5 1031 13.5 250 3.3 601 7.9 English language proficiency/ accent 1697 22.3 3990 52.4 997 13.1 199 2.6 731 9.6 Ethnicity 1865 24.5 3817 50.1 930 12.2 238 3.1 771 10.1 Gender identity 1710 22.5 3457 45.4 930 12.2 230 3.0 1281 16.8 Gender expression 1665 21.9 3330 43.9 958 12.6 220 2.9 1418 18.7 Immigrant/citizen status 1694 22.3 3506 46.2 939 12.4 206 2.7 1243 16.4 International Status 1772 23.4 3512 46.3 873 11.5 188 2.5 1238 16.3 Learning disability 1373 18.2 2996 39.7 1028 13.6 204 2.7 1942 25.7 Marital status 1930 25.5 3603 47.5 874 11.5 230 3.0 945 12.5 Medical conditions 1566 20.8 3360 44.6 987 13.1 247 3.3 1372 18.2 Military/veteran status 1609 21.1 2881 38.0 701 9.3 170 2.2 2212 29.2 Parental status (e.g., having children) 1848 24.3 3492 46.0 971 12.8 234 3.1 1050 13.8 Participation in a campus club/organization 1553 20.6 3029 40.2 767 10.2 182 2.4 2009 26.6 Participation on an athletic team 1458 19.4 2687 35.7 736 9.8 178 2.4 2465 32.8 Philosophical views 1497 19.8 3329 44.1 967 12.8 210 2.8 1553 20.6 233 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B70 (cont.) Strongly agree n % n Agree % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Don’t know n % Psychological condition 1345 17.9 3033 40.3 954 12.7 185 2.5 2001 26.6 Physical characteristics 1597 21.2 3436 45.6 921 12.2 195 2.6 1378 18.3 Physical disability 1528 20.3 3246 43.1 920 12.2 202 2.7 1634 21.7 Political views 1470 19.4 3327 44.0 1106 14.6 284 3.8 1374 18.2 Race 1797 23.8 3577 47.3 970 12.8 277 3.7 939 3.7 Religious/spiritual views 1580 21.0 3340 44.3 1015 13.5 256 3.4 1343 17.8 Sexual orientation 1743 23.2 3354 44.7 885 11.8 225 3.0 1304 17.4 Socioeconomic status 1608 21.4 3411 45.5 1044 13.9 268 3.6 1168 15.6 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were postdocs, trainees, faculty or staff in Question 1 (n = 7881). 234 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B71 How would you rate the accessibility of UCLA? (Question 82) Fully accessible Accessible with accommodations Not accessible Don’t know n % n % n % n % Athletic Facilities 5520 35.2 4619 29.4 477 3.0 5071 32.3 Classroom Buildings 6763 43.1 5058 32.3 323 2.1 3531 22.5 Classrooms, labs 5954 38.1 4993 32.0 378 2.4 4286 27.5 University housing 4602 29.5 3831 24.6 560 3.6 6588 42.3 Computer labs 5571 35.8 4050 26.0 323 2.1 5620 36.1 Dining facilities 7168 46.0 4183 26.8 301 1.9 3929 25.2 Elevators 8551 54.9 4245 27.2 438 2.8 2346 15.1 Health and Wellness Center 6529 42.0 3435 22.1 234 1.5 5337 34.4 Library 7688 49.5 3813 24.5 238 1.5 3801 24.5 Off-campus UCLA buildings 3858 24.9 3344 21.6 541 3.5 7762 50.1 Off campus student housing 3374 21.8 3041 19.7 615 4.0 8432 54.5 On-campus transportation/parking 4963 32.0 4416 28.5 970 6.3 5143 33.2 Other campus buildings 4704 30.5 3807 24.7 286 1.9 6632 43.0 Recreational facilities 5738 37.1 4182 27.0 348 2.2 5205 33.6 Restrooms 8445 54.3 4499 28.9 386 2.5 2216 14.3 Studios/ Performing Arts spaces 3720 24.2 2834 18.4 512 3.3 8328 54.1 Walkways and pedestrian paths 8095 52.2 4504 29.1 408 2.6 2490 16.1 Braille signage 2909 18.8 2046 13.3 447 2.9 10038 65.0 Hearing loops 2285 14.9 1595 10.4 400 2.6 11068 72.1 Information in alternate formats 3299 21.6 3519 23.0 798 5.2 7661 50.1 Instructors 4018 26.3 4492 29.4 569 3.7 6181 40.5 7700 51.7 3671 24.6 368 2.5 3169 21.3 Accessibility Course Instruction/Materials UCLA Campus Website Website 235 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B72 How would you rate the climate at UCLA for people who are/have: (Question 84) Very Respectful Group Respectful Disrespectful n % Very Disrespectful n % Don’t Know n % n % n % Psychological health issues 2913 18.8 7312 47.3 810 5.2 123 0.8 4301 27.8 Physical health issues 3655 23.7 8213 53.2 513 3.3 81 0.5 2971 19.3 Female 4472 28.9 8929 57.7 799 5.2 114 0.7 1173 7.6 From religious affiliations other than Christian 3595 23.3 8498 55.0 709 4.6 114 0.7 2522 16.3 From Christian affiliations 3864 25.1 8388 54.4 617 4.0 100 0.6 2453 15.9 Gay, lesbian, bisexual 3812 24.7 8531 55.3 675 4.4 98 0.6 2318 15.0 Immigrants 3475 22.5 8408 54.6 1068 7.1 145 0.9 2297 14.9 International students, staff, or faculty 3881 25.2 8449 54.8 903 5.9 126 0.8 2056 13.3 Learning disability 3143 20.5 7373 48.0 677 4.4 87 0.6 4066 26.5 Male 5657 36.6 8125 52.6 221 1.4 50 0.3 1400 9.1 Non-native English speakers 3121 20.3 8400 54.5 1629 10.6 227 1.5 2027 13.2 Parents/guardians 3602 23.4 7900 51.4 447 2.9 73 0.5 3348 21.8 People of color 3928 25.4 8574 55.5 1018 6.6 269 1.7 1661 10.8 Providing care for adults who are disabled and/or elderly 3308 21.5 6935 45.2 347 2.3 88 0.6 4674 30.4 Physical disability 3596 23.4 7959 51.9 508 3.3 87 0.6 3193 20.8 Socioeconomically disadvantaged 3244 21.1 7608 49.4 1412 9.2 322 2.1 2807 18.2 Socioeconomically advantaged 4783 31.1 7531 49.0 352 2.3 87 0.6 2614 17.0 Transgender 2866 18.7 6332 41.4 766 5.0 239 1.6 5100 33.3 Other 773 13.4 1801 31.3 103 1.8 68 1.2 3014 52.3 236 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B73 How would you rate the climate at UCLA for persons from the following racial/ethnic backgrounds? (Question 85) Very Respectful Background Respectful Disrespectful % Very disrespectful n % n % n % n African American/African/Black 3895 24.8 8521 54.1 1196 7.6 354 American Indian/Alaskan Native 3677 23.5 7694 49.1 591 3.8 Asian/ Asian American 4626 29.5 8487 54.0 1023 Hispanic/Latino 3891 24.8 8752 55.8 Middle Eastern/South Asian/ North African 3795 24.2 8530 Pacific Islander 3846 24.6 White 6829 43.6 Don’t know n % 2.2 1770 11.2 200 1.3 3498 22.3 6.5 206 1.3 1363 8.7 1195 7.6 240 1.5 1601 10.2 54.4 979 6.2 228 1.5 2140 13.7 8342 53.4 564 3.6 131 0.8 2753 17.6 7627 48.7 264 1.7 75 1.5 862 5.5 237 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B74 Students Only: Before I enrolled, I expected the climate at UCLA would be ______________ for people who are: (Question 86) Very Respectful Group Respectful Disrespectful n % Very disrespectful n % n Don’t know % n % n % Psychological health issues 2688 34.6 3834 49.3 150 1.9 12 0.2 1088 14.0 Physical health issues 2821 36.4 3850 49.6 91 1.2 11 0.1 983 12.7 Female 3154 40.6 3923 50.5 87 1.1 15 0.2 585 7.5 From religious affiliations other than Christian 2808 36.2 3966 51.1 171 2.2 23 0.3 791 10.2 From Christian affiliations 2876 37.1 3874 50.0 202 2.6 32 0.4 766 9.9 Gay, lesbian, bisexual 2860 36.9 3922 50.6 217 2.8 28 0.4 726 9.4 Immigrants 2721 35.1 3975 51.3 262 3.4 43 0.6 751 9.7 International students, staff, or faculty 2859 36.9 3987 51.4 173 2.2 21 0.3 713 9.2 Learning disability 2730 35.3 3866 49.9 190 2.5 17 0.2 939 12.1 Male 3350 43.2 3722 48.1 39 0.5 17 0.2 618 8.0 Non-native English speakers 2664 34.4 3976 51.4 331 4.3 39 0.5 726 9.4 Parents/guardians 2824 36.5 3867 50.0 91 1.2 11 0.1 942 12.2 People of color 2905 37.5 3986 51.4 176 2.3 40 0.5 649 8.4 Providing care for other than a child 2684 34.7 3746 48.4 79 1.0 13 0.2 1210 15.6 Physical disability 2842 36.8 3858 49.9 117 1.5 19 0.2 894 11.6 Socioeconomically disadvantaged 2750 35.5 3866 49.9 299 3.9 52 0.7 783 10.1 Socioeconomically advantaged 3081 39.8 3765 48.6 109 1.4 21 0.3 768 9.9 238 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Very Respectful Table B74 (cont.) Respectful Disrespectful n % Very disrespectful n % n Don’t know % n % n % Transgender 2588 33.5 3677 47.6 302 3.9 50 0.6 1106 14.3 Veterans/active military 3131 40.6 3553 46.1 69 0.9 18 0.2 944 12.2 Other 758 23.8 1296 40.6 14 0.4 9 0.3 1113 34.9 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were students in Question 1 (n = 8361). 239 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B75 Students/Trainees Only: To what extent do you agree that the courses you have taken at UCLA include sufficient materials, perspectives, and/or experiences of people based on their: (Question 87) Characteristic Strongly agree n % n Agree % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Don’t know n % Age 1555 20.3 3525 46.0 810 10.6 160 2.1 1612 21.0 Ancestry 1533 20.1 3489 45.7 805 10.5 154 2.0 1657 21.7 Country of origin 1559 20.4 3583 47.0 849 11.1 162 2.1 1471 19.3 Educational level 1620 21.3 3733 49.0 793 10.4 149 2.0 1322 17.4 English language proficiency/ accent 1449 19.1 3549 46.7 1000 13.1 198 2.6 1409 18.5 Ethnicity 1615 21.2 3717 48.9 752 9.9 186 2.4 1334 17.5 Gender identity 1532 20.1 3274 43.1 899 11.8 240 3.2 1660 21.8 Gender expression 1507 19.8 3201 42.1 927 12.2 253 3.3 1713 22.5 Immigrant/citizen status 1465 19.3 3395 44.7 887 11.7 210 2.8 1637 21.6 International Status 1490 19.6 3438 45.3 836 11.0 181 2.4 1643 21.7 Learning disability 1287 17.0 2977 39.3 991 13.1 215 2.8 2101 27.8 Level of Education 1527 20.2 3588 47.3 772 10.2 168 2.2 1523 20.1 Marital status 1371 18.2 3082 41.0 744 9.9 160 2.1 2164 28.8 Medical conditions 1393 18.5 3052 40.5 771 10.2 134 1.8 2193 29.1 Military/veteran status 1403 18.6 2901 38.5 796 10.6 137 1.8 2304 30.6 Parental status (e.g., having children) 1315 17.5 2958 39.3 782 10.4 150 2.0 2330 30.9 Philosophical Views 1563 20.7 3518 46.6 647 8.6 148 2.0 1668 22.1 Psychological condition 1375 18.2 3146 41.7 755 10.0 149 2.0 2116 28.1 Physical characteristics 1434 19.0 3287 43.6 705 9.4 144 1.9 1970 26.1 240 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B75 cont. Strongly agree n % n Agree % Disagree n % Strongly disagree n % Don’t know n % Physical disability 1382 18.4 3120 41.5 818 10.9 142 1.9 2057 27.4 Political views 1487 19.7 3474 46.0 746 9.9 201 2.7 1641 21.7 Position (faculty, staff) 1535 20.4 3433 45.7 586 7.8 113 1.5 1851 24.6 Race 1652 21.9 3536 46.9 663 8.8 204 2.7 1489 19.7 Religious/spiritual views 1453 19.3 3462 45.9 771 10.2 192 2.5 1665 22.1 Sexual orientation 1512 20.1 3273 43.4 807 10.7 200 2.7 1749 23.2 Socioeconomic status 1452 19.3 3365 44.8 794 10.6 227 3.0 1670 22.2 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were students/trainees in Question 1 (n = 8458). 241 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B76 Post-docs/Trainees/Faculty/Staff Only: How would each of the following affect the climate at UCLA? If you mark “Not currently available at UCLA”, please indicate how you feel it would influence climate if it was available (Question 88) Not currently available n % Positively influence campus climate n % No influence on campus climate n % Negatively influence campus climate n % Don’t know n % Providing flexibility for promotion for faculty 196 2.7 2634 36.0 317 4.3 176 2.4 3986 54.5 Providing flexibility for computing the probationary period for tenure (e.g., family leave) 116 1.6 2777 38.2 388 5.3 124 1.7 3868 53.2 Providing recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum 210 2.9 2913 40.2 489 6.8 193 2.7 3433 47.4 Providing diversity training for staff 300 4.1 4156 57.2 739 10.2 153 2.1 1921 26.4 Providing diversity training for faculty 225 3.1 3478 47.9 625 8.6 135 1.9 2793 38.5 Providing diversity training for students 204 2.8 3394 47.0 509 7.0 105 1.5 3010 41.7 Providing access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment 174 2.4 4443 61.3 306 4.2 74 1.0 2246 31.0 Providing mentorship for new faculty 205 2.8 3561 49.3 255 3.5 69 1.0 3133 43.4 Providing mentorship for new staff 492 6.8 4149 57.4 403 5.6 100 1.4 2083 28.8 Providing a clear and fair process to resolve conflicts 311 4.3 4501 62.6 325 4.5 159 2.2 1895 26.4 Increasing funding to support efforts to change campus climate 346 4.8 3132 43.5 648 9.0 173 2.4 2896 40.3 Including diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty 257 3.6 2931 40.8 738 10.3 508 7.1 2748 38.3 Providing diversity and equity training to search and tenure committees 170 2.4 3274 45.8 578 8.1 215 3.0 2918 40.8 Increasing the diversity of the faculty 157 2.2 3873 54.0 578 8.1 153 2.1 2407 33.6 242 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B76 cont. Not currently available Positively influence campus climate No influence on campus climate Negatively influence campus climate Don’t know n % n % n % n % n % Increasing the diversity of the staff 143 2.0 4141 57.5 778 10.8 155 2.2 1979 27.5 Increasing the diversity of the administration 181 2.5 4078 56.8 673 9.4 161 2.2 2081 29.0 Increasing the diversity of the student body 146 2.0 3855 54.0 640 9.0 157 2.2 2344 32.8 Providing back-up family care 374 5.2 3640 50.7 411 5.7 91 1.3 2660 37.1 Providing lactation accommodations 311 4.4 3329 46.7 457 6.4 74 1.0 2958 41.5 Providing career development opportunities for staff 273 3.8 4979 69.6 310 4.3 102 1.4 1492 20.8 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were post-docs, trainees, faculty or staff in Question 1 (n =7881). 243 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Table B77 Students Only: How would each of the following affect the climate for diversity at UCLA? (Question 90) Not currently available on campus n % Positively influences climate n % Has no influence on climate n % Negatively influence campus climate n % Don’t know n % Providing diversity training for students 1000 12.0 3383 48.4 817 11.7 143 2.0 2651 37.9 Providing diversity training for staff 496 5.9 3408 46.3 596 8.1 93 1.3 3268 44.4 Providing diversity training for faculty 486 5.8 3403 46.6 588 8.0 98 1.3 3221 44.1 Providing a person to address student complaints of classroom inequity 749 9.0 3954 55.5 630 8.9 107 1.5 2427 34.1 Increasing diversity of the faculty and staff 343 4.1 4659 62.5 948 12.7 205 2.8 1639 22.0 Increasing the diversity of the student body 325 3.9 4882 65.4 923 12.4 287 3.8 1378 18.4 Increasing opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue among students 462 5.5 5257 71.2 620 8.4 74 1.0 1437 19.5 Increasing opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue between faculty, staff and students 527 6.3 5053 68.9 608 8.3 82 1.1 1590 21.7 Incorporating issues of diversity and cross-cultural competence more effectively into the curriculum 515 6.2 4763 64.8 740 10.1 208 2.8 1635 22.3 Providing effective faculty mentorship of students 589 7.0 5315 73.1 442 6.1 46 0.6 1463 20.1 Note: Table includes only those respondents who indicated they were students in Question 1 (n = 8361) 244 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 This survey is accessible in alternative formats. For more information regarding accessibility assistance please contact: Faculty Disability contact: Disability Access Web http://www.accessweb.ucla.edu/ Student Disability contact: Office for Students with Disabilities (OSD) 310-825-1501 http://www.osd.ucla.edu/ Health Sciences Disability contact: Mark Briskie, Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor Health System Human Resources 310-794-0525 mbriskie@mednet.ucla.edu UC Campus Climate Survey Climate Assessment for Learning, Living, and Working (Administered by Rankin & Associates, Consulting) Purpose You are invited to participate in a survey of students, faculty, staff and administrators regarding the climate at UCLA. Climate refers to the current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees and students concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential. The results of the survey will provide important information about our climate and will enable us to improve the environment for learning, living, and working at UCLA. Procedures You will be asked to complete the attached survey. Your participation is confidential. Please answer the questions as openly and honestly as possible. You may skip questions. The survey will take between 20 and 30 minutes to complete. You must be 18 years of age or older to participate. When you have completed the survey, please return it directly to the external consultants (Rankin and Associates) using the enclosed envelope. Any comments provided by participants are also separated at submission so that comments are not attributed to any demographic characteristics. These comments will be analyzed using content analysis and submitted as an appendix to the survey report. Anonymous quotes from submitted comments will also be used throughout the report to give “voice” to the quantitative data. If you wish to be entered into the incentive prize drawing, please complete the information requested on the Thank you Page on the last page of the survey. Discomforts and Risks There are no anticipated risks in participating in this assessment beyond those experienced in everyday life. Some of the questions are personal and might cause discomfort. In the event that any questions asked are disturbing, you may skip any questions or stop responding to the survey at any time. Participants who experience discomfort are encouraged to contact: For Staff: UCLA Staff and Faculty Counseling Center (310) 794-0245 http://ucla.in/hraF7v UCLA LGBT Campus Resource Center (310) 206-3628 www.lgbt.ucla.edu 245 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Benefits The results of the survey will provide important information about our climate and will help us in our efforts to ensure that the environment at UCLA is conducive to learning, living, and working. Voluntary Participation Participation in this assessment is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you do not have to answer any questions on the survey that you do not wish to answer. Individuals will not be identified and only group data will be reported (e.g., the analysis will include only aggregate data). Please note that you can choose to withdraw your responses at any time before you submit your answers. Refusal to take part in this assessment will involve no penalty or loss of student or employee benefits. Statement of Confidentiality for Participation In the event of any publication or presentation resulting from the assessment, no personally identifiable information will be shared. The external consultant (Rankin & Associates) will not report any group data for groups of fewer than five individuals that may be small enough to compromise confidentiality. Instead, Rankin & Associates will combine the groups to eliminate any potential for demographic information to be identifiable. Please also remember that you do not have to answer any question or questions about which you are uncomfortable. Statement of Anonymity for Comments Upon submission, all comments from participants will be de-identified to make those comments anonymous. Thus, participant comments will not be attributable to their author nor to any demographic characteristics. However, depending on what you say, others who know you may be able to attribute certain comments to you. The anonymous comments will be analyzed using content analysis and submitted as an appendix to the survey report. In order to give “voice” to the quantitative data, some anonymous comments may be quoted in publications related to this survey. Privacy and Data Usage The consultant will provide UCOP with a data file at the completion of the project. UCOP and campuses require raw data to conduct additional analysis for administrative purposes since the consultant will provide only a high-level summary of trends and frequent themes in reports. UCOP Institutional Research will house the data indefinitely in an integrated data enterprise system called the Decision Support System (DSS). A data security and privacy protection plan is currently being developed for the DSS, but one purpose of the integrated system is to establish a very high standard of IT security and data protection and consistency in handling data. At UCOP, the Institutional Research and the Climate Study Project Coordinator in the Immediate Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President-Academic Affairs will have access to Campus-level data via a data application tool. In addition, each Chancellor will designate and appoint a campus data coordinator, who will manage campus use of data for administrative purposes, and will maintain data use restrictions, including measures to protect confidentiality, de-identification of data, and minimum cell size as stated in the original scope of the project. The data coordinators are held to the same use restrictions, including measures to protect confidentiality, de-identification of data, and minimum cell size as stated in the original scope of the project. Data may also be used for research purposes, but will be subject to Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Researchers that want to use data will submit an application to UCOP outlining the scope of the research project, and must receive IRB approval. Future research projects involving use of identifiable data from the climate assessment will be eligible for expedited IRB review under category 5. Data may be subject to California Public Records Act requests. Raw data in its entirety could be withheld from a PRA request due to FERPA and other privacy laws that prevent the release of personally identifiable information. Due to the large number of demographic questions, each survey response will be treated as potentially individually identifiable, even though no specific identifiers will be collected. However, raw data for specific indicators would likely be subject to disclosure upon request; but still any information that could be used to directly identify an individual would be redacted from the records to protect the privacy of individual survey respondents. Data will also be used for longitudinal studies. UCOP plans to re-administer the survey in 4-5 years, and progress and trends will be analyzed based on all available data. 246 Right to Ask Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Questions You can ask questions about this assessment. Questions concerning this project should be directed to: Susan R. Rankin, Ph.D. Principal & Senior Research Associate Rankin and Associates, Consulting sue@rankin-consulting.com 814-625-2780 Questions regarding the survey process may also be directed to: To provide feedback visit: http://campusclimate.ucop.edu/feedback/index.html UC System Institutional Review Board Project Evaluation The UC Institutional Review Board directors have reviewed the Scope of Work for the UC Climate Assessment Initiative and consider the activity to be designed to assess campus/office climate within the University of California and to inform UCOP strategic quality improvement initiatives. The IRB directors acknowledge that the data collected from this quality improvement activity may also be used for research, subject to IRB approval. Since data collected for the UC Climate Initiative are collected for non-research purposes, future research projects involving use of identifiable data from the UC Climate Assessment initiative will be eligible for expedited IRB review under category 5. LBNL Chris Byrne Lead Compliance Officer UCB Rebecca Armstrong Director, Office for the Protection of Human Subjects UCD Elodia Tarango Interim IRB Director, IRB Administration UCI Karen Allen Director, Human Research Protections UCLA Sharon Friend Director of Human Research Protection Program UCM Deborah Motton Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research, Director of Research Compliance UCR Bill Schmechel Director, Research Integrity UCSD Mike Caligiuri Director of Clinical Research Protections Program (CRESP) UCSF John Heldens Director, Human Research Protection Program UCSB Bruce Hanley Director, Research Compliance UCSC Caitlin Deck Director, Research Compliance Administration UCOP & ANR Jeff Hall Director, Research Policy Development If you agree to take part in this assessment, as described in detail in the preceding paragraphs, please complete the survey and return it directly to the external consultants (Rankin and Associates) using the enclosed envelope. By submitting the survey you indicate your consent to participate in this study. It is recommended that you keep this statement for your records. Survey Terms and Definitions Accessibility: Refers to a site, facility, work environment, service, or program that is easy to approach, enter, operate, participate in, and/or use safely and with dignity by a person with a disability. American Indian (Native American): A person having origin in any of the original tribes of North America who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition. Ancestry: The country, nation, tribe or other identifiable group of people from which a person descends. It can also refer to the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of the person's ancestors. Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction. Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of an individual. Assigned Birth Sex: Refers to the assigning (naming) of the biological sex of a baby at birth. Bullying: Unwanted offensive and malicious behavior which undermines, patronizes, intimidates or demeans the recipient or target. Classist: A bias based on social or economic class. Climate: Current attitudes, behaviors, and standards of employees and students concerning the access for, inclusion of, and level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential. 247 Disability: A physical or mental impairment that limits one or more Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 major life ofactivities. Discrimination: Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person based on the group, class, or category to which that person belongs rather than on individual merit. Discrimination can be the effect of some law or established practice that confers privileges based on of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender, gender expression, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), genetic information (including family medical history), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services. Diversity: The variety of personal experiences, values and worldviews that arise from differences of culture and circumstance. Such differences include race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, language, abilities/disabilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, socioeconomic status, and geographic region, and more. Eldercare: A person who has primary responsibility in caring for an older partner or family member. Ethnicity: A unique social and cultural heritage shared by a group of people. Experiential Learning: Experiential learning refers to a pedagogical philosophy and methodology concerned with learning activities outside of the traditional classroom environment, with objectives which are planned and articulated prior to the experience (internships, service learning, co-operative education, field experience, practicum, cross-cultural experiences, apprenticeships, etc.). Family Leave: The Family Medical Leave Act is a labor law requiring employers with 50 or more employees to provide certain employees with job-protected unpaid leave due to one of the following situations: a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform his or her job; caring for a sick family member; caring for a new child (including birth, adoption or foster care). Gender Identity: A person’s inner sense of being man, woman, both, or neither. The internal identity may or may not be expressed outwardly, and may or may not correspond to one’s physical characteristics. Gender Expression: The manner in which a person outwardly represents gender, regardless of the physical characteristics that might typically define the individual as male or female. Harassment: Harassment is unwelcomed behavior that demeans, threatens or offends another person or group of people and results in a hostile environment for the targeted person/group. Homophobia: The irrational hatred and fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Homophobia includes prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence brought on by fear and hatred. Intersex: A general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male. Management and Senior Professional: One of three personnel programs at UC. MSP personnel program includes managers and directors as well as senior professionals such as staff physicians, nurse managers, high-level computer programmers, and high-level analysts. Multiculturalism: An environment in which cultures are celebrated and not hindered by majority values and beliefs. Non-Native English Speakers: People for whom English is not their first language. People of Color: People who self-identify as other than White. Physical Characteristics: Term that refers to one’s appearance. Position: The status one holds by virtue of her/his position/status within the institution (e.g., staff, full-time faculty, part-time faculty, administrator, etc.) Professional & Support Staff: One of three personnel programs at UC. PSS is the largest personnel program and encompasses policy-covered staff subject to the Personnel Policies for Staff Members as well as staff covered by collective bargaining agreements. Titles in the PSS program include nurses, clerical/administrative staff, research assistants, analysts, computer programmers, custodians, and many others. 248 Racial Identity: A socially constructed category about a group of color, hair type, shape of eyes, physique, etc. Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –Marchsuch 2014 as people based on generalized physical features skin Sexual Orientation: Term that refers to the sex of the people one tends to be emotionally, physically and sexually attracted to; this is inclusive of, but not limited to, lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, heterosexual people, and those who identify as queer. Socioeconomic Status: The status one holds in society based on one’s level of income, wealth, education, and familial background. Social Support: The resources other people provide, including a person's perception that he or she can rely on other people for help with problems or in times of crisis. Having feelings of connectedness and being a part of a community. Transgender: An umbrella term referring to those whose gender identity or gender expression [previously defined] is different from that traditionally associated with their sex assigned at birth [previously defined]. Transphobia: A irrational fear of transgender people [previously defined]. Transphobia includes prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence brought on by fear and hatred. Unwanted Physical Sexual Contact: Unwanted physical sexual contact includes forcible fondling, sexual assault, forcible rape, use of drugs to incapacitate, forcible sodomy, gang rape, and sexual assault with an object. Please do not complete this survey more than once. 249 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Directions Please read and answer each question carefully. For each answer, fill in the appropriate oval. If you want to change an answer, erase it and fill in the oval of your new answer. You may decline to answer specific questions. You must answer at least 50% of the questions for your responses to be included in the final analyses. 1. What is your primary position at UCLA? (Please mark only one)  Undergraduate student  Graduate/Professional student  Non-degree  Master’s degree student  Doctoral degree student (Ph.D.)  Professional degree student (MD, DDS, PharmD, DPT)  Postdoctoral Scholar (e.g., Employee, Fellow, and/or Paid Direct)  Health Sciences Campus Trainees (Residents/Fellows/Housestaff/Interns - including Post MD and Post-MD II-IV and Chief Post MD-Officer)  Staff – non-Union  Senior Management Group (SMG)  Management & Senior Professionals (MSP) - Supervisor  Management & Senior Professionals (MSP) – Non-Supervisor  Professional & Support Staff (PSS) – Non-Union & Supervisor  Professional & Support Staff (PSS) – Non-Union & Non-Supervisor  Staff – Union  Professional & Support Staff (PSS) – Union Represented & Supervisor  Professional & Support Staff (PSS) – Union Represented & Non-Supervisor  Faculty  Faculty Administrator (e.g. Vice Provost, Dean, Department Chair, Director  General Campus Faculty  Health Sciences Campus Faculty  Other Academic Series (e.g., Librarian, Continuing Educator, Reader, Research titles) 1general. What is you position as a General Campus Faculty?  Professor  Associate Professor  Assistant Professor  Other Faculty appointment (e.g., Instructor/Lecturer) 1health. What is you position as a Health Sciences Campus Faculty?  Professor  Associate Professor  Assistant Professor  Other Faculty appointment (e.g., Instructor/Lecturer) 2. What is your primary employment status with UCLA?  Career (including partial-year career) employee  Contract employee  Limited appointment employee/ term employment  Per Diem employee  Floater (temporary services) employee  Academic employee 3. What is your primary campus location with UCLA?  Health Sciences/Medical Center  General Campus 4. Are you full-time or part-time in that primary status?  Full-time  Part-time 250 Part 1: Personal Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Experiences Please reflect on your experiences WITHIN THE PAST YEAR… 5. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate at UCLA?  Very comfortable  Comfortable  Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable  Uncomfortable  Very uncomfortable 6. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your department/work unit/academic unit/college/school/clinical setting?  Very comfortable  Comfortable  Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable  Uncomfortable  Very uncomfortable 7. Overall, how comfortable are you with the climate in your classes?  Very comfortable  Comfortable  Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable  Uncomfortable  Very uncomfortable  Not applicable 8. In the past year, have you seriously considered leaving UCLA?  No  Yes 9. If you wish to elaborate on why you seriously considered leaving, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Not applicable I am performing up to my full academic potential. Many of my courses this year have been intellectually stimulating. I am satisfied with my academic experiences at UCLA. I am satisfied with the extent of my intellectual development since enrolling at UCLA. I have performed academically as well as I anticipated I would. My academic experience has had a positive influence on my intellectual growth and interest in ideas. My interest in ideas and intellectual matters has increased since coming to UCLA. I intend to graduate from UCLA. I am considering transferring to another college or university due to academic reasons. Strongly agree 10. The following questions ask you about your academic experience at UCLA.                                                       11. Within the past year, have you personally experienced any exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile (bullied, harassing) behavior at UCLA?  No [Go to Question 18]  Yes, but it did not interfere with my ability to work or learn  Yes, and it interfered with my ability to work or learn 12. What do you believe the conduct was based upon and how often have you experienced it? 251 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Academic Performance Age Ancestry Country of origin Discipline of study Educational level Educational modality (on-line, classroom) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status Learning disability Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Medical condition Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization/team (please specify): ______________________________________________________ Physical characteristics Physical disability Philosophical views Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Psychological condition Race Religious/spiritual views Sexual orientation Socioeconomic status Don’t know Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________ Very Often                   Often Sometimes Seldom                                                       Not Applicable                                                                                         13. How did you experience this conduct? (Mark all that apply)  I feared for my physical safety  I feared for my family’s safety  I feared getting a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment  I felt I was deliberately ignored or excluded  I felt intimidated/bullied  I felt isolated or left out  I observed others staring at me  I received derogatory written comments  I received derogatory phone calls  I received threats of physical violence  I received a low performance evaluation  I was singled out as the spokesperson for my identity group  I was the target of derogatory verbal remarks  I was the target of graffiti/vandalism  I was the target of physical violence  I was the target of racial/ethnic profiling  I was the target of stalking  I was the victim of a crime  I was the victim of derogatory/unsolicited e-mails, text messages, Facebook posts, Twitter posts  Someone assumed I was admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity  Someone assumed I was not admitted/hired/promoted due to my identity  Other (please specify) __________________________________________________________________________ 252 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 14. Where did this conduct occur? (Mark all that apply)  At a UCLA event  In a class/lab/clinical setting  In a health care setting  In an on-line class  In a UCLA dining facility  In a UCLA office  In a faculty office  In a public space at UCLA  In a meeting with one other person  In a meeting with a group of people  In athletic facilities  In campus housing  In off-campus housing  Off campus  On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/cell phone/other form of technological communication  On campus transportation  While working at a UCLA job  While walking on campus  Other (please specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 15. Who/what was the source of this conduct? (Mark all that apply)  Administrator  Alumni  Athletic coach/trainer  Campus media (posters, brochures, flyers, handouts, web sites, etc.)  UCLA visitor(s)  Campus organizations or groups  Campus police/building security  Co-worker  Off campus community member  Department head  Donor  Don’t know source  Faculty advisor  Faculty member  Friend  Medical Staff  Partner/spouse  Patient  Person that I supervise  Registered Campus Organization  Social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)  Staff member  Stranger  Student  Student staff (e.g., Residence hall assistant, peer counselor)  Supervisor  Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor  UCLA Physician  Union representative  Other (please specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 16. Please describe your reactions to experiencing this conduct. (Mark all that apply)  I felt embarrassed  I felt somehow responsible  I ignored it  I was afraid  I was angry  It didn’t affect me at the time  I left the situation immediately  I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services  I sought support from campus resource 253 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014                      Ashe Student Health and Wellness Center  Bruin Resource Center  Center for Student Programming  Community Programs Office  Counseling and Psychological Services  LGBT Resource Center  Dean of Students Office  Office of Residential Life  Office of Students with Disabilities  Student Legal Services  Graduate Student Resource Center (GSRC)  Graduate Division  Graduate Departmental staff (e.g., Student Affairs Officers)  http://www.reportincidents.ucla.edu/  Office of Postdoctoral & Visiting Scholars Services (OPVSS)  Faculty and Staff Counseling Center  Employee Relations/Labor Relations  School of Medicine – Gender and Power Abuse Committee  Mental Health Services for Physicians In Training  Office of Ombuds Services  Consultation and Response Team  Center for Women and Men  Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars I confronted the harasser at the time I confronted the harasser later I avoided the harasser I told a friend I told a family member I told my union representative I contacted a local law enforcement official I sought support from a staff person I sought support from a TA/grad assistant I sought support from an administrator I sought support from a faculty member I sought support from a spiritual advisor (e.g., pastor, rabbi, priest) I sought support from student staff (e.g., residence hall assistant, peer counselor) I sought information on-line I didn’t know who to go to I reported it to a UCLA employee/official I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously I did report it but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously I did nothing Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 17. If you would like to elaborate on your personal experiences, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ If you have not already reported this incident and wish to do so, please go to www.reportincidents.ucla.edu. For Staff: UCLA Staff and Faculty Counseling Center (310) 794-0245 http://ucla.in/hraF7v UCLA LGBT Campus Resource Center (310) 206-3628 www.lgbt.ucla.edu 254 The following questions are related to unwanted physical Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 sexualUniversity contact. 18. Within the last 5 years, have you experienced unwanted physical sexual contact at UCLA?  Yes  No [Go to Question 20] 19. If you wish to share more information regarding the incident, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ If you have not already reported this incident and wish to do so, please go to www.reportincidents.ucla.edu. For Staff: UCLA Staff and Faculty Counseling Center (310) 794-0245 http://ucla.in/hraF7v UCLA LGBT Campus Resource Center (310) 206-3628 www.lgbt.ucla.edu Part 2: Work-Life 20. Please respond to the following statements. Strongly agree Agree Disagree                                         I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me for fear that it will affect my performance evaluation or tenure/merit/promotion decision. My colleagues/co-workers expect me to represent “the point of view” of my identity (e.g., ability, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation). I believe salary determinations are clear. I think that my campus demonstrates that it values a diverse faculty. I think that my campus demonstrates that it values a diverse staff. I am comfortable taking leave that I am entitled to without fear that it may affect my job/career. I have to work harder than I believe my colleagues/co-workers do to achieve the same recognition. There are many unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with colleagues in my work unit. Strongly Not disagree applicable 21. If you would like to elaborate on any of your responses to the previous statements, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not applicable I believe that the tenure/promotion process is clear. I believe that the tenure/promotion standards are reasonable. I feel that my service contributions are important to tenure/promotion I feel pressured to change my research agenda to achieve tenure/promotion. Strongly agree 22. As a faculty member …                     255 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 I believe that my colleagues include me in opportunities that will help my career as much as they do others in my position. I feel that I am burdened by university service responsibilities (e.g., committee memberships, departmental work assignments, teaching load) beyond those of my colleagues. I perform more work to help students (e.g., formal and informal advising, sitting for qualifying exams/dissertation committees, helping with student groups and activities, providing other support) than my colleagues. I feel that my diversity-related research/teaching/service contributions have been/will be valued for promotion or tenure. I have used university policies on stopping the clock for promotion or tenure. I have used university policies on taking leave for childbearing or adoption. I have used university policies on active service-modified duties. In my department, faculty members who use family accommodation policies are disadvantaged in promotion or tenure. I feel that my department creates a climate that is responsive and supportive of family needs, including usage of work-family policies. I believe that perceptions about using work-family policies differ for men and women faculty. I believe the tenure standards/promotion standards are applied equally to all faculty.                                                        23. If you would like to elaborate on any of your responses to the previous statements, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 24. Please respond to the following statements. I find that UCLA is supportive of taking leave. I find that UCLA is supportive of flexible work schedules. I feel that people who do not have children are burdened with work responsibilities (e.g., stay late, off-hour work, work week-ends) beyond those who do have children. I feel that people who have children are considered by UCLA less committed to their jobs/careers. I feel that UCLA provides available resources to help employees balance work-life needs, such as childcare and elder care. I am disadvantaged by a need to balance my dependent care responsibilities with my professional responsibilities. I have supervisors who give me job/career advice or guidance when I need it. I have colleagues/co-workers who give me job/career/education advice or guidance when I need it. My supervisor provides me with resources to pursue professional development opportunities. My supervisor provides ongoing feedback to help me improve my performance. I have adequate access to administrative support. For health sciences campus employees, my patient-care load is manageable. Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly Not disagree applicable                                                             25. If you would like to elaborate on any of your responses to the previous statements please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 256 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Part 3: Demographic Information Your responses are confidential and group data will not be reported for any group with fewer than 5 individuals that may be small enough to compromise confidentiality. Instead, the data will be aggregated to eliminate any potential for individual participants to be identified. You may also skip questions. 26. What is your assigned birth sex?  Male  Female  Intersex 27. What is your gender/gender identity? (Mark all that apply)  Man  Woman  Transgender  Genderqueer  Other (if you wish, please specify) ___________________________________ 28. What is your racial/ethnic identity? (If you are of a multi-racial/multi-ethnic/multi-cultural identity, mark all that apply)  African American / African/ Black  African American  African  Black Caribbean  Other African/African American / Black (if you wish please specify) ______________________________  American Indian / Alaskan Native  Tribal affiliation/corporation (if you wish please specify) _______________________________________  Asian / Asian American  Asian Indian  Bangladeshi  Cambodian  Chinese / Chinese American (except Taiwanese)  Filipino / Filipino American  Hmong  Indonesian  Japanese / Japanese American  Korean / Korean American  Laotian  Malaysian  Pakistani  Sri Lankan  Taiwanese / Taiwanese American  Thai  Vietnamese / Vietnamese American  Other Asian (not including Middle Eastern) (if you wish please specify) ___________________________  Hispanic / Latino  Cuban / Cuban American  Latin American / Latino  Mexican / Mexican American / Chicano  Puerto Rican  Other Hispanic, Latin American or of Spanish origin (if you wish please specify) ____________________  Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North African  Afghan  Arab/Arab American  Armenian  Assyrian  Azerbaijani  Berber  Circassian  Chaldean  Coptic  Druze 257 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014  Georgian  Iranian  Jewish  Kurdish  Maronite  Turkish  Other Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian/North African (if you wish please specify ______________________  Pacific Islander  Fijian  Guamanian/Chamorro  Hawaiian  Samoan  Tongan  Other Pacific Islander (if you wish please specify) ______________________________________________  White  European / European descent  North African  Other White / Caucasian (if you wish please specify) ___________________________________________  Other (please specify) ___________________________________ 29. Which term best describes your sexual orientation?  Asexual  Bisexual  Gay  Heterosexual  Lesbian  Queer  Questioning  Other (please specify) ___________________________________ 30. What is your age?  18-20  21-23  24-29  30-39  40-49  50-59  60 and over 31. Do you have substantial parenting or caregiving responsibility for any of the following people? (Mark all that apply)?  No one  Children 18 years of age or under  Children over 18 years of age, but still legally dependent (in college, disabled, etc.)  Independent adult children over 18 years of age  Sick or disabled partner  Senior or other family member  Other (please specify, e.g., pregnant, expectant partner, adoption pending) ___________________________________ 32. Are/were you a member of the U.S. armed forces?  I have not been in the military  Active military  Reservist  ROTC  Veteran 33. Students Only: What is the highest level of education achieved by your primary parent(s)/guardian(s)? 258 No high school No high school Completed high school/GED Some college Business/Technical certificate/degree Associate’s degree Bachelor’s degree Some graduate work Master’s degree Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D) Other professional degree (e.g., MD, MFA, JD) Unknown Not applicable Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Parent/Guardian 1              Parent/Guardian 2              34. What is your highest completed level of education?  No high school  Some high school  Completed high school/GED  Some college  Business/Technical certificate/degree  Associate's degree  Bachelor's degree  Some graduate work  Master's degree  Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D.)  Professional degree (e.g., MD, JD, MBA) 35. Undergraduate Students only: Where are you in your college career?  Non-degree student  First year  Second year  Third year  Fourth year  Fifth year or more 36. Where are you in your graduate career?  Master’s student (Degree, Non-degree, Certificate/teacher credential program candidate)  First year  Second year  Third (or more) year  Doctoral/Professional student (e.g., MD, DDS, PharmD, PhD, DPT)  First year  Second year  Third (or more) year  Advanced to Candidacy  ABD (all but dissertation) 37. Where are you in your career at UCLA?  First year  Second year  Third year  Fourth year  Fifth year or more 38. Post-doctoral/Faculty only: With which academic division/department are you primarily affiliated with at this time? College of Letters and Sciences  Humanities Division  Applied Linguistics and TESL  Art History  Asian Languages and Cultures  Classics  Comparative Literature  English 259  French and Francophone Studies  Germanic Languages  Italian  Linguistics  Musicology  Near Eastern Languages and Cultures  Philosophy  The Scandinavian Section  Slavic Languages and Literatures  Spanish and Portuguese  Life Sciences Division  Ecology and Evolutionary Biology  Integrative Biology and Physiology  Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology  Psychology  Physical Sciences Division  Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences  Chemistry and Biochemistry  Earth and Space Sciences  Mathematics  Physics and Astronomy  Statistics  Sociall Sciences Division  Anthropology  Asian-American Studies  Chicana/o Studies  Communication Studies  Economics  Geography  History  Political Science  Sociology  Women’s Studies Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Professional Schools  School of Arts and Architecture  Architecture and Urban Design  Art  Design Media Arts  Ethnomusicology  Music  World Arts and Cultures  Graduate School of Education and Information Studies  Education  Information Studies  Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science  Bioengineering  Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering  Civil and Environmental Engineering  Computer Science  Electrical Engineering  Materials Science and Engineering  Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering  School of Law  Anderson School of Management  Luskin School of Public Affairs  Public Policy  Social Welfare  Urban Planning  School of Theater, Film and Television  Film, Television and Digital Media  Theater  School of Nursing 260  School of Dentistry  Fielding School of Public Health  Biostatistics  Community Health Sciences  Environmental Health Sciences  Epidemiology  Health Services  David Geffen School of Medicine  Neurobiology  Human genetics  Biological chemistry  Biomathematics  Molecular & medical pharmacology  Physiology  Anesthesiology  Family medicine  Medicine-cardiology  Medicine-dermatology  Medicine-endocrinology  Medicine-gastroenterology  Medicine-hematology-oncology  Medicine-infectious disease  Medicine-nephrology  Medicine-pulmonary disease  Medicine-rheumatology  Medicine-va wadsworth med ctr  Medicine-cia  Medicine-san fernando valley prog  Medicine-center for human nutrition  Medicine-nano medicine  Neurology  Neurology-loni  Obstetrics & gynecology  Pathology department administration  Pathology laboratory medicine  Pathology outreach  Pediatrics-child health policy  Pediatrics-pain program  Pediatrics-allergy/immunology  Pediatrics-endocrinology  Pediatrics-gastroenterology  Pediatrics-hematology/oncology  Pediatrics-infectious diseases  Pediatrics-neonatology  Pediatrics-neurology  Psychiatry/biobehavioral sci  Radiation oncology  Radiological sciences  Surgery - orthopedic surgery  Surgery-general  Surgery-head & neck  Surgery-neuro  Surgery-oncology  Surgery-cardiothoracic  Urology  Surgery-liver and panc. Transplant  Brain research institute  Jules stein eye institute  Neuropsychiatric institute  Crump institute for molecular imaging  Institute for genomics and proteomics  Institute for molecular medicine Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 261 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 39. Staff only: With which work unit are you primarily affiliated with at this time? (If your organization is not listed or you are unsure, please choose other.) UCLA Campus  Academic Personnel Office  Academic Planning and Budget  Academic Senate Office  Administration Service Centers – North and South  Administrative Policies and Compliance  Anderson School of Management  Audit & Advisory Services  Campus Human Resources  Campus Service Enterprises  Capital Programs  Central Ticket Office  Chancellor’s Office  College -- Division of Humanities  College -- Division of Life Sciences  College -- Division of Physical Sciences  College -- Division of Social Sciences  College -- Division of Undergraduate Education  Corporate Financial Services  Environmental Health and Safety  Events & Transportation  External Affairs—Advancement Services  External Affairs—Alumni Relations  External Affairs—Communications and Public Outreach  External Affairs—Development  External Affairs—Government & Community Relations  Facilities Management  Fielding School of Public Health  Financial & Administrative Services  Graduate Division  Graduate School of Education and Information Studies  Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science  Housing and Hospitality Services  Information Technology Services  Institute of American Cultures  Intellectual Property & Industry-Sponsored Research  Intercollegiate Athletics  International Institute and Studies  Legal Affairs  Luskin School of Public Affairs  Office of Information Technology  Research Administration  School of Arts & Architecture  School of Dentistry  School of Law  School of Nursing  School of Theater, Film and Television  Student Affairs Administration  Student Affairs—Cultural & Recreational Affairs  Student Affairs—Dean of Students/Campus Life  Student Affairs—Enrollment Management  Student Affairs—Residential & Student Life  Student Health Services  UC Police Department – Los Angeles  UCLA Extension & Continuing Education  University Library  Other (please specify) _______________________ UCLA Health Sciences 262           Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Orthopedic Hospital Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital Mattel Children’s Hospital UCLA Faculty Practice Group David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Veterans Administration Olive View – UCLA Medical Center Harbor – UCLA Medical Center Cedars-Sinai 40. Undergraduate Students only: What is your academic major? School of Arts and Architecture  Architectural Studies  Art  Design Media Arts  Ethnomusicology  Music  World Arts and Culture Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science (EN)  Aerospace Engineering  Bioengineering  Chemical Engineering  Civil Engineering  Computer Science and Engineering  Electrical Engineering  Materials Engineering  Mechanical Engineering  Undeclared – Engineering and Applied Sciences College of Letters and Sciences (LS)  African Languages  Afro-American Studies  American Indian Studies  American Literature and Culture  Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations  Anthropology  Applied Linguistics  Applied Mathematics  Arabic  Art History  Asian American Studies  Asian Humanities  Asian Religions  Astrophysics  Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Environmental Science  Biochemistry  Biology  Biophysics  Business Economics  Central and East European Languages and Cultures  Chemistry  Chemistry, General  Chemistry/Materials Science  Chicana and Chicano Studies  Chinese  Classic Civilization  Cognitive Science  Communication Studies  Comparative Literature  Computational and Systems Biology 263                                                                Cybernetics Earth and Environmental Science Earth Sciences East Asian Studies Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution Economics Economics/International Area Studies English English/Greek English/Latin Environmental Science European Studies French French and Linguistics Gender Studies Geography Geography/Environmental Studies Geology Geology (Engineering Geology) Geology (Paleobiology) Geophysics (Applied Geophysics) Geophysics (Geophysics and Space Physics German Global Studies Greek Greek and Latin Hebrew History History/Art History Human Biology and Society Individual Field of Concentration International Development Studies Iranian Studies Italian Italian and Special Fields Japanese Jewish Studies Korean Latin Latin American Studies Linguistics Linguistics and Anthropology Linguistics and Asian Languages and Cultures Linguistics and Computer Science Linguistics and East Asian Languages and Cultures Linguistics and English Linguistics and French Linguistics and Italian Linguistics and Philosophy Linguistics and Psychology Linguistics and Scandinavian Languages Linguistics and Spanish Marine Biology Mathematics Mathematics/Applied Science Mathematics/Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Mathematics/Economics Mathematics for Teaching Mathematics of Computation Mathematics, General Microbiology and Molecular Genetics Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics Middle Eastern and North African Studies Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 264                                                         Middle Eastern Studies Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology Music History Near Eastern Studies Neuroscience Philosophy Physics Physics, General Physiological Science Plant Biology Plant Biotechnology Political Science Portuguese Pre-applied Mathematics Pre-business Economics Pre-cognitive Science Pre-computational and Systems Biology Pre-cybernetics Pre-economics Pre-economics/International Area Studies Pre-global Studies Pre-history Pre-human Biology and Society Pre-international Development Studies Pre-linguistics/Computer Science Pre-mathematics Pre-mathematics/Applied Science Pre-mathematics/Economics Pre-mathematics for Teaching Pre--mathematics of Computation Pre-microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics Pre-political Science Pre-psychobiology Pre-psychology Pre-sociology Pre-statistics Psychobiology Psychology Russian Language and Literature Russian Studies Scandinavian Languages Scandinavian Languages and Cultures Slavic Languages and Literatures Sociology Southeast Asian Studies Spanish Spanish and Community and Culture Spanish and Linguistics Spanish and Portuguese Statistics Study of Religion Undeclared Undeclared-Humanities Undeclared-Life Sciences Undeclared-Physical Sciences Women's Studies Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 School of Theater, Film and Television (TF)  Film and Television  Individual Field  Theater School of Nursing (NS) 265  Nursing – Generic/Pre-license  Nursing-R.N. to B.S./Post-licensure Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 41. Graduate/Professsional Students only: What is your academic degree program? Graduate Division (GD)  ACCESS Program  Aerospace Engineering  African Studies  Afro-American Studies  American Indian Studies  Anatomy and Cell Biology  Anthropology  Applied Linguistics  Applied Linguistics and Teaching English as a Second Language  Archaeology Architecture Art  Art History  Asian American Studies  Asian Languages and Cultures  Astronomy  Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences  Atmospheric Sciences  Biochemistry and Molecular Biology  Bioinformatics  Biological Chemistry  Biology  Biomathematics  Biomedical Engineering  Biomedical Physics  Biostatistics  Cellular and Molecular Pathology  Chemical Engineering  Chemistry  Chicana and Chicano Studies  Civil Engineering  Classics  Clinical Research  Comparative Literature  Computer Science  Conservation of Archeological and Ethnographic Materials  Culture and Performance  Dance  Design Media Arts  East Asian Languages and Cultures  East Asian Studies  Economics  Education  Electrical Engineering  Engineering  English  Environmental Health Sciences  Environmental Science and Engineering  Epidemiology  Ethnomusicology  Experimental Pathology  Film and Television  Financial Engineering (M.F.E.)  French and Francophone Studies  Gender Studies  Geochemistry  Geography  Geology  Geophysics and Space Physics 266                                                          Germanic Languages Greek Health Economics Health Services Hispanic Languages and Literatures History Human Genetics Indo-European Studies Information Studies (Ph.D.) Islamic Studies Italian Latin Latin American Studies Library and Information Science (M.L.I.S.) Linguistics Management Manufacturing Engineering Materials Science and Engineering Mathematics Mechanical Engineering Microbiology and Immunology Molecular and Medical Pharmacology Molecular Biology Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology Molecular, Cellular, and Integrative Physiology Molecular Toxicology Moving Image Archive Studies Music Musicology Near Eastern Languages and Cultures Neurobiology Neuroscience Nursing Oral Biology Philosophy Physics Physiological Science Political Science Portuguese Preventive Medicine and Public Health Psychology Public Administration Public Health Public Policy Romance Linguistics and Literature Scandinavian Slavic Languages and Literatures Social Welfare Sociology Spanish Special Education, CSULA-UCLA Statistics Teaching English as a Second Language Theater Theater and Performance Studies (Ph.D.) Urban and Regional Planning (M.U.R.P.) Urban Planning Women's Studies Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 School of Dentistry (DN)  Dentistry  Post-D.D.S. Program  Professional Program for International Dentists 267 School of Law (LW)  Law (International Exchange Program)  Law (Juridical Science)  Law (Juris Doctor)  Law (Master of Laws) Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 School of Medicine (MN)  Medicine  Medicine-Drew  UCLA Medicine-PRIME  Medicine-UC Riverside 42. Trainee only: What is your academic degree or clinical/training program at UCLA?  MD  MD/MBA  MD/MPP  MD/MPH  PD/PhD 43. Which, if any, of the conditions listed below impact your learning, working or living activities? (Mark all that apply)  Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury  Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder  Asperger's/Autism Spectrum  Blind  Low vision  Deaf  Hard of Hearing  Learning Disability  Medical Condition  Mental Health/Psychological Condition  Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking  Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking  Speech/Communication Condition  Other (please specify) ___________________________________  I have none of the listed conditions 44. What is your citizenship status in U.S.? (Mark all that apply)  U.S. citizen  Permanent Resident  A visa holder (F-1, J-1, H1-B, A, L, G, E, and TN)  Other legally documented status (e.g., adjustment of status to Permanent Resident)  Undocumented resident 45. How would you characterize your political views?  Far left  Liberal  Moderate or middle of the road  Conservative  Far Right  Undecided  Other (please specify) ___________________________________ 46. What is the language(s) spoken in your home?  English only  Other than English (please specify) ___________________________________  English and other language(s) (please specify) ___________________________________ 47. What is your religious or spiritual identity? (Mark all that apply)  Agnostic  Ahmadi Muslim  African Methodist Episcopal  Atheist  Assembly of God 268                                                Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Baha’i Baptist Buddhist Christian Orthodox ConfUCLAanist Christian Methodist Episcopal Druid Episcopalian Evangelical Greek Orthodox Hindu Jain Jehovah’s Witness Jewish Conservative Jewish Orthodox Jewish Reform Lutheran Mennonite Moravian Muslim Native American Traditional Practitioner or Ceremonial Nondenominational Christian Pagan Pentecostal Presbyterian Protestant Quaker Rastafarian Roman Catholic Russian Orthodox Scientologist Secular Humanist Seventh Day Adventist Shi’ite Sufi Sunni Shinto Sikh Taoist The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints United Methodist Unitarian Universalist United Church of Christ Wiccan Spiritual, but no religious affiliation No affiliation Other (please specify) ___________________________________ 48. Are you currently dependent (family/guardian is assisting with your living/educational expenses) or independent (you are the sole provider for your living/educational expenses)?  Dependent  Independent 49. What is your best estimate of your family’s yearly income (if dependent student, partnered, or married) or your yearly income (if single and independent student)?  Below $10,000  $10,000-$19,999  $20,000-$29,999  $30,000 - $39,999  $40,000 - $49,999  $50,000 - $59,999  $60,000- $69,999  $70,000- $79,999 269           $80,000 - $89,999 $90,000- $99,999 $100,000 - $124,999 $125,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000 - $249,999 $250,000 - $299,999 $300,000 - $399,999 $400,000 - $499,999 $500,000 or more Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 50. Where do you live?  Campus housing  On-campus housing “on the hill”  University owned apartments  Residence hall  Family housing  Non-campus housing  Independently in an apartment/flat/house  Living with a family member/guardian  Co-op  Fraternity house  Homeless (e.g. couch surfing, sleeping in car, sleeping in campus office/lab) 51. Are you employed either on campus or off-campus?  No  Yes  1-10 hours/week  11-20 hours/week  21-30 hours/week  31-40 hours/week  More than 40 hours/week 52. Are you an in-state or out-of-state/international student?  In-state/Resident  Out-of-State/Non-Resident/International 53. Do you participate in any of the following types of clubs/organizations at UCLA? (Mark all that apply)  I do not participate in any clubs/organizations  Student Leadership Groups (e.g., Undergraduate Students Association Council, Graduate Student Association, University Committees)  Academic/Professional Organizations (e.g., Pre-Law Society, Business Society, Engineering Society, Comparative Literature Graduate Student Group)  Special Interest Organizations (e.g., Student Alumni Association, Bruin Belles, Dance groups, Photography Club at UCLA, Model United Nations)  Intercultural/Multicultural Ethnic Campus Community Groups (e.g., African Student Union, American Indian Student Association, Asian Pacific Coalition, Black Graduate Student Association (BGSA), Graduate Students of Color (GSOC),MEChA, American Indian Student Association, Latin American Student Association, Latinas Guiding Latinas (LGL), Portuguese Student Association)  Working with Under-represented communities (e.g., Community Programs Office, Student Retention Center, Student Initiated Access Center)  Community Programs/Working with Under-represented communities (Bruins Empowering South LA – BESLA)  Political Groups (e.g., Bruin Democrats; Bruin Republicans)  Religious/Spiritual Organizations (e.g., MSA, HILLEL, UCC)  Service Organizations/Civic Engagement (e.g., Coaching Corps at UCLA, Community Service Commission groups, Community Programs Office projects; China Care Bruins, BruinHope, Bruin Initiative, medical volunteer organizations)  Social Fraternities and Sororities (e.g., Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic; NPHC; Multicultural Greeks, HERMANAS/OS Unidas/OS )  Publications and Media Organizations (e.g., Daily Bruin; UCLA Radio; Special Interest Papers)  Intramurals/ Clubs Sports (e.g., Recreation sponsored organizations, FITTED)  Music/Performance Organizations (e.g., Acapella groups; Hooligans; Kyodo Taiko, Choral Excellence Association at UCLA)  NCAA Varsity Athletics 270 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Angeles Delta Final Report –March 2014 Beta Kappa, UCLALos Omicron Epsilon Economics  Honor Societies (e.g., Mortar Board; Regents Scholars, Phi Society)  Residence Hall Organizations (e.g., On Campus Housing Council; Residence Hall Governments)  Other (please specify ___________________________________ Honor 54. What is your current relationship status?  Single, never married  Single, divorced  Single, widow (partner/spouse deceased)  Partnered  Partnered, in civil union/Registered Domestic Partnership  Married or remarried  Separated  Other (please specify) ___________________________________ 55. At the end of your last quarter/semester, what was your cumulative UC grade point average?  Not applicable  Below 2.49  2.5 - 2.99  3 – 3.49  3.5 and above 56. Are you a former foster-care youth?  Yes  No Part 4: Perceptions of Campus Climate In this section you will be asked to provide information about how you perceive the learning, living, and working environment at UCLA. 57. WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, have you observed any conduct or communications directed toward a person or group of people at UCLA that you believe has created an exclusionary (e.g., shunned, ignored), intimidating, offensive and/or hostile (bullied, harassing) working or learning environment?  No [Go to Question 66]  Yes 58. Who/what were the targets of this conduct? (Mark all that apply)  Administrator  Alumni  Athletic coach/trainer  UCLA visitor(s)  Campus organizations or groups  Campus police/building security  Co-worker  Off campus community member  Department head  Donor  Don’t know target  Faculty advisor  Faculty member  Friend  Medical Staff  Partner/spouse  Patient  Person that I supervise  Registered Campus Organization  Student staff (e.g., Residence hall assistant, peer counselor)  Staff member  Stranger  Student  Supervisor  Teaching assistant/Writing associate/Lab assistant/Tutor 271 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014  UCLA Physician  Union representatives  Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 59. Who/what was the source of this behavior? (Mark all that apply)  Administrator  Alumni  Athletic coach/trainer  Campus media (posters, brochures, flyers, handouts, web sites, etc.)  UCLA visitor(s)  Campus organizations or groups  Campus police/building security  Co-worker  Off campus community member  Department head  Donor  Don’t know source  Faculty advisor  Faculty member  Friend  Medical Staff  Partner/spouse  Patient  Person that I supervise  Registered Campus Organization  Social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)  Staff member  Stranger  Student  Student staff (e.g., Residence hall assistant, peer counselor)  Supervisor  Teaching assistant/Graduate assistant/Lab assistant/Tutor  UCLA Physician  Union representative  Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 60. What do you believe were the bases for this conduct? (Mark all that apply)  Academic performance  Age  Ancestry  Country of origin  Discipline of study  Educational level  Educational modality (on-line, classroom)  English language proficiency/accent  Ethnicity  Gender identity  Gender expression  Immigrant/citizen status  International status  Learning disability  Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered)  Medical condition  Military/veteran status  Parental status (e.g., having children)  Participation in an organization/team (please specify) ______________________________________________  Physical characteristics  Physical disability  Philosophical views  Political views  Position (staff, faculty, student)  Pregnancy  Psychological condition 272       Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Race Religious/spiritual views Sexual orientation Socioeconomic status Don’t know Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 61. What forms of behaviors have you observed or personally been made aware of? (Mark all that apply)  Assumption that someone was admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity  Assumption that someone was not admitted/hired/promoted based on his/her identity  Deliberately ignored or excluded  Derogatory remarks  Derogatory/unsolicited e-mails, text messages, Facebook posts, Twitter posts  Derogatory written comments  Derogatory phone calls  Feared for their physical safety  Feared for their family’s safety  Graffiti/vandalism (e.g., event advertisements removed or defaced)  Intimidated/bullied  Isolated or left out when work was required in groups  Isolated or left out  Racial/ethnic profiling  Receipt of a low performance evaluation  Receipt of a poor grade because of a hostile classroom environment  Physical violence  Singled out as the spokesperson for their identity  Threats of physical violence  Victim of a crime  Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 62. How many times have you observed this type of conduct?  1  2  3  4  5  6 or more 63. Where did this conduct occur? (Mark all that apply)  At a UCLA event  In a class/lab/clinical setting  In a health care setting  In an on-line class  In a UCLA dining facility  In a UCLA office  In a faculty office  In a public space at UCLA  In a meeting with one other person  In a meeting with a group of people  In athletic facilities  In campus housing  In off-campus housing  Off campus  On social networking sites/Facebook/Twitter/cell phone/other form of technological communication  On campus transportation  While working at a UCLA job  While walking on campus  Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 64. Please describe your reactions to observing this conduct. (Mark all that apply)  I felt embarrassed  I felt somehow responsible  I ignored it 273                           Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 I was afraid I was angry I confronted the harasser at the time I confronted the harasser later I avoided the harasser It didn’t affect me at the time I left the situation immediately I sought support from off-campus hot-line/advocacy services I sought support from campus resource  Ashe Student Health and Wellness Center  Bruin Resource Center  Center for Student Programming  Community Programs Office  Counseling and Psychological Services  LGBT Resource Center  Dean of Students Office  Office of Residential Life  Office of Students with Disabilities  Student Legal Services  Graduate Student Resource Center (GSRC)  Graduate Division  Graduate Departmental staff (e.g., Student Affairs Officers)  http://www.reportincidents.ucla.edu/  Office of Postdoctoral & Visiting Scholars Services (OPVSS)  Faculty and Staff Counseling Center  Employee Relations/Labor Relations  School of Medicine – Gender and Power Abuse Committee  Mental Health Services for Physicians In Training  Office of Ombuds Services  Consultation and Response Team  Center for Women and Men  Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars I told a friend I told a family member I told my union representative I contacted a local law enforcement official I sought support from a staff person I sought support from a teaching assistant/graduate assistant I sought support from an administrator I sought support from a faculty member I sought support from a spiritual advisor (e.g., pastor, rabbi, priest, etc.) I sought support from student staff (e.g., resident assistant, peer counselor) I sought information on-line I didn’t know who to go to I reported it to a campus employee/official I didn’t report it for fear that my complaint would not be taken seriously I did report it but I did not feel the complaint was taken seriously I did nothing Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 65. If you would like to elaborate on your observations, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ If you have not already reported this incident and wish to do so, please go to www.reportincidents.ucla.edu. For Staff: UCLA Staff and Faculty Counseling Center (310) 794-0245 http://ucla.in/hraF7v 274 UCLA LGBT Campus Resource Center (310) 206-3628 www.lgbt.ucla.edu Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Please respond to the following question based on the last year or most recent hiring cycle. 66. I have observed hiring practices at UCLA (e.g., hiring supervisor bias, search committee bias, lack of effort in diversifying recruiting pool) that I perceive to be unfair and unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community.  No [Go to Question 69]  Yes  Don't know [Go to Question 69] 67. I believe that the unfair and unjust hiring practices were based upon (Mark all that apply)  Age  Ancestry  Country of origin  Discipline of study  Educational level  Educational modality (on-line, classroom)  English language proficiency/accent  Ethnicity  Gender identity  Gender expression  Immigrant/citizen status  International status  Learning disability  Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered)  Medical condition  Military/veteran status  Parental status (e.g., having children)  Participation in an organization (please specify) ___________________________________________________  Personal relationship (e.g., friend, family member)  Partner/spousal preferential hiring practice  Preferential re-hiring  Physical characteristics  Physical disability  Political views  Position (staff, faculty, student)  Pregnancy  Psychological condition  Race  Religious/spiritual views  Sexual orientation  Socioeconomic status  Other (please specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 68. If you would like to elaborate on your observations, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Please respond to the following question based on the most RECENT ACTIONS with regard to unfair or unjust employment-related discipline up to and including dismissal. 69. I have observed employment-related discipline or action up to and including dismissal at UCLA that I perceive to be unfair and unjust or would inhibit diversifying the community.  No [Go to Question 72]  Yes  Don't know [Go to Question 72] 70. I believe that the unfair or unjust employment-related discipline or action were based upon (Mark all that apply)  Age 275                               Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Ancestry Country of origin Discipline of study Educational level Educational modality (on-line, classroom) English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status Learning disability Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Medical condition Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in an organization (please specify) ___________________________________________________ Personal relationship (e.g., friend, family member) Partner/spousal preferential hiring practice Physical characteristics Physical disability Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Psychological condition Race Religious/spiritual views Sexual orientation Socioeconomic status Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 71. If you would like to elaborate on your observations, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Please respond to the following question based on the most RECENT ACTIONS with regard to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification. 72. I have observed promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification practices at UCLA that I perceive to be unfair or unjust.  No [Go to Question 75]  Yes  Don't know [Go to Question 75] 73. I believe the unfair or unjust behavior, procedures, or employment practices related to promotion/tenure/reappointment/reclassification were based upon… (Mark all that apply)  Age  Ancestry  Country of origin  Discipline of study  Educational level  Educational modality (on-line, classroom)  English language proficiency/accent  Ethnicity  Gender identity  Gender expression  Immigrant/citizen status  International status  Learning disability  Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered)  Medical condition  Military/veteran status  Parental status (e.g., having children) 276               Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 ___________________________________________________ Participation in an organization (please specify) Personal relationship (e.g., friend, family member) Partner/spousal preferential hiring practice Physical characteristics Physical disability Political views Position (staff, faculty, student) Pregnancy Psychological condition Race Religious/spiritual views Sexual orientation Socioeconomic status Other (please specify) _______________________________________________________________________ 74. If you would like to elaborate on your observations, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 75. Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall climate at UCLA on the following dimensions: (Note: As an example, for the first item, “friendly—hostile,” 1=very friendly, 2=somewhat friendly, 3=neither friendly nor hostile, 4=somewhat hostile, and 5=very hostile) 1 2 3 4 5     Hostile Friendly      Uncooperative Cooperative      Negative for persons with disabilities Positive for persons with disabilities  Positive for people who identify as lesbian, Negative for people of identify as lesbian, gay,      gay, or bisexual or bisexual     Negative for people of Christian faith Positive for people of Christian faith      Negative for people of other faith backgrounds Positive for people of other faith backgrounds      Negative for people who are agnostic/atheist Positive for people who are agnostic/atheist      Negative for People of Color Positive for People of Color      Negative for men Positive for men      Negative for women Positive for women      Negative for non-native English speakers Positive for non-native English speakers      Negative for people who are immigrants Positive for people who are immigrants      Negative for people who are not U.S. citizens Positive for people who are not U.S. citizens      Not welcoming Welcoming      Disrespectful Respectful  Positive for people of high socioeconomic Negative for people of high socioeconomic      status status Positive for people of low socioeconomic Negative for people of low socioeconomic      status status Positive for people who identify as Negative for people who identify as      transgender transgender 76. Using a scale of 1-5, please rate the overall climate at UCLA on the following dimensions: (Note: As an example, for the first item, 1= completely free of racism, 2=mostly free of racism, 3=occasionally encounter racism; 4= regularly encounter racism; 5=constantly encounter racism) 1 2 3 4 5     Racist Not racist      Sexist Not sexist      Homophobic Not homophobic      Transphobic Not transphobic      Age biased Not age biased      Classist (socioeconomic status) Not classist (socioeconomic status)      Classist (position: faculty, staff, student) Not classist (position: faculty, staff, student)      Not disability friendly Disability friendly  77. The classroom/learning environment at UCLA is welcoming for students based on their: 277 Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Age Ancestry Country of origin English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status Learning disability Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Medical conditions Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g. having children) Participation in a campus club/organization Psychological condition Physical characteristics Physical disability Political views Race Religious/spiritual views Sexual orientation Socioeconomic status Strongly agree Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014                                                                                                                    Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know                                                             Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know I feel valued by faculty in the classroom/learning environment. I feel valued by other students in the classroom/learning environment. I think UCLA faculty are genuinely concerned about my welfare. I think UCLA staff are genuinely concerned about my welfare. I think administrators are genuinely concerned about my welfare. I think faculty pre-judge my abilities based on perceived identity/background. I believe the campus climate encourages free and open discussion of difficult topics. I have faculty who I perceive as role models. I have staff who I perceive as role models. I have administrators who I perceive as role models. I don’t see enough faculty/staff with whom I identify. I have opportunities for academic success that are similar to those of my classmates. Strongly agree 78. Please indicate your level of agreement to the following statements: 79. If you would like to elaborate on your observations, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Agree Strongly agree 80. I perceive tension in the residence halls with regard to a person’s: 278 Age Ancestry Country of origin Educational level English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status Learning disability Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Medical conditions Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g. having children) Participation in a campus club/organization Participation on an athletic team Philosophical views Psychological condition Physical characteristics Physical disability Political views Race Religious/spiritual views Sexual orientation Socioeconomic status Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los –March 2014   Angeles Final  Report                                                                                                                               81. My workplace climate is welcoming based on a person’s: Age Ancestry Country of origin Educational level English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status Learning disability Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Medical conditions Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g., having children) Participation in a club/organization Participation on an athletic team Philosophical views Psychological condition Physical characteristics Physical disability Political views Race Religious/spiritual views Sexual orientation Socioeconomic status Strongly agree                           Agree Disagree                                                     Strongly disagree                           Don't know                           279 Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 82. How would you rate the accessibility at UCLA? Fully accessible Accessible with accommodations Not accessible Don't know Accessibility Athletic facilities (stadium, arena, etc.) Classroom Buildings Classrooms, labs University housing Computer labs Dining Facilities Elevators Health & Wellness Center Library Off-campus UCLA buildings Off-campus Student housing On-campus transportation/parking Other campus buildings Recreational facilities Restrooms Studios/Performing Arts Spaces Walkways and pedestrian paths Braille signage Hearing loops                                                                             Course instruction/materials Information in Alternative Formats Instructors Instructional Materials             UCLA Campus Website     83. If you would like to elaborate on your observations to the previous question, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 84. How would you rate the climate at UCLA for people who are/have… Very respectful  Psychological health issues  Physical health issues  Female  From religious affiliations other than Christian  From Christian affiliations  Gay, lesbian, and bisexual  Immigrants  International students, staff, or faculty  Learning disability  Male Respectful Disrespectful                     Very disrespectful           Don't know           280 Non-native English speakers Parents/guardians of dependent children People of color Providing care for adults who are disabled and/or elderly Physical disability Socioeconomically disadvantaged Socioeconomically advantaged Transgender Other, please specify _______________________________________________ Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014                                              Respectful Disrespectful Very disrespectful Don't know African American / African/ Black American Indian / Alaskan Native Asian / Asian American Hispanic / Latino Middle Eastern / South Asian / North African Pacific Islander White Very respectful 85. How would you rate the climate at UCLA for persons from the following racial/ethnic backgrounds?                                    Respectful Disrespectful Very disrespectful Don't know Psychological health issues Physical health issues Female From religious affiliations other than Christian From Christian affiliations Gay, lesbian, and bisexual Immigrants International students, staff, or faculty Learning disability Male Non-native English speakers Parents/guardians People of Color Providing care for other than a child (e.g., eldercare) Physical disability Socioeconomically disadvantaged Socioeconomically advantaged Transgender Veterans/active military members Other, please specify __________________________________________________ Very respectful 86. Before I enrolled, I expected that the climate at UCLA would be _______________for people who are/have…                                                                                                     Part 5: Institutional Actions Relative to Climate Issues 87. To what extent do you agree that the courses you have taken at UCLA include sufficient materials, perspectives and/or experiences of people based on their: 281 Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know Age Ancestry Country of origin Educational level English language proficiency/accent Ethnicity Gender identity Gender expression Immigrant/citizen status International status Learning disability Marital status (e.g., single, married, partnered) Medical conditions Military/veteran status Parental status (e.g. having children) Philosophical views Psychological condition Physical characteristics Physical disability Political views Position (faculty, staff) Race Religious/spiritual views Sexual orientation Socioeconomic status Strongly agree Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014                                                                                                                              88. How does each of the following affect the climate for diversity at UCLA? Not currently available on campus Providing flexibility for promotion for faculty. Providing flexibility for computing the probationary period for tenure/ promotion (e.g., family leave). Providing recognition and rewards for including diversity issues in courses across the curriculum. Providing diversity training for staff. Providing diversity training for faculty. Providing diversity training for students. Providing access to counseling for people who have experienced harassment. Providing mentorship for new faculty. Providing mentorship for new staff. Providing a clear and fair process to resolve conflicts. Increasing funding to support efforts to change campus climate. Including diversity-related professional experiences as one of the criteria for hiring of staff/faculty. Providing diversity and equity training to search and tenure committees. Increasing the diversity of the faculty. Increasing the diversity of the staff. Increasing the diversity of the administration. Increasing the diversity of the student body. Providing back-up family care. Has no Positively Negatively influence influence influence on campus on campus campus climate climate climate Don't know                                                                                           282 Providing lactation accommodations. Providing career development opportunities for staff. Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of California Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014           89. If you would like to elaborate on how any of the above influence campus climate, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Positively influence climate No influence on climate Negatively influence climate Don't know Providing diversity training for students. Providing diversity training for staff. Providing diversity training for faculty. Providing a person to address student complaints of classroom inequity. Increasing the diversity of the faculty and staff. Increasing the diversity of the student body. Increasing opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue among students. Increasing opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue between faculty, staff and students. Incorporating issues of diversity and cross-cultural competence more effectively into the curriculum. Providing effective faculty mentorship of students. Not currently available on campus 90. How does each of the following affect the climate for diversity at UCLA?                                                   91. If you would like to elaborate on how any of the above influence campus climate, please do so here. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Part 6: Your Additional Comments 92. This survey has asked you to reflect upon a large number of issues related to the climate at UCLA and your experiences in this climate, using a multiple-choice format. If you would like to elaborate upon any of your survey responses, further describe your experiences, or offer additional thoughts about these issues and ways that the university might improve the climate, we encourage you to do so in the space provided below. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 93. Please provide any additional comments you have about this survey. ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 283 Thank you for taking the UC Rankin & Associates Consulting UC Campus Climate Assessment Project University of CaliforniaSurvey Los Angeles Final Report –March 2014 Campus Climate Thank you for taking the time to participate in the largest climate survey of its kind among universities in the United States! Your participation will enhance campus efforts to improve the learning, living and working environments for students, faculty and staff at UCLA. Participants who complete the survey will be entered into a drawing for the following items provided by the University of California: • • • • • One $10,000 undergraduate scholarship Two $5,000 graduate/professional student/post-doc/trainee stipends Two $5,000 faculty research grants Five $2,000 staff professional development grants Two iPads for UCLA participants UCLA participants who complete the survey will also be entered into a drawing for additional prizes, including:        Dinner with the Chancellor Tickets to an Athletic event Tickets to a Center for Art of Performance event Enrollment in a Training and Development Class for staff members Staff Recognition Luncheon Bruincard Credits $25 - $75 Two $500 BruinCard credit for undergraduate students If you would like to be entered into the incentives drawing, please provide your full name, phone number, and/or e-mail address. This page will be separated from your survey responses upon receipt by Rankin & Associates and will not be used with any of your responses. Providing this information is voluntary, but must be provided if you wish to be entered into the incentives drawing. Name ____________________________________ Phone Number ____________________________________ E-mail address ____________________________________ Some of the questions on this survey may have been difficult to answer or caused discomfort due to their content. If it would be helpful to talk with someone, you are encouraged to contact: For Staff: UCLA Staff and Faculty Counseling Center (310) 794-0245 http://ucla.in/hraF7v UCLA LGBT Campus Resource Center (310) 206-3628 www.lgbt.ucla.edu Thank you again for your participation. Survey results will be available in Fall 2013. 284