2012 Employee Climate Survey
Highlights
 Results contribute
to adaptive
management of
diversity and
workplace climate
 Between group
differences were
minimal if
existent at all
 Generally,
employees
responded
favorably but
there were areas
of potential
concern
 Results should
serve as a
baseline for
efforts of
continuous
quality
improvement
The 2012 Employee Climate Survey represents a positive step toward documenting the
attainment of University values of inclusiveness and diversity; integrity and mutual
respect; opportunity and access; and accountability. Furthermore, creation of the
survey supports the University Strategic Plan. Assessment goal 40 of the plan is to
develop appropriate assessment tools to assist the University in furthering its diversity.
University efforts to improve workplace climate over the last ten years include multiple
campus-wide survey efforts: Survey of Work Experiences and Diversity Activities
(December 2002), Survey of Work Experiences and Diversity Activities (March 2004),
and Survey of Contingent Faculty on the CSU Campus (October 2009). Most currently, in
February 2012, all employees were asked to respond to an Employee Climate Survey.
Results from the 2012 Employee Climate Survey strengthen the sustainability of the
University’s workforce by contributing to the adaptive management of diversity and
workplace climate. Additionally, the results will inform institutional efforts of
continuous quality improvement by allowing us to learn about ourselves, celebrate our
successes, and target areas in need of further effort. Departments and colleges are
encouraged to use the results of this survey to inform their goals and practices. This
survey was intended to establish baseline measures for items that will guide future
administrations of the survey.
Respondents of the survey were asked to rate their level of agreement with a variety of
statements on a five-point Likert scale. A complete list of questions and average
responses by employee group, faculty rank, faculty appointment, minority status, and
gender are presented in the appendices. The effect size of each comparison is reported
as well as the statistical significance in order to provide an indicator of the practical
importance of the finding. The current report discusses the results in a framework of
employment topics:
Value and appreciation
Diversity efforts
Voice
Professional development
Colleagues and co-workers
Supervisor performance
Benefits and resources
Personal safety
Accessibility
Harassment
1
Demographics
There were nearly 2,400 respondents, 85.7% reported nonminority status (14.3% minority), 60.8% self-reported as
female (39.2% male) and 89% reported working on campus (11% off campus).
Table 1 displays the response distribution by employee category and tables 2 and 3 display the counts by division and
college. The data are self-reported and are therefore not validated against actual human resources data.
Table 1. Employee Category
F req u en c y
V alid P erc en t
F a c u l ty
474
2 1.0
S ta te c l a s s i f i e d s ta f f
901
3 9 .9
A d m i n i s tr a ti v e p r o f e s s i o n a l s ta f f
778
3 4 .4
P o s t D o c to r a l
41
1.8
O th e r
65
2 .9
2259
10 0 .0
V a l i d T o ta l
Table 2. Respondents by Division
Frequency
Valid Percent
President, General Council, Athletics
56
2.56
Diversity
13
0.59
Energy and Environment
67
3.06
142
6.48
Enrollment and Access
94
4.29
External Relations
31
1.41
Graduate Studies
37
1.69
126
5.75
Engagement and Extension
Information Technology and Libraries
International Affairs
21
0.96
Research
292
13.33
Student Affairs
312
14.24
Provost
606
27.66
49
2.24
345
15.75
2,191
100.00
Advancement
Operations
Total
2
Table 3. Respondents by College
F req u en c y
V alid P erc en t
A g r i c u l tu r a l S c i e n c e s
36
6 .2
A p p lied H u m an S c ien c es
88
15 .1
B u s in es s
44
7 .6
E n g in eerin g
49
8 .4
In tr a - U n i v e r s i ty
2
0 .3
12 7
2 1.8
N a tu r a l R e s o u r c e s
53
9 .1
N a tu r a l S c i e n c e s
95
16 .3
V e te r i n a r y M e d i c i n e a n d B i o m e d i c a l S c i e n c e s
88
15 .1
582
10 0 .0
L i b e r a l A r ts
T o ta l
Value and Appreciation
Table 4 displays results for questions related to how valued and/or appreciated employees feel. As an overall trend,
state classified staff reported the lowest level of agreement with statements of value and appreciation while post
doctoral employees reported the highest. Although employees recognized the value of their job, they did not report the
same level of appreciation for their work. This group of questions had a large percent of neutral responses (displayed in
Appendix E) which may require further attention.
Table 4.
Table 4 displays results by employee group. There were statistically significant differences but the effect sizes were
small indicating negligible practical significance. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree,
3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Value and Appreciation by Employee Group
F a c u l ty
Q 0 4 . I r e c e i v e r e c o g n i ti o n o r p r a i s e f o r d o i n g g o o d
w ork .
Q 0 5 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s e e m s to c a r e a b o u t m e a s a
p ers on .
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
S ta te
A d m i n i s tr a ti v e
C las s if ied
P rof es s ion al
P o s t D o c to r a l
O th e r
472
896
774
41
64
3 .4 0
3 .4 5
3 .6 7
4 .0 2
3 .8 6
471
899
775
40
63
3 .8 5
3 .8 9
4 .12
4 .18
4 .17
473
895
773
40
63
3 .5 4
3 .4 2
3 .8 8
4 .15
3 .6 7
473
895
776
41
63
4 .5 5
4 .2 9
4 .3 9
4 .12
4 .4 8
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 0 9 . M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e m i s s i o n o f th e
U n i v e r s i ty .
N
M ean
N
473
894
775
40
63
4 .4 8
4 .2 8
4 .3 9
4 .0 5
4 .3 5
Q 10 . T h e w o r k I d o i s v e r y v a l u a b l e to C S U .
M ean
N
474
900
773
41
63
4 .5 9
4 .4 7
4 .6 1
4 .2 0
4 .4 1
Q 11. M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e p u r p o s e o f m y u n i t.
M ean
3
Table 5.
Table 5 displays the same results by faculty rank. Generally, associate professors reported feeling the lowest level of
agreement with statements related to appreciation while the statements of value showed less of a pattern. Any
significant differences between groups had small effect sizes. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Value and Appreciation by Faculty Rank
In s tr u c to r
Q 0 4 . I r e c e i v e r e c o g n i ti o n o r p r a i s e f o r d o i n g g o o d
w ork .
Q 5 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s e e m s to c a r e a b o u t m e a s a
p ers on .
N
M ean
A s s o c i a te
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
60
12 1
10 9
13 9
3 .3 7
3 .4 0
3 .19
3 .4 8
N
M ean
A s s i s ta n t
P rof es s or
61
12 0
110
13 7
4 .13
3 .9 3
3 .6 1
3 .8 0
N
61
12 0
110
13 9
3 .3 8
3 .6 6
3 .2 9
3 .6 8
60
12 1
110
13 9
4 .4 8
4 .4 5
4 .5 5
4 .6 5
61
12 0
110
13 9
4 .4 4
4 .3 6
4 .4 4
4 .5 8
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 9 . M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e m i s s i o n o f th e
U n i v e r s i ty .
N
M ean
N
Q 10 . T h e w o r k I d o i s v e r y v a l u a b l e to C S U .
M ean
N
61
12 1
110
13 9
4 .4 4
4 .5 1
4 .5 9
4 .7 1
24
5
2
9
2 .4 6
1.8 0
4 .0 0
3 .5 6
Q 11. M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e p u r p o s e o f m y u n i t.
M ean
Q 6 0 . T h e u n i v e r s i ty a d m i n i s tr a ti o n c a r e s a b o u t m y
s i tu a ti o n .
N
M ean
Table 6.
No significant differences were found between full-time and part-time faculty. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). Question Q60 was asked only of part-time
faculty.
Value and Appreciation by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
Q 0 4 . I r e c e i v e r e c o g n i ti o n o r p r a i s e f o r d o i n g g o o d
w ork .
Q 0 5 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s e e m s to c a r e a b o u t m e a s a
p ers on .
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
383
46
3 .3 6
3 .4 6
382
46
3 .8 2
3 .9 3
384
46
3 .5 2
3 .6 7
385
45
4 .5 4
4 .4 9
384
46
4 .4 6
4 .5 0
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 0 9 . M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e m i s s i o n o f th e
U n i v e r s i ty .
N
M ean
N
Q 10 . T h e w o r k I d o i s v e r y v a l u a b l e to C S U .
M ean
N
385
46
4 .6 0
4 .4 1
Q 11. M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e p u r p o s e o f m y u n i t.
M ean
Q 6 0 . T h e u n i v e r s i ty a d m i n i s tr a ti o n c a r e s a b o u t m y
s i tu a ti o n .
N
M ean
0
41
2 .7 1
4
36% of part-time faculty believe their department has good ways of showing that non-tenure track faculty are
valued.
20% of part-time faculty believes the University administration cares about their situation.
Table 7.
Table 7 displays the same results by minority status and gender. Neither differences by minority status or gender were
statistically significant. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 =
strongly agree).
Value and Appreciation by Minority Status and Gender
N o n m i n o r i ty
Q 0 4 . I r e c e i v e r e c o g n i ti o n o r p r a i s e f o r d o i n g g o o d
w ork .
Q 0 5 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s e e m s to c a r e a b o u t m e a s a
p ers on .
N
M ean
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
16 0 6
270
12 2 6
790
3 .6 1
3 .5 5
3 .6 2
3 .5 3
N
16 0 7
268
12 2 4
792
M ean
4 .0 2
4 .0 5
4 .0 2
4 .0 0
N
16 0 9
268
12 2 6
790
M ean
3 .7 0
3 .6 7
3 .6 6
3 .7 0
N
16 0 9
267
12 2 4
792
M ean
4 .4 0
4 .4 5
4 .3 7
4 .4 3
N
16 0 6
268
12 2 3
790
M ean
4 .3 7
4 .4 0
4 .3 4
4 .4 1
N
16 0 9
269
12 2 7
793
M ean
4 .5 6
4 .5 2
4 .5 3
4 .5 7
34
2
19
20
2 .7 4
4 .0 0
2 .5 8
2 .8 5
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
Q 0 9 . M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e m i s s i o n o f th e
U n i v e r s i ty .
Q 10 . T h e w o r k I d o i s v e r y v a l u a b l e to C S U .
Q 11. M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e p u r p o s e o f m y u n i t.
Q 6 0 . T h e u n i v e r s i ty a d m i n i s tr a ti o n c a r e s a b o u t m y
s i tu a ti o n .
N
M ean
5
Diversity Efforts
Tables 8-10 display results related to statements about departmental efforts to increase faculty diversity. These
questions were only asked of faculty. Appendix E shows that many faculty responded neutrally to questions regarding
efforts to increase and support departmental diversity. This finding may require further attention.
Table 8.
Differences between ranks were significant for question 45 only; again with a small effect size. Responses are on a 5point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Diversity Efforts by Faculty Rank
In s tr u c to r
Q 4 3 . H a s y o u r d e p a r tm e n t a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty
w i th d i s a b i l i ti e s ?
Q 4 4 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty o f
c olor.
Q 4 5 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r f a c u l ty o f c o l o r .
Q 4 6 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d w o m e n
f a c u l ty .
Q 4 7 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r w o m e n .
Q 4 8 . T h e c l i m a te i n m y d e p a r tm e n t f o r n o n - te n u r e tr a c k f a c u l ty o f c o l o r i s g o o d .
N
M ean
76
2 .0 0
1.8 4
1.9 2
1.7 4
32
79
84
12 5
3 .7 2
3 .3 4
3 .4 6
3 .7 4
28
63
73
112
3 .5 0
3 .11
3 .19
3 .4 9
42
10 2
99
13 3
4 .2 9
4 .0 5
3 .9 7
4 .2 0
N
M ean
41
92
90
13 2
4 .0 0
3 .3 8
3 .5 7
3 .7 8
N
M ean
F u ll P rof es s or
52
N
M ean
P rof es s or
43
N
M ean
A s s o c i a te
10
N
M ean
A s s i s ta n t
P rof es s or
37
66
65
92
3 .3 0
3 .15
3 .17
3 .7 3
Table 9.
No significant differences were found between full-time and part-time faculty. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Diversity Efforts by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
Q 4 3 . H a s y o u r d e p a r tm e n t a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty
w i th d i s a b i l i ti e s ?
Q 4 4 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty o f
c olor.
Q 4 5 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r f a c u l ty o f c o l o r .
Q 4 6 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d w o m e n
f a c u l ty .
Q 4 7 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r w o m e n .
Q 4 8 . T h e c l i m a te i n m y d e p a r tm e n t f o r n o n - te n u r e tr a c k f a c u l ty o f c o l o r i s g o o d .
N
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
17 1
10
M ean
1.8 2
2 .0 0
N
292
26
3 .5 8
3 .6 2
251
24
M ean
3 .3 1
3 .5 4
N
344
32
4 .0 9
4 .13
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
321
34
3 .6 1
3 .9 4
231
27
3 .3 7
3 .4 1
6
Table 10.
Male faculty were in more agreement with the statements than female faculty. The gender differences were significant
with small to medium effects. Question 47 had the largest effect size. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Diversity Efforts by Gender and Minority Status
N o n m i n o r i ty
Q 4 3 . H a s y o u r d e p a r tm e n t a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty
w i th d i s a b i l i ti e s ?
Q 4 4 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty o f
c olor.
Q 4 5 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r f a c u l ty o f c o l o r .
Q 4 6 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d w o m e n
f a c u l ty .
Q 4 7 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r w o m e n .
Q 4 8 . T h e c l i m a te i n m y d e p a r tm e n t f o r n o n - te n u r e tr a c k f a c u l ty o f c o l o r i s g o o d .
N
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
14 1
26
83
93
M ean
1.8 3
1.8 5
1.9 3
1.7 6
N
254
42
14 2
17 1
3 .5 8
3 .2 1
3 .5 1
3 .5 9
2 17
37
12 0
15 0
3 .3 5
2 .9 5
3 .18
3 .4 2
M ean
N
M ean
N
300
44
16 9
19 7
M ean
4 .12
4 .0 2
3 .9 6
4 .2 4
N
282
42
16 6
18 1
3 .6 9
3 .5 5
3 .2 8
4 .0 3
205
32
116
14 1
3 .3 7
3 .2 2
3 .16
3 .5 2
M ean
N
M ean
Voice
Tables 11-13 display results for questions related to the voice that employees feel they have in the workplace. This
group of questions had a large percent of neutral responses (displayed in Appendix E) which may require further
attention.
Table 11.
Generally, state classified staff displayed the lowest level of agreement with these questions when compared to the
remaining employee groups. There were statistically significant differences but the effect sizes were small. Responses
are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Voice by Employee Group
F a c u l ty
N
S ta te
A d m i n i s tr a ti v e
C las s if ied
P rof es s ion al
P o s t D o c to r a l
O th e r
473
895
773
40
63
3 .5 4
3 .4 2
3 .8 8
4 .15
3 .6 7
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 14 . E v e r y o n e f e e l s f r e e to s p e a k u p i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t i f a n d w h e n n e e d e d .
N
466
890
771
39
63
3 .6 8
3 .6 8
3 .8 9
3 .7 9
3 .8 6
N
465
890
768
37
63
M ean
3 .18
3 .0 9
3 .4 0
3 .6 2
3 .4 6
M ean
7
Table 12.
There were statistically significant differences by faculty rank but the effect sizes were small. Responses are on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Voice by Faculty Rank
In s tr u c to r
N
A s s i s ta n t
A s s o c i a te
P rof es s or
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
61
12 0
110
13 9
3 .3 8
3 .6 6
3 .2 9
3 .6 8
58
119
10 8
13 8
3 .7 9
3 .6 3
3 .3 9
3 .8 6
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 14 . E v e r y o n e f e e l s f r e e to s p e a k u p i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t i f a n d w h e n n e e d e d .
N
M ean
N
M ean
55
12 1
110
13 9
3 .3 5
3 .0 7
2 .9 4
3 .3 3
Table 13.
Significant differences were found between full-time and part-time faculty for Q14. The effect size was small. Responses
are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Voice by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
N
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
384
46
3 .5 2
3 .6 7
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 14 . E v e r y o n e f e e l s f r e e to s p e a k u p i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t i f a n d w h e n n e e d e d .
N
378
45
M ean
3 .6 1
3 .9 8
N
380
44
M ean
3 .11
3 .5 9
Table 14.
No significant differences were found by minority status. There were significant differences on Q12 and Q14 by gender
with small effect sizes. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 =
strongly agree).
Voice by Minority Status and Gender
N o n m i n o r i ty
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
N
16 0 9
268
12 2 6
790
M ean
3 .7 0
3 .6 7
3 .6 6
3 .7 0
N
Q 8. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 14 . E v e r y o n e f e e l s f r e e to s p e a k u p i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t i f a n d w h e n n e e d e d .
15 9 8
267
12 14
787
M ean
3 .8 1
3 .6 9
3 .7 3
3 .8 8
N
15 9 1
268
12 12
784
M ean
3 .2 9
3 .3 0
3 .18
3 .4 2
8
Professional Development
Tables 15-18 display results for questions related to professional development. This group of questions had a large
percent of neutral responses (displayed in Appendix E) which may require further attention.
Table 15.
Employees responded more favorably to statements regarding supervisor support & encouragement than to those
regarding availability of opportunities to grow professionally. Again, state classified appeared to have the lowest level of
agreement with these statements. Where significant differences were found, the effect sizes were small. Responses are
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Professional Development by Employee Group
F a c u l ty
N
S ta te
A d m i n i s tr a ti v e
C las s if ied
P rof es s ion al
P o s t D o c to r a l
O th e r
469
895
773
41
64
3 .7 4
3 .7 3
3 .9 7
4 .2 7
4 .13
469
894
774
41
63
3 .7 2
3 .7 6
4 .0 2
4 .2 4
4 .13
Q 0 6 . M y s u p e r v i s o r e n c o u r a g e s m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
Q 0 7 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r ts m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
Q 2 1. I h a v e h a d m e a n i n g f u l o p p o r tu n i ti e s i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t to l e a r n a n d g r o w i n th e l a s t y e a r .
Q 3 2 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g h o w to
g row an d d ev elop at w ork .
Q 3 3 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
c a r e e r o p p o r tu n i ti e s a v a i l a b l e to m e a t th e U n i v e r s i ty .
N
M ean
471
889
765
40
63
3 .6 9
3 .4 0
3 .7 9
3 .8 5
3 .7 3
461
884
771
39
61
3 .4 6
3 .4 2
3 .6 8
3 .4 9
3 .7 4
4 13
872
755
36
56
3 .3 3
3 .17
3 .2 4
3 .11
3 .4 5
N
M ean
N
M ean
Table 16.
Associate professors responded least favorably while instructors responded most favorably. There were some
statistically significant differences between faculty ranks but the effect sizes were small. Responses are on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Professional Development by Faculty Rank
In s tr u c to r
N
A s s i s ta n t
A s s o c i a te
P rof es s or
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
61
12 1
10 8
13 7
3 .7 9
3 .9 0
3 .5 7
3 .6 4
61
12 1
10 8
13 7
3 .7 7
3 .8 7
3 .4 3
3 .6 9
60
12 1
110
13 8
3 .7 0
3 .7 6
3 .5 4
3 .6 7
Q 0 6 . M y s u p e r v i s o r e n c o u r a g e s m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
Q 0 7 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r ts m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
Q 2 1. I h a v e h a d m e a n i n g f u l o p p o r tu n i ti e s i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t to l e a r n a n d g r o w i n th e l a s t y e a r .
Q 3 2 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g h o w to
g row an d d ev elop at w ork
Q 3 3 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
c a r e e r o p p o r tu n i ti e s a v a i l a b l e to m e a t th e U n i v e r s i ty
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
61
12 0
10 5
13 8
3 .4 9
3 .3 9
3 .3 5
3 .5 4
58
10 4
87
12 5
3 .2 4
3 .2 7
3 .16
3 .5 0
9
Table 17.
No significant differences were found between full-time and part-time faculty. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Professional Development by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
N
381
45
3 .7 1
3 .7 1
381
45
3 .6 7
3 .7 3
Q 0 6 . M y s u p e r v i s o r e n c o u r a g e s m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
Q 0 7 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r ts m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
Q 2 1. I h a v e h a d m e a n i n g f u l o p p o r tu n i ti e s i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t to l e a r n a n d g r o w i n th e l a s t y e a r .
N
M ean
N
383
45
3 .6 3
3 .9 1
378
45
3 .4 2
3 .6 9
Q 3 2 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g h o w to
g row an d d ev elop at w ork .
M ean
N
333
41
3 .2 8
3 .6 3
Q 3 3 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
c a r e e r o p p o r tu n i ti e s a v a i l a b l e to m e a t th e U n i v e r s i ty . M e a n
There were, however, some issues raised by the part-time faculty. The 2012 survey used some of the same items as the
2009 Survey of Contingent Faculty and results echoed the findings of the previous survey.
17% reported their department has job descriptions and promotion guidelines for non-tenure track faculty.
13% reported being satisfied with their access to full-time positions; 32% reported dissatisfaction.
41% reported non-tenure track faculty have access to full-time positions.
48% reported they must apply annually to work in their department although most agreed that the
reappointment process is reasonable.
48% do not believe they are eligible for promotion and/or merit pay increases.
Table 18.
Neither differences by minority status or gender were statistically significant. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Professional Development by Minority Status and Gender
N o n m i n o r i ty
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
N
16 0 3
269
12 2 2
792
M ean
3 .8 9
3 .9 0
3 .8 7
3 .8 7
N
16 0 4
268
12 2 2
792
M ean
3 .9 3
3 .8 5
3 .9 1
3 .8 8
N
15 9 7
262
12 0 9
788
M ean
3 .7 0
3 .6 4
3 .6 7
3 .6 4
N
15 9 0
267
12 13
782
M ean
3 .5 9
3 .5 0
3 .5 8
3 .5 5
N
15 2 6
256
116 8
747
M ean
3 .2 9
3 .3 1
3 .2 9
3 .2 6
Q 0 6 . M y s u p e r v i s o r e n c o u r a g e s m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
Q 0 7 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r ts m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
Q 2 1. I h a v e h a d m e a n i n g f u l o p p o r tu n i ti e s i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t to l e a r n a n d g r o w i n th e l a s t y e a r .
Q 3 2 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g h o w to
g row an d d ev elop at w ork
Q 3 3 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
c a r e e r o p p o r tu n i ti e s a v a i l a b l e to m e a t th e U n i v e r s i ty
10
Colleagues and Co-Workers
Tables 19-22 present results for questions about the commitment and diversity tolerance of colleagues and co-workers.
Table 19.
There were statistically significant differences between employee groups with small effect sizes. Responses are on a 5point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
**Questions 13 and 17 were stated in the negative so we would hope to see lower means.
Colleagues and Co-Workers by Employee Group
State
Classified
Faculty
A dministrative
P o st Do cto ral
P ro fessio nal
Other
Q12. The peo ple I wo rk with are able to bring up
pro blems and to ugh issues.
N
466
890
771
39
63
M ean
3.68
3.68
3.89
3.79
3.86
Q13. The peo ple I wo rk with so metimes reject
o thers fo r being different. **
N
467
886
769
40
62
M ean
2.59
2.50
2.28
2.13
2.47
Q17. M y superviso r makes inappro priate
co mments at wo rk.**
N
465
891
772
41
60
M ean
1.63
1.94
1.71
1.76
1.50
Q20. The peo ple I wo rk with in my department are
co mmitted to do ing quality wo rk.
N
472
900
775
40
65
M ean
4.17
4.01
4.21
4.23
4.22
Table 20.
Table 20 displays results by faculty rank. Associate professors appeared to be the least content with their colleagues
and co-workers. Only results for question 12 showed significant between group differences. Again, the effect size was
small. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
**Questions 13 and 17 were stated in the negative so we would hope to see lower means.
Colleagues and Co-Workers by Faculty Rank
A ssistant
P ro fesso r
Instructo r
Q12. The peo ple I wo rk with are able to bring up
pro blems and to ugh issues.
N
Q13. The peo ple I wo rk with so metimes reject
o thers fo r being different.**
N
Q17. M y superviso r makes inappro priate
co mments at wo rk.**
N
Q20. The peo ple I wo rk with in my department are
co mmitted to do ing quality wo rk.
N
M ean
M ean
M ean
M ean
A sso ciate
P ro fesso r
Full P ro fesso r
58
119
108
138
3.79
3.63
3.39
3.86
58
120
108
139
2.29
2.61
2.66
2.62
60
120
108
137
1.43
1.72
1.71
1.67
60
120
110
139
4.30
4.09
4.14
4.19
11
Table 21.
Significant between group differences were found between full-time and part-time faculty on Q20 with a small effect
size. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
**Questions 13 and 17 were stated in the negative so we would hope to see lower means.
Colleagues and Co-Workers by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
Full time
faculty
P art time
faculty
Q12. The peo ple I wo rk with are able to bring up
pro blems and to ugh issues.
N
378
45
M ean
3.61
3.98
Q13. The peo ple I wo rk with so metimes reject
o thers fo r being different.**
N
380
45
M ean
2.58
2.62
Q17. M y superviso r makes inappro priate
co mments at wo rk.**
N
379
46
M ean
1.68
1.48
Q20. The peo ple I wo rk with in my department are
co mmitted to do ing quality wo rk.
N
383
46
M ean
4.13
4.43
Table 22.
There was a significant difference by minority status on question 20 and by gender for questions 12 and 20; all with
small effect sizes. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 =
strongly agree).
**Questions 13 and 17 were stated in the negative so we would hope to see lower means.
Colleagues and Co-Workers by Minority Status and Gender
N o n m i n o r i ty
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 13 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th s o m e ti m e s r e j e c t o th e r s
f o r b e i n g d i f f e r e n t.* *
Q 17 . M y s u p e r v i s o r m a k e s i n a p p r o p r i a te c o m m e n ts
a t w o r k .* *
Q 2 0 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th i n m y d e p a r tm e n t a r e
c o m m i tte d to d o i n g q u a l i ty w o r k .
N
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
15 9 8
267
12 14
787
M ean
3 .8 1
3 .6 9
3 .7 3
3 .8 8
N
15 9 1
266
12 13
782
M ean
2 .3 7
2 .5 1
2 .4 4
2 .3 6
N
15 9 5
269
12 16
785
M ean
1.7 2
1.8 6
1.7 5
1.7 3
N
16 12
268
12 2 7
792
M ean
4 .17
4 .0 1
4 .19
4 .0 8
Supervisor Performance
Tables 23-26 display results for statements related to supervisor performance.
Table 23.
Employees reported high levels of respect from their supervisor but slightly lower levels of encouragement or support
for professional development. They reported even lower agreement with statements related to appreciation. Again,
post-doctoral employees reported a significantly higher level of agreement but it is important to balance that average
score with the number of respondents. Between group differences were statistically significant with small effect sizes.
Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). It is
important to note that Q17 is stated in the negative so we would want to see a low score.
12
Supervisor Performance by Employee Group
State
Classified
Faculty
A dministrative
P o st Do cto ral
P ro fessio nal
Other
N
474
896
777
41
63
M ean
4.35
4.25
4.35
4.29
4.40
Q04. I receive reco gnitio n o r praise fo r do ing go o d
wo rk.
N
472
896
774
41
64
M ean
3.40
3.45
3.67
4.02
3.86
Q05. M y superviso r seems to care abo ut me as a
perso n.
N
471
899
775
40
63
3.85
3.89
4.12
4.18
4.17
Q01. I understand what is expected o f me at wo rk.
M ean
N
469
895
773
41
64
M ean
3.74
3.73
3.97
4.27
4.13
N
469
894
774
41
63
M ean
3.72
3.76
4.02
4.24
4.13
N
467
891
770
41
65
M ean
4.13
3.97
4.24
4.27
4.31
N
465
891
772
41
60
M ean
1.63
1.94
1.71
1.76
1.50
Q06. M y superviso r enco urages my develo pment.
Q07. M y superviso r suppo rts my develo pment.
Q16. M y superviso r treats me with respect at wo rk.
Q17. M y superviso r makes inappro priate
co mments at wo rk.**
Table 24.
Associate professors appeared to be in least agreement with statements related to supervisor performance. There were
some statistically significant between group differences; all with small effect sizes. Responses are on a 5-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). It is important to note that Q17 is stated
in the negative so we would want to see a low score.
Supervisor Performance by Faculty Rank
A ssistant
P ro fesso r
Instructo r
N
A sso ciate
P ro fesso r
Full P ro fesso r
61
121
110
139
4.39
4.23
4.25
4.48
60
121
109
139
3.37
3.40
3.19
3.48
61
120
110
137
4.13
3.93
3.61
3.80
61
121
108
137
3.79
3.90
3.57
3.64
61
121
108
137
3.77
3.87
3.43
3.69
60
120
109
138
4.37
4.14
3.96
4.11
60
120
108
137
1.43
1.72
1.71
1.67
Q01. I understand what is expected o f me at wo rk.
M ean
Q04. I receive reco gnitio n o r praise fo r do ing go o d
wo rk.
N
Q05. M y superviso r seems to care abo ut me as a
perso n.
N
M ean
M ean
N
Q06. M y superviso r enco urages my develo pment.
M ean
N
Q07. M y superviso r suppo rts my develo pment.
M ean
N
Q16. M y superviso r treats me with respect at wo rk.
M ean
Q17. M y superviso r makes inappro priate
co mments at wo rk.**
N
M ean
13
Table 25.
No significant differences were found between full-time and part-time faculty. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). It is important to note that Q17 is stated in the
negative so we would want to see a low score.
Supervisor Performance by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
Full time
faculty
P art time
faculty
N
385
46
M ean
4.34
4.30
Q01. I understand what is expected o f me at wo rk.
Q04. I receive reco gnitio n o r praise fo r do ing go o d
wo rk.
N
383
46
M ean
3.36
3.46
Q05. M y superviso r seems to care abo ut me as a
perso n.
N
382
46
M ean
3.82
3.93
N
381
45
M ean
3.71
3.71
N
381
46
M ean
4.09
4.28
N
379
46
M ean
1.68
1.48
Q06. M y superviso r enco urages my develo pment.
Q16. M y superviso r treats me with respect at wo rk.
Q17. M y superviso r makes inappro priate
co mments at wo rk.**
Table 26.
Neither differences by minority status or gender were statistically significant. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). It is important to note that Q17 is stated in the
negative so we would want to see a low score.
Supervisor Performance by Minority Status and Gender
No nmino rity
M ino rity
Female
M ale
N
1612
267
1229
792
M ean
4.33
4.36
4.34
4.33
Q04. I receive reco gnitio n o r praise fo r do ing go o d
wo rk.
N
1606
270
1226
790
3.61
3.55
3.62
3.53
Q05. M y superviso r seems to care abo ut me as a
perso n.
N
1607
268
1224
792
M ean
4.02
4.05
4.02
4.00
N
1603
269
1222
792
M ean
3.89
3.90
3.87
3.87
N
1604
268
1222
792
M ean
3.93
3.85
3.91
3.88
N
1601
267
1220
788
Q1. I understand what is expected o f me at wo rk.
M ean
Q06. M y superviso r enco urages my develo pment.
Q07. M y superviso r suppo rts my develo pment.
Q16. M y superviso r treats me with respect at wo rk.
M ean
Q17. M y superviso r makes inappro priate
co mments at wo rk.**
N
M ean
4.15
4.18
4.15
4.16
1595
269
1216
785
1.72
1.86
1.75
1.73
14
Benefits and Resources
Tables 27-30 display results for questions related to employee benefits and available resources. About 67% of
employees reported being aware of the Commitment to Campus program.
Table 27.
State classified staff appeared to be the least informed about the benefits and resources available to them as CSU
employees. Between group differences were statistically significant with small effect sizes. Responses are on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Benefits and Resources by Employee Group
F a c u l ty
Q 2 9 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
h e a l th b e n e f i ts o p ti o n s .
Q 3 0 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
r e ti r e m e n t p l a n .
Q 3 1. I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
u n i v e r s i ty r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to m e .
S ta te
A d m i n i s tr a ti v e
C las s if ied
P rof es s ion al
P o s t D o c to r a l
O th e r
N
468
876
769
39
59
M ean
4 .11
3 .9 5
4 .12
4 .0 5
4 .15
N
M ean
N
M ean
471
884
772
39
56
3 .8 9
3 .6 9
3 .8 5
3 .8 2
4 .0 2
468
885
771
38
61
3 .7 8
3 .7 2
3 .9 2
3 .4 7
3 .9 2
Table 28.
There were no significant differences by rank. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Benefits and Resources by Faculty Rank
In s tr u c to r
Q 2 9 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
h e a l th b e n e f i ts o p ti o n s
Q 3 0 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
r e ti r e m e n t p l a n
Q 3 1. I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
u n i v e r s i ty r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to m e
N
M ean
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
60
12 1
10 9
13 7
4 .10
4 .0 3
4 .18
61
12 0
110
13 8
3 .7 7
3 .9 1
3 .7 9
3 .9 8
61
118
10 8
13 9
3 .7 5
3 .7 5
3 .7 7
3 .8 0
N
M ean
A s s o c i a te
4 .0 3
N
M ean
A s s i s ta n t
P rof es s or
Table 29.
No significant differences were found between full-time and part-time faculty. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Benefits and Resources by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
N
f a c u l ty
384
43
4 .0 8
4 .2 1
384
45
3 .8 6
4 .0 7
Q 2 9 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
h e a l th b e n e f i ts o p ti o n s .
M ean
N
Q 3 0 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
r e ti r e m e n t p l a n .
M ean
N
381
45
3 .7 5
3 .9 8
Q 3 1. I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
u n i v e r s i ty r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to m e .
M ean
15
Table 30.
Differences by minority status were not statistically significant. Questions 31 had a significant gender difference with a
small effect size. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 =
strongly agree).
Benefits and Resources by Minority Status and Gender
N o n m i n o r i ty
Q 2 9 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
h e a l th b e n e f i ts o p ti o n s
Q 3 0 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
r e ti r e m e n t p l a n
Q 3 1. I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
u n i v e r s i ty r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to m e
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
N
15 7 6
267
119 8
783
M ean
4 .0 8
3 .9 8
4 .0 8
4 .0 3
N
15 8 7
267
12 0 6
787
M ean
3 .8 4
3 .7 3
3 .8 1
3 .8 4
N
15 9 3
264
12 10
786
M ean
3 .8 4
3 .8 2
3 .8 8
3 .7 5
Personal Safety
Tables 31-34 show results for questions related to personal safety.
Table 31.
Faculty and state classified appeared to be more concerned about safety on campus. These groups were statistically
different from the remaining employee groups. The effect sizes were small. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Personal Safety by Employee Group
F a c u l ty
Q 2 4 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e l e v e l o f s u p p o r t
c o n c e r n i n g y o u r p h y s i c a l s a f e ty ?
Q 2 5 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e a w a r e n e s s o f
a n d a c c e s s to c a m p u s s a f e ty r e s o u r c e s ?
S ta te
A d m i n i s tr a ti v e
C las s if ied
P rof es s ion al
P o s t D o c to r a l
O th e r
N
464
888
760
40
64
M ean
4 .0 1
3 .9 2
4 .12
4 .2 3
4 .2 0
461
878
735
38
60
3 .9 7
3 .9 6
4 .0 8
4 .13
4 .13
N
M ean
Table 32.
Full professors were significantly less satisfied with the level of support concerning their physical safety than other
faculty ranks. The effect size was small. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Personal Safety by Faculty Rank
In s tr u c to r
Q 2 4 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e l e v e l o f s u p p o r t
c o n c e r n i n g y o u r p h y s i c a l s a f e ty
Q 2 5 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e a w a r e n e s s o f
a n d a c c e s s to c a m p u s s a f e ty r e s o u r c e s ?
N
M ean
N
M ean
A s s i s ta n t
A s s o c i a te
P rof es s or
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
59
12 0
10 8
13 7
4 .19
4 .0 7
4 .0 5
3 .8 5
60
118
10 6
13 7
4 .0 5
4 .0 7
4 .0 0
3 .7 7
16
Table 33.
There were significant between group differences between full-time and part-time faculty on Q24 but the effect size was
small. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Personal Safety by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
Q 2 4 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e l e v e l o f s u p p o r t
c o n c e r n i n g y o u r p h y s i c a l s a f e ty
Q 2 5 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e a w a r e n e s s o f
a n d a c c e s s to c a m p u s s a f e ty r e s o u r c e s ?
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
N
M ean
379
45
3 .9 7
4 .3 1
375
45
3 .9 3
4 .13
N
M ean
Table 34.
There were no significant differences by minority status. There was a significant gender difference on question 25
although the effect size was small. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4
= agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Personal Safety by Minority Status and Gender
N o n m i n o r i ty
Q 2 4 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e l e v e l o f s u p p o r t
c o n c e r n i n g y o u r p h y s i c a l s a f e ty
Q 2 5 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e a w a r e n e s s o f
a n d a c c e s s to c a m p u s s a f e ty r e s o u r c e s ?
N
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
15 8 7
262
12 10
777
M ean
4 .0 7
3 .9 9
4 .0 6
4 .0 5
N
15 5 7
258
119 5
755
M ean
4 .0 6
4 .0 6
4 .0 7
3 .9 9
Accessibility
Employees with documented disabilities generally rated their department’s overall accessibility as good to very good.
The same was true for campus facilities. Questions related to accessibility were only asked of respondents who indicated
having a documented disability.
Table 35.
Respondents (with and without documented disabilities) were in general agreement with statements regarding campus
access for people with impaired abilities. Differences between employee groups were statistically significant with small
effect sizes. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly
agree).
Accessibility by Employee Group
Faculty
Q22. CSU reco gnizes the impo rtance o f a campus
that is accessible fo r peo ple with mo bility
impairments.
State
Classified
A dministrative
P o st Do cto ral
P ro fessio nal
Other
N
386
805
642
29
54
M ean
3.70
3.89
3.75
3.83
3.87
Q23. CSU reco gnizes the impo rtance o f a campus N
that is accessible fo r peo ple with hearing and visual
M ean
impairments.
353
750
586
23
51
3.59
3.71
3.57
3.61
3.80
17
Table 36.
Differences by rank were not significant. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Accessibility by Faculty Rank
In s tr u c to r
Q 2 2 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
A s s i s ta n t
A s s o c i a te
P rof es s or
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
48
93
89
12 5
3 .7 9
3 .6 0
3 .5 7
3 .7 7
45
84
85
114
3 .7 6
3 .3 9
3 .5 9
3 .6 3
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th m o b i l i ty
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
Q 2 3 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th h e a r i n g a n d v i s u a l
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
Table 37.
There were no significant differences between full-time and part-time faculty. Responses are on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Accessibility by Full-Time/Part-Time Status
Q 2 2 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
3 15
39
3 .6 4
3 .9 5
289
39
3 .5 4
3 .7 9
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th m o b i l i ty
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
Q 2 3 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th h e a r i n g a n d v i s u a l
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
Table 38.
There were significant differences by minority status and gender; the effect sizes were small. Responses are on a 5point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Accessibility by Minority Status and Gender
N o n m i n o r i ty
Q 2 2 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
N
13 8 5
232
10 5 9
674
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
3 .8 4
3 .5 9
3 .7 6
3 .8 8
Q 2 3 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
12 6 1
2 16
974
6 15
M ean
3 .6 8
3 .4 5
3 .6 2
3 .6 6
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th m o b i l i ty
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th h e a r i n g a n d v i s u a l
i m p a i r m e n ts .
Harassment
438 respondents reported having felt harassed while working at CSU and 169 have felt harassed while living in the Fort
Collins Community. Most often harassment was in the form of verbal and/or written comments, stares, or exclusion and
was most often based on gender or age. Most often the harassment came from supervisors or co-workers. This
question provides no indication of when the harassment occurred thereby leaving the data largely uninterpretable with
respect to the current climate on campus.
As acknowledged in the beginning of this report, many comparisons between the first two surveys of work experiences
(2002 and 2004) and the 2012 survey are difficult. Although the questions are not identical, some comparison can be
18
made on the topic of harassment. In 2002, 27% reported “experiencing the discomfort of discrimination at CSU”; in 2004
26% reported “having felt harassed while working at CSU”. For the 2012 survey 20% reported that they have “felt
harassed while working at CSU”. The percent of respondents who reported harassment at CSU has been on the decline.
General Conclusions
Generally, employees responded favorably to the statements in the survey. They reported feeling valued and energetic
about their jobs. They also reported exerting their full effort and reported their co-workers/colleagues were committed
to doing quality work. There were some statistically significant differences but all were accompanied by small effect
sizes (except gender differences on Q47) indicating negligible practical difference by employee group, faculty rank, fulltime/part-time status, minority status, or gender. There were a large percentage of neutral responses with respect to
the topics of voice, diversity efforts, and professional development. These areas may require further attention.
Results from the survey respond to the question of between group differences but have at least two limitations.
They do not address the question of absolute value. For example, while there were minimal group differences,
are we satisfied with any issue on the survey having a mean score that doesn’t indicate at least some level of
agreement or satisfaction? Are we comfortable with the decrease in reported harassment even though 1 in 5
respondents still report having felt harassed? Are we content with the responses of our part-time faculty?
There were many opportunities for respondents to provide comments; are we satisfied with negative comments
if they are relatively few? These types of absolute value questions are important to consider as we discuss the
survey results on campus.
With a small number of exceptions, they do not provide any indication of continuous quality improvement.
They instead serve as a baseline measure against which future results should be compared.
These results and the ensuing discussions, both formal and informal, will be critical in informing the adaptive
management of our workplace climate. Serving as a catalyst for future discussion may very well be the most important
contribution this effort.
19
A p p e n d ix A :
A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n a n d E m p l o y e e G r o u p
F a c u l ty
N
S ta te
A d m i n i s tr a ti v e
C las s if ied
P rof es s ion al
P o s t D o c to r a l
O th e r
474
896
777
41
63
4 .3 5
4 .2 5
4 .3 5
4 .2 9
4 .4 0
Q 0 1. I u n d e r s ta n d w h a t i s e x p e c te d o f m e a t w o r k .
M ean
Q 0 2 . I h a v e th e r e s o u r c e s , s u c h a s m a te r i a l s a n d
e q u i p m e n t r e q u i r e d to d o m y w o r k w e l l .
Q 0 3 . A t w o r k , I h a v e th e o p p o r tu n i ty to u s e m y s k i l l s
a n d ta l e n ts .
Q 0 4 . I r e c e i v e r e c o g n i ti o n o r p r a i s e f o r d o i n g g o o d
w ork .
Q 0 5 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s e e m s to c a r e a b o u t m e a s a
p ers on .
N
474
900
777
41
65
M ean
3 .4 1
3 .9 5
3 .9 9
4 .3 7
4 .0 6
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
473
900
777
41
65
4 .2 9
3 .7 8
4 .2 3
4 .3 7
4 .14
472
896
774
41
64
3 .4 0
3 .4 5
3 .6 7
4 .0 2
3 .8 6
471
899
775
40
63
3 .8 5
3 .8 9
4 .12
4 .18
4 .17
469
895
773
41
64
3 .7 4
3 .7 3
3 .9 7
4 .2 7
4 .13
Q 0 6 . M y s u p e r v i s o r e n c o u r a g e s m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
469
894
774
41
63
3 .7 2
3 .7 6
4 .0 2
4 .2 4
4 .13
473
895
773
40
63
3 .5 4
3 .4 2
3 .8 8
4 .15
3 .6 7
473
895
776
41
63
4 .5 5
4 .2 9
4 .3 9
4 .12
4 .4 8
Q 0 7 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r ts m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 0 9 . M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e m i s s i o n o f th e
U n i v e r s i ty .
N
M ean
N
473
894
775
40
63
4 .4 8
4 .2 8
4 .3 9
4 .0 5
4 .3 5
Q 10 . T h e w o r k I d o i s v e r y v a l u a b l e to C S U .
M ean
N
474
900
773
41
63
4 .5 9
4 .4 7
4 .6 1
4 .2 0
4 .4 1
466
890
771
39
63
3 .6 8
3 .6 8
3 .8 9
3 .7 9
3 .8 6
467
886
769
40
62
2 .5 9
2 .5 0
2 .2 8
2 .13
2 .4 7
Q 11. M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e p u r p o s e o f m y u n i t.
M ean
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 13 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th s o m e ti m e s r e j e c t o th e r s
f o r b e i n g d i f f e r e n t.
Q 14 . E v e r y o n e f e e l s f r e e to s p e a k u p i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t i f a n d w h e n n e e d e d .
Q 15 . E v e r y o n e i s e n c o u r a g e d to g e t i n v o l v e d i n
i s s u e s th a t a f f e c t th i s d e p a r tm e n t.
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
465
890
768
37
63
M ean
3 .18
3 .0 9
3 .4 0
3 .6 2
3 .4 6
N
468
887
766
38
62
M ean
3 .4 8
3 .2 5
3 .5 1
3 .4 5
3 .6 6
N
467
891
770
41
65
M ean
4 .13
3 .9 7
4 .2 4
4 .2 7
4 .3 1
N
465
891
772
41
60
M ean
1.6 3
1.9 4
1.7 1
1.7 6
1.5 0
Q 16 . M y s u p e r v i s o r tr e a ts m e w i th r e s p e c t a t w o r k .
Q 17 . M y s u p e r v i s o r m a k e s i n a p p r o p r i a te c o m m e n ts
at w ork .
N
474
901
776
40
65
4 .7 3
4 .3 5
4 .4 6
4 .4 8
4 .5 1
474
899
776
40
65
Q 18 . I e x e r t m y f u l l e f f o r t to m y j o b .
M ean
N
Q 19 . I f e e l e n e r g e ti c a b o u t m y j o b .
M ean
Q 2 0 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th i n m y d e p a r tm e n t a r e
c o m m i tte d to d o i n g q u a l i ty w o r k .
Q 2 1. I h a v e h a d m e a n i n g f u l o p p o r tu n i ti e s i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t to l e a r n a n d g r o w i n th e l a s t y e a r .
4 .2 7
3 .8 4
4 .0 6
4 .0 8
4 .3 5
N
472
900
775
40
65
M ean
4 .17
4 .0 1
4 .2 1
4 .2 3
4 .2 2
471
889
765
40
63
3 .6 9
3 .4 0
3 .7 9
3 .8 5
3 .7 3
N
M ean
20
Appendix A: Average Scores by Question and Employee Group
Faculty
State
Classified
Administrative
Professional
Post
Doctoral
Other
Q22. CSU recognizes the importance of a
campus that is accessible for people with
mobility impairments.
N
386
805
642
29
54
Mean
3.70
3.89
3.75
3.83
3.87
Q23. CSU recognizes the importance of a
campus that is accessible for people with
hearing and visual impairments.
N
353
750
586
23
51
Mean
3.59
3.71
3.57
3.61
3.80
Q24. How satisfied are you with the level of
support concerning your physical safety?
N
464
888
760
40
64
Mean
4.01
3.92
4.12
4.23
4.20
N
461
878
735
38
60
Mean
3.97
3.96
4.08
4.13
4.13
Q25. How satisfied are you with the awareness
of and access to campus safety resources?
Q26. Is your job performance evaluated
annually?
N
457
884
714
24
60
Mean
1.02
1.01
1.08
1.46
1.13
Q29. I have sufficient information regarding my
health benefits options.
N
468
876
769
39
59
Mean
4.11
3.95
4.12
4.05
4.15
Q30. I have sufficient information regarding my
retirement plan.
N
471
884
772
39
56
Mean
3.89
3.69
3.85
3.82
4.02
Q31. I have sufficient information regarding the
university resources available to me.
N
468
885
771
38
61
Mean
3.78
3.72
3.92
3.47
3.92
Q32. I have sufficient information regarding how
to grow and develop at work.
N
461
884
771
39
61
Mean
3.46
3.42
3.68
3.49
3.74
Q33. I have sufficient information regarding the
career opportunities available to me at the
University.
N
413
872
755
36
56
Mean
3.33
3.17
3.24
3.11
3.45
Q102. Are you aware of the Commitment to
Campus program?
N
436
825
736
40
61
Mean
1.45
1.30
1.25
1.75
1.48
21
A p p e n d ix B :
A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n a n d F a c u l ty R a n k
In s tr u c to r
N
A s s i s ta n t
A s s o c i a te
P rof es s or
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
61
12 1
110
13 9
4 .3 9
4 .2 3
4 .2 5
4 .4 8
Q 0 1. I u n d e r s ta n d w h a t i s e x p e c te d o f m e a t w o r k .
M ean
Q 0 2 . I h a v e th e r e s o u r c e s , s u c h a s m a te r i a l s a n d
e q u i p m e n t r e q u i r e d to d o m y w o r k w e l l .
Q 0 3 . A t w o r k , I h a v e th e o p p o r tu n i ty to u s e m y s k i l l s
a n d ta l e n ts .
Q 0 4 . I r e c e i v e r e c o g n i ti o n o r p r a i s e f o r d o i n g g o o d
w ork .
Q 5 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s e e m s to c a r e a b o u t m e a s a
p ers on .
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
61
12 1
110
13 9
3 .7 4
3 .3 4
3 .2 5
3 .3 9
61
12 1
110
13 9
4 .3 3
4 .3 1
4 .10
4 .3 9
60
12 1
10 9
13 9
3 .3 7
3 .4 0
3 .19
3 .4 8
61
12 0
110
13 7
4 .13
3 .9 3
3 .6 1
3 .8 0
61
12 1
10 8
13 7
3 .7 9
3 .9 0
3 .5 7
3 .6 4
61
12 1
10 8
13 7
3 .7 7
3 .8 7
3 .4 3
3 .6 9
61
12 0
110
13 9
3 .3 8
3 .6 6
3 .2 9
3 .6 8
60
12 1
110
13 9
4 .4 8
4 .4 5
4 .5 5
4 .6 5
Q 0 6 . M y s u p e r v i s o r e n c o u r a g e s m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
Q 0 7 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r ts m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 9 . M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e m i s s i o n o f th e
U n i v e r s i ty .
N
M ean
N
61
12 0
110
13 9
4 .4 4
4 .3 6
4 .4 4
4 .5 8
61
12 1
110
13 9
4 .4 4
4 .5 1
4 .5 9
4 .7 1
58
119
10 8
13 8
3 .7 9
3 .6 3
3 .3 9
3 .8 6
58
12 0
10 8
13 9
2 .2 9
2 .6 1
2 .6 6
2 .6 2
Q 10 . T h e w o r k I d o i s v e r y v a l u a b l e to C S U .
M ean
N
Q 11. M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e p u r p o s e o f m y u n i t.
M ean
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 13 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th s o m e ti m e s r e j e c t o th e r s
f o r b e i n g d i f f e r e n t.
Q 14 . E v e r y o n e f e e l s f r e e to s p e a k u p i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t i f a n d w h e n n e e d e d .
Q 15 . E v e r y o n e i s e n c o u r a g e d to g e t i n v o l v e d i n
i s s u e s th a t a f f e c t th i s d e p a r tm e n t.
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
55
12 1
110
13 9
3 .3 5
3 .0 7
2 .9 4
3 .3 3
57
12 1
110
13 8
3 .2 8
3 .5 4
3 .3 4
3 .5 8
60
12 0
10 9
13 8
4 .3 7
4 .14
3 .9 6
4 .11
60
12 0
10 8
13 7
1.4 3
1.7 2
1.7 1
1.6 7
Q 16 . M y s u p e r v i s o r tr e a ts m e w i th r e s p e c t a t w o r k .
M ean
Q 17 . M y s u p e r v i s o r m a k e s i n a p p r o p r i a te c o m m e n ts
at w ork .
N
M ean
N
61
12 1
110
13 9
4 .7 4
4 .6 4
4 .7 0
4 .7 9
61
12 1
110
13 9
4 .4 6
4 .3 9
3 .9 5
4 .3 2
60
12 0
110
13 9
4 .3 0
4 .0 9
4 .14
4 .19
60
12 1
110
13 8
3 .7 0
3 .7 6
3 .5 4
3 .6 7
Q 18 . I e x e r t m y f u l l e f f o r t to m y j o b .
M ean
N
Q 19 . I f e e l e n e r g e ti c a b o u t m y j o b .
M ean
Q 2 0 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th i n m y d e p a r tm e n t a r e
c o m m i tte d to d o i n g q u a l i ty w o r k .
Q 2 1. I h a v e h a d m e a n i n g f u l o p p o r tu n i ti e s i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t to l e a r n a n d g r o w i n th e l a s t y e a r .
N
M ean
N
M ean
22
A p p e n d ix B :
A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n a n d F a c u l ty R a n k
In s tr u c to r
Q 2 2 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
A s s i s ta n t
A s s o c i a te
P rof es s or
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
48
93
89
12 5
3 .7 9
3 .6 0
3 .5 7
3 .7 7
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th m o b i l i ty
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
Q 2 3 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
45
84
85
114
3 .7 6
3 .3 9
3 .5 9
3 .6 3
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th h e a r i n g a n d v i s u a l
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
Q 2 4 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e l e v e l o f s u p p o r t
N
c o n c e r n i n g y o u r p h y s i c a l s a f e ty
Q 2 5 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e a w a r e n e s s o f
a n d a c c e s s to c a m p u s s a f e ty r e s o u r c e s ?
Q 2 9 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
h e a l th b e n e f i ts o p ti o n s
Q 3 0 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
r e ti r e m e n t p l a n
Q 3 1. I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
u n i v e r s i ty r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to m e
Q 3 2 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g h o w to
g row an d d ev elop at w ork
Q 3 3 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
c a r e e r o p p o r tu n i ti e s a v a i l a b l e to m e a t th e U n i v e r s i ty
Q 4 3 . H a s y o u r d e p a r tm e n t a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty
w i th d i s a b i l i ti e s ?
Q 4 4 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty o f
c olor.
Q 4 5 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r f a c u l ty o f c o l o r .
Q 4 6 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d w o m e n
f a c u l ty .
Q 4 7 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r w o m e n .
Q 4 8 . T h e c l i m a te i n m y d e p a r tm e n t f o r n o n - te n u r e tr a c k f a c u l ty o f c o l o r i s g o o d .
Q 4 9 . I a m a d e q u a te l y r e p r e s e n te d b y F a c u l ty
C ou n c il.
Q 5 4 . A r e y o u s a ti s f i e d w i th y o u r a c c e s s to f u l l - ti m e
p o s i ti o n s a t C S U ?
Q 5 5 . D o n o n - te n u r e - tr a c k f a c u l ty h a v e o p p o r tu n i ty to
g e t f u l l - ti m e p o s i ti o n s a t C S U ?
Q 5 7 . T h e p r o c e s s f o r g e tti n g r e h i r e d /r e a p p o i n te d i s
reas on ab le.
Q 5 8 . I a m e l i g i b l e f o r p r o m o ti o n a n d /o r m e r i t p a y
in c reas es .
Q 5 9 . M y d e p a r tm e n t a n d /o r c o l l e g e h a s d e v e l o p e d
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
59
12 0
10 8
13 7
4 .19
4 .0 7
4 .0 5
3 .8 5
60
118
10 6
13 7
4 .0 5
4 .0 7
4 .0 0
3 .7 7
60
12 1
10 9
13 7
4 .0 3
4 .10
4 .0 3
4 .18
61
12 0
110
13 8
3 .7 7
3 .9 1
3 .7 9
3 .9 8
61
118
10 8
13 9
3 .7 5
3 .7 5
3 .7 7
3 .8 0
61
12 0
10 5
13 8
3 .4 9
3 .3 9
3 .3 5
3 .5 4
58
10 4
87
12 5
3 .2 4
3 .2 7
3 .16
3 .5 0
10
43
52
76
2 .0 0
1.8 4
1.9 2
1.7 4
32
79
84
12 5
3 .7 2
3 .3 4
3 .4 6
3 .7 4
28
63
73
112
3 .5 0
3 .11
3 .19
3 .4 9
42
10 2
99
13 3
4 .2 9
4 .0 5
3 .9 7
4 .2 0
41
92
90
13 2
4 .0 0
3 .3 8
3 .5 7
3 .7 8
37
66
65
92
3 .3 0
3 .15
3 .17
3 .7 3
54
112
10 7
13 5
2 .8 9
3 .2 6
3 .5 7
3 .4 7
22
5
2
4
2 .5 0
2 .4 0
3 .5 0
3 .2 5
26
6
2
11
2 .12
1.8 3
2 .0 0
1.3 6
26
4
1
6
3 .6 2
3 .5 0
4 .0 0
4 .0 0
23
4
1
7
2 .2 2
2 .5 0
4 .0 0
4 .14
25
6
2
10
2 .8 0
2 .8 3
4 .0 0
3 .3 0
g o o d w a y s o f s h o w i n g th a t n o n - te n u r e - tr a c k f a c u l ty
a r e v a l u e d m e m b e r s o f th e U n i v e r s i ty c o m m u n i ty .
M ean
23
A p p e n d ix B :
A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n a n d F a c u l ty R a n k
In s tr u c to r
Q 6 0 . T h e u n i v e r s i ty a d m i n i s tr a ti o n c a r e s a b o u t m y
s i tu a ti o n .
N
M ean
A s s i s ta n t
A s s o c i a te
P rof es s or
P rof es s or
F u ll P rof es s or
24
5
2
9
2 .4 6
1.8 0
4 .0 0
3 .5 6
24
A p p e n d ix C :
A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n a n d M i n o r i ty S ta tu s o r G e n d e r
N o n m i n o r i ty
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
N
16 12
267
12 2 9
792
M ean
4 .3 3
N
16 13
4 .3 6
4 .3 4
4 .3 3
270
12 3 0
794
M ean
3 .9 1
3 .8 1
3 .9 8
3 .7 5
N
16 14
269
12 3 1
794
M ean
4 .12
4 .0 4
4 .0 7
4 .12
16 0 6
270
12 2 6
790
3 .6 1
3 .5 5
3 .6 2
3 .5 3
16 0 7
268
12 2 4
792
M ean
4 .0 2
4 .0 5
4 .0 2
4 .0 0
N
16 0 3
269
12 2 2
792
M ean
3 .8 9
3 .9 0
3 .8 7
3 .8 7
N
16 0 4
268
12 2 2
792
M ean
3 .9 3
3 .8 5
3 .9 1
3 .8 8
N
16 0 9
268
12 2 6
790
M ean
3 .7 0
3 .6 7
3 .6 6
3 .7 0
N
16 0 9
267
12 2 4
792
M ean
4 .4 0
4 .4 5
4 .3 7
4 .4 3
N
16 0 6
268
12 2 3
790
M ean
4 .3 7
4 .4 0
4 .3 4
4 .4 1
N
16 0 9
269
12 2 7
793
M ean
4 .5 6
4 .5 2
4 .5 3
4 .5 7
N
15 9 8
267
12 14
787
M ean
3 .8 1
3 .6 9
3 .7 3
3 .8 8
N
15 9 1
266
12 13
782
M ean
2 .3 7
2 .5 1
2 .4 4
2 .3 6
N
15 9 1
268
12 12
784
M ean
3 .2 9
3 .3 0
3 .18
3 .4 2
N
15 9 9
259
12 13
782
M ean
3 .4 5
3 .4 1
3 .3 8
3 .5 2
N
16 0 1
267
12 2 0
788
Q 1. I u n d e r s ta n d w h a t i s e x p e c te d o f m e a t w o r k .
Q 2 . I h a v e th e r e s o u r c e s , s u c h a s m a te r i a l s a n d
e q u i p m e n t r e q u i r e d to d o m y w o r k w e l l .
Q 0 3 . A t w o r k , I h a v e th e o p p o r tu n i ty to u s e m y s k i l l s
a n d ta l e n ts .
Q 0 4 . I r e c e i v e r e c o g n i ti o n o r p r a i s e f o r d o i n g g o o d
w ork .
Q 0 5 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s e e m s to c a r e a b o u t m e a s a
p ers on .
N
M ean
N
Q 0 6 . M y s u p e r v i s o r e n c o u r a g e s m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
Q 0 7 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r ts m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
Q 0 9 . M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e m i s s i o n o f th e
U n i v e r s i ty .
Q 10 . T h e w o r k I d o i s v e r y v a l u a b l e to C S U .
Q 11. M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e p u r p o s e o f m y u n i t.
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 13 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th s o m e ti m e s r e j e c t o th e r s
f o r b e i n g d i f f e r e n t.
Q 14 . E v e r y o n e f e e l s f r e e to s p e a k u p i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t i f a n d w h e n n e e d e d .
Q 15 . E v e r y o n e i s e n c o u r a g e d to g e t i n v o l v e d i n
i s s u e s th a t a f f e c t th i s d e p a r tm e n t.
Q 16 . M y s u p e r v i s o r tr e a ts m e w i th r e s p e c t a t w o r k .
M ean
Q 17 . M y s u p e r v i s o r m a k e s i n a p p r o p r i a te c o m m e n ts
at w ork .
4 .15
4 .18
4 .15
4 .16
15 9 5
269
12 16
785
M ean
1.7 2
1.8 6
1.7 5
1.7 3
N
16 12
270
12 3 0
793
M ean
4 .4 9
4 .4 2
4 .5 1
4 .4 4
N
Q 18 . I e x e r t m y f u l l e f f o r t to m y j o b .
N
16 11
269
12 2 7
794
M ean
4 .0 4
4 .17
4 .0 5
4 .0 4
N
16 12
268
12 2 7
792
Q 19 . I f e e l e n e r g e ti c a b o u t m y j o b .
Q 2 0 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th i n m y d e p a r tm e n t a r e
c o m m i tte d to d o i n g q u a l i ty w o r k .
Q 2 1. I h a v e h a d m e a n i n g f u l o p p o r tu n i ti e s i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t to l e a r n a n d g r o w i n th e l a s t y e a r .
M ean
4 .17
4 .0 1
4 .19
4 .0 8
N
15 9 7
262
12 0 9
788
M ean
3 .7 0
3 .6 4
3 .6 7
3 .6 4
25
A p p e n d ix C :
A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n a n d M i n o r i ty S ta tu s o r G e n d e r
N o n m i n o r i ty
Q 2 2 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
N
13 8 5
232
10 5 9
674
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
3 .8 4
3 .5 9
3 .7 6
3 .8 8
Q 2 3 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
12 6 1
2 16
974
6 15
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th m o b i l i ty
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th h e a r i n g a n d v i s u a l
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
3 .6 8
3 .4 5
3 .6 2
3 .6 6
Q 2 4 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e l e v e l o f s u p p o r t
N
15 8 7
262
12 10
777
M ean
4 .0 7
3 .9 9
4 .0 6
4 .0 5
N
15 5 7
258
119 5
755
M ean
4 .0 6
4 .0 6
4 .0 7
3 .9 9
N
15 7 6
267
119 8
783
M ean
4 .0 8
3 .9 8
4 .0 8
4 .0 3
N
15 8 7
267
12 0 6
787
M ean
3 .8 4
3 .7 3
3 .8 1
3 .8 4
N
15 9 3
264
12 10
786
M ean
3 .8 4
3 .8 2
3 .8 8
3 .7 5
N
15 9 0
267
12 13
782
M ean
3 .5 9
3 .5 0
3 .5 8
3 .5 5
N
15 2 6
256
116 8
747
M ean
c o n c e r n i n g y o u r p h y s i c a l s a f e ty
Q 2 5 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e a w a r e n e s s o f
a n d a c c e s s to c a m p u s s a f e ty r e s o u r c e s ?
Q 2 9 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
h e a l th b e n e f i ts o p ti o n s
Q 3 0 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
r e ti r e m e n t p l a n
Q 3 1. I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
u n i v e r s i ty r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to m e
Q 3 2 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g h o w to
g row an d d ev elop at w ork
Q 3 3 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
c a r e e r o p p o r tu n i ti e s a v a i l a b l e to m e a t th e U n i v e r s i ty
Q 3 5 . A r e y o u a w a r e th a t th e r e i s a C l a s s i f i e d
P ers on n el C ou n c il?
Q 3 6 . A r e y o u a w a r e th a t th e r e i s a n A d m i n i s tr a ti v e
P rof es s ion al C ou n c il?
3 .2 9
3 .3 1
3 .2 9
3 .2 6
N
624
10 6
549
254
M ean
1.0 9
1.13
1.0 8
1.13
N
574
95
432
271
M ean
1.0 9
1.0 3
1.0 7
1.10
N
574
95
432
271
M ean
1.8 8
1.7 4
1.8 7
1.8 5
69
25
56
41
2 .0 1
2 .4 4
2 .0 9
2 .12
69
25
56
41
1.5 1
1.6 0
1.5 7
1.4 6
Q 3 7 . D o y o u te a c h o n e o r m o r e c l a s s e s ?
Q 3 8 . A r e y o u r n e e d s b e i n g m e t th r o u g h y o u r
r e p r e s e n ta ti o n o n f a c u l ty c o u n c i l ?
Q 3 9 . D o y o u f e e l l i k e y o u r c o n c e r n s a s a n i n s tr u c to r
are b ein g ad d res s ed ?
Q 4 3 . H a s y o u r d e p a r tm e n t a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty
w i th d i s a b i l i ti e s ?
Q 4 4 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty o f
c olor.
Q 4 5 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r f a c u l ty o f c o l o r .
Q 4 6 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d w o m e n
f a c u l ty .
Q 4 7 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r w o m e n .
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
14 1
26
83
93
1.8 3
1.8 5
1.9 3
1.7 6
254
42
14 2
17 1
3 .5 8
3 .2 1
3 .5 1
3 .5 9
2 17
37
12 0
15 0
3 .3 5
2 .9 5
3 .18
3 .4 2
N
300
44
16 9
19 7
M ean
4 .12
4 .0 2
3 .9 6
4 .2 4
N
M ean
282
42
16 6
18 1
3 .6 9
3 .5 5
3 .2 8
4 .0 3
26
A p p e n d ix C :
A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n a n d M i n o r i ty S ta tu s o r G e n d e r
N o n m i n o r i ty
Q 4 8 . T h e c l i m a te i n m y d e p a r tm e n t f o r n o n - te n u r e tr a c k f a c u l ty o f c o l o r i s g o o d .
Q 4 9 . I a m a d e q u a te l y r e p r e s e n te d b y F a c u l ty
C ou n c il.
Q 5 4 . A r e y o u s a ti s f i e d w i th y o u r a c c e s s to f u l l - ti m e
p o s i ti o n s a t C S U ?
Q 5 5 . D o n o n - te n u r e - tr a c k f a c u l ty h a v e o p p o r tu n i ty to
g e t f u l l - ti m e p o s i ti o n s a t C S U ?
Q 5 7 . T h e p r o c e s s f o r g e tti n g r e h i r e d /r e a p p o i n te d i s
reas on ab le.
Q 5 8 . I a m e l i g i b l e f o r p r o m o ti o n a n d /o r m e r i t p a y
in c reas es .
Q 5 9 . M y d e p a r tm e n t a n d /o r c o l l e g e h a s d e v e l o p e d
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M i n o r i ty
F em ale
M ale
205
32
116
14 1
3 .3 7
3 .2 2
3 .16
3 .5 2
323
47
18 7
2 10
3 .4 0
3 .3 8
3 .3 3
3 .3 8
28
1
17
14
2 .6 8
4 .0 0
2 .7 1
2 .5 7
39
2
22
22
1.8 7
2 .0 0
1.9 1
1.9 1
31
2
18
18
3 .6 8
4 .0 0
3 .6 1
3 .6 7
30
2
17
18
2 .5 3
3 .5 0
2 .4 1
2 .9 4
37
2
21
21
2 .9 7
4 .0 0
2 .8 6
3 .0 5
g o o d w a y s o f s h o w i n g th a t n o n - te n u r e - tr a c k f a c u l ty
a r e v a l u e d m e m b e r s o f th e U n i v e r s i ty c o m m u n i ty .
M ean
Q 6 0 . T h e u n i v e r s i ty a d m i n i s tr a ti o n c a r e s a b o u t m y
N
s i tu a ti o n .
M ean
34
2
19
20
2 .7 4
4 .0 0
2 .5 8
2 .8 5
27
A p p e n d i x D : A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n f o r F u l l - T i m e a n d P a r t- T i m e F a c u l ty
N
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
385
46
4 .3 4
4 .3 0
Q 1. I u n d e r s ta n d w h a t i s e x p e c te d o f m e a t w o r k .
M ean
Q 2 . I h a v e th e r e s o u r c e s , s u c h a s m a te r i a l s a n d
e q u i p m e n t r e q u i r e d to d o m y w o r k w e l l .
Q 0 3 . A t w o r k , I h a v e th e o p p o r tu n i ty to u s e m y s k i l l s
a n d ta l e n ts .
Q 0 4 . I r e c e i v e r e c o g n i ti o n o r p r a i s e f o r d o i n g g o o d
w ork .
Q 0 5 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s e e m s to c a r e a b o u t m e a s a
p ers on .
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
385
46
3 .3 4
3 .8 9
385
46
4 .2 6
4 .4 8
383
46
3 .3 6
3 .4 6
382
46
3 .8 2
3 .9 3
381
45
3 .7 1
3 .7 1
381
45
3 .6 7
3 .7 3
384
46
3 .5 2
3 .6 7
Q 0 6 . M y s u p e r v i s o r e n c o u r a g e s m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
Q 0 7 . M y s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r ts m y d e v e l o p m e n t.
M ean
N
Q 08. M y op in ion s c ou n t at w ork .
M ean
Q 0 9 . M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e m i s s i o n o f th e
U n i v e r s i ty .
N
M ean
N
385
45
4 .5 4
4 .4 9
384
46
4 .4 6
4 .5 0
385
46
Q 10 . T h e w o r k I d o i s v e r y v a l u a b l e to C S U .
M ean
N
Q 11. M y j o b i s i m p o r ta n t to th e p u r p o s e o f m y u n i t.
M ean
Q 12 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th a r e a b l e to b r i n g u p
p r o b l e m s a n d to u g h i s s u e s .
Q 13 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th s o m e ti m e s r e j e c t o th e r s
f o r b e i n g d i f f e r e n t.
Q 14 . E v e r y o n e f e e l s f r e e to s p e a k u p i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t i f a n d w h e n n e e d e d .
Q 15 . E v e r y o n e i s e n c o u r a g e d to g e t i n v o l v e d i n
i s s u e s th a t a f f e c t th i s d e p a r tm e n t.
4 .6 0
4 .4 1
N
378
45
M ean
3 .6 1
3 .9 8
N
M ean
380
45
2 .5 8
2 .6 2
N
380
44
M ean
3 .11
3 .5 9
N
381
45
3 .4 3
3 .7 1
381
46
4 .0 9
4 .2 8
M ean
N
Q 16 . M y s u p e r v i s o r tr e a ts m e w i th r e s p e c t a t w o r k .
M ean
Q 17 . M y s u p e r v i s o r m a k e s i n a p p r o p r i a te c o m m e n ts
at w ork .
N
379
46
M ean
1.6 8
1.4 8
N
385
46
M ean
4 .7 1
4 .7 8
N
385
46
Q 18 . I e x e r t m y f u l l e f f o r t to m y j o b .
Q 19 . I f e e l e n e r g e ti c a b o u t m y j o b .
M ean
Q 2 0 . T h e p e o p l e I w o r k w i th i n m y d e p a r tm e n t a r e
c o m m i tte d to d o i n g q u a l i ty w o r k .
Q 2 1. I h a v e h a d m e a n i n g f u l o p p o r tu n i ti e s i n m y
d e p a r tm e n t to l e a r n a n d g r o w i n th e l a s t y e a r .
4 .2 3
4 .5 2
N
383
46
M ean
4 .13
4 .4 3
N
M ean
383
45
3 .6 3
3 .9 1
28
A p p e n d i x D : A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n f o r F u l l - T i m e a n d P a r t- T i m e F a c u l ty
Q 2 2 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
3 15
39
3 .6 4
3 .9 5
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th m o b i l i ty
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
Q 2 3 . C S U r e c o g n i z e s th e i m p o r ta n c e o f a c a m p u s
N
289
39
3 .5 4
3 .7 9
th a t i s a c c e s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w i th h e a r i n g a n d v i s u a l
i m p a i r m e n ts .
M ean
Q 2 4 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e l e v e l o f s u p p o r t
N
c o n c e r n i n g y o u r p h y s i c a l s a f e ty
Q 2 5 . H o w s a ti s f i e d a r e y o u w i th th e a w a r e n e s s o f
a n d a c c e s s to c a m p u s s a f e ty r e s o u r c e s ?
M ean
N
M ean
N
379
45
3 .9 7
4 .3 1
375
45
3 .9 3
4 .13
384
43
4 .0 8
4 .2 1
Q 2 9 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
h e a l th b e n e f i ts o p ti o n s .
M ean
N
384
45
3 .8 6
4 .0 7
381
45
3 .7 5
3 .9 8
378
45
3 .4 2
3 .6 9
Q 3 0 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g m y
r e ti r e m e n t p l a n .
M ean
N
Q 3 1. I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
u n i v e r s i ty r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to m e .
M ean
N
Q 3 2 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g h o w to
g row an d d ev elop at w ork .
M ean
N
333
41
3 .2 8
3 .6 3
Q 3 3 . I h a v e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g th e
c a r e e r o p p o r tu n i ti e s a v a i l a b l e to m e a t th e U n i v e r s i ty . M e a n
Q 4 3 . H a s y o u r d e p a r tm e n t a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty
w i th d i s a b i l i ti e s ?
Q 4 4 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d f a c u l ty o f
c olor.
Q 4 5 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r f a c u l ty o f c o l o r .
Q 4 6 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s a c ti v e l y r e c r u i te d w o m e n
f a c u l ty .
Q 4 7 . M y d e p a r tm e n t h a s ta k e n s te p s to e n h a n c e th e
c l i m a te f o r w o m e n .
Q 4 8 . T h e c l i m a te i n m y d e p a r tm e n t f o r n o n - te n u r e tr a c k f a c u l ty o f c o l o r i s g o o d .
Q 4 9 . I a m a d e q u a te l y r e p r e s e n te d b y F a c u l ty
C ou n c il.
Q 5 3 . A r e th e r e j o b d e s c r i p ti o n s a n d p r o m o ti o n
N
M ean
N
17 1
10
1.8 2
2 .0 0
292
26
3 .5 8
3 .6 2
251
24
M ean
3 .3 1
3 .5 4
N
344
32
4 .0 9
4 .13
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
M ean
N
321
34
3 .6 1
3 .9 4
231
27
3 .3 7
3 .4 1
366
42
3 .3 6
3 .2 9
0
20
g u i d e l i n e s i n y o u r d e p a r tm e n t s p e c i f i c to n o n - te n u r e tr a c k f a c u l ty ?
M ean
Q 5 4 . A r e y o u s a ti s f i e d w i th y o u r a c c e s s to f u l l - ti m e
N
p o s i ti o n s a t C S U ?
Q 5 5 . D o n o n - te n u r e - tr a c k f a c u l ty h a v e o p p o r tu n i ty to
g e t f u l l - ti m e p o s i ti o n s a t C S U ?
Q 5 6 . W h i c h o f th e f o l l o w i n g b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r
p o s i ti o n ?
1.6 0
0
M ean
N
0
M ean
N
M ean
33
2 .6 4
46
1.8 7
0
46
1.6 5
29
A p p e n d i x D : A v e r a g e S c o r e s b y Q u e s ti o n f o r F u l l - T i m e a n d P a r t- T i m e F a c u l ty
Q 5 7 . T h e p r o c e s s f o r g e tti n g r e h i r e d /r e a p p o i n te d i s
reas on ab le.
Q 5 8 . I a m e l i g i b l e f o r p r o m o ti o n a n d /o r m e r i t p a y
in c reas es .
Q 5 9 . M y d e p a r tm e n t a n d /o r c o l l e g e h a s d e v e l o p e d
N
F u l l ti m e
P a r t ti m e
f a c u l ty
f a c u l ty
0
M ean
N
0
M ean
N
38
3 .6 8
36
2 .6 4
0
44
g o o d w a y s o f s h o w i n g th a t n o n - te n u r e - tr a c k f a c u l ty
a r e v a l u e d m e m b e r s o f th e U n i v e r s i ty c o m m u n i ty .
M ean
Q 6 0 . T h e u n i v e r s i ty a d m i n i s tr a ti o n c a r e s a b o u t m y
N
s i tu a ti o n .
Q 10 2 . I a m a w a r e o f th e C o m m i tm e n t to C a m p u s
p rog ram .
2 .9 8
0
M ean
41
2 .7 1
N
375
44
M ean
1.4 2
1.6 4
30
Appendix E: Categorical Response by Question
No Response
Q01. I understand what is expected of me at
work.
N
Percent (%)
Q02. I have the resources, such as materials
and equipment required to do my work well.
N
Percent (%)
Q03. At work, I have the opportunity to use my
skills and talents.
N
Percent (%)
Q04. I receive recognition or praise for doing
good work.
N
Percent (%)
Q5. My supervisor seems to care about me as
a person.
N
Percent (%)
Q06. My supervisor encourages my
development.
N
Percent (%)
Q07. My supervisor supports my development.
N
Percent (%)
Q08. My opinions count at work.
N
Percent (%)
Q9. My job is important to the mission of the
University.
N
Percent (%)
Q10. The work I do is very valuable to CSU.
N
Percent (%)
Q11. My job is important to the purpose of my
unit.
N
Percent (%)
Q12. The people I work with are able to bring
up problems and tough issues.
N
Percent (%)
Q13. The people I work with sometimes reject
others for being different.
N
Percent (%)
Q14. Everyone feels free to speak up in my
department if and when needed.
N
Percent (%)
Q15. Everyone is encouraged to get involved in
issues that affect this department.
N
Percent (%)
Q16. My supervisor treats me with respect at
work.
N
Percent (%)
Q17. My supervisor makes inappropriate
comments at work.
N
Percent (%)
Q18. I exert my full effort to my job.
N
Percent (%)
Q19. I feel energetic about my job.
N
Percent (%)
Q20. The people I work with in my department
are committed to doing quality work.
N
Percent (%)
Q21. I have had meaningful opportunities in my
department to learn and grow in the last year.
N
Percent (%)
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
9
117
123
2141
0.38
4.90
5.15
89.58
2
349
298
1741
0.08
14.60
12.47
72.85
3
259
243
1885
0.13
10.84
10.17
78.87
13
506
460
1411
0.54
21.17
19.25
59.04
13
290
336
1751
0.54
12.13
14.06
73.26
18
347
443
1582
0.75
14.52
18.54
66.19
20
335
403
1632
0.84
14.02
16.86
68.28
17
493
384
1496
0.71
20.63
16.07
62.59
12
53
197
2128
0.50
2.22
8.24
89.04
15
72
214
2089
0.63
3.01
8.95
87.41
9
48
93
2240
0.38
2.01
3.89
93.72
33
390
349
1618
1.38
16.32
14.60
67.70
36
1431
384
539
1.51
59.87
16.07
22.55
38
744
447
1161
1.59
31.13
18.70
48.58
39
597
476
1278
1.63
24.98
19.92
53.47
29
215
273
1873
1.21
9.00
11.42
78.37
33
1881
200
276
1.38
78.70
8.37
11.55
3
70
93
2224
0.13
2.93
3.89
93.05
7
228
315
1840
0.29
9.54
13.18
76.99
8
153
297
1932
0.33
6.40
12.43
80.84
36
463
458
1433
1.51
19.37
19.16
59.96
31
Appendix E: Categorical Response by Question
No Response
Q22. CSU recognizes the importance of a
campus that is accessible for people with mobility
impairments.
Q23. CSU recognizes the importance of a
campus that is accessible for people with hearing
and visual impairments.
Q24. How satisfied are you with the level of
support concerning your physical safety?
N
Percent (%)
N
Percent (%)
N
Percent (%)
Q25. How satisfied are you with the awareness of
and access to campus safety resources?
N
Percent (%)
Q29. I have sufficient information regarding my
health benefits options
N
Percent (%)
Q30. I have sufficient information regarding my
retirement plan
N
Percent (%)
Q31. I have sufficient information regarding the
university resources available to me
N
Percent (%)
Q32. I have sufficient information regarding how
to grow and develop at work
N
Percent (%)
Q33. I have sufficient information regarding the
career opportunities available to me at the
University
Q44. My department has actively recruited faculty
of color.
15.61
7.62
19.00
57.78
540
158
645
1047
22.59
6.61
26.99
43.81
45
158
305
1790
1.96
6.88
13.27
77.89
89
107
368
1734
3.87
4.66
16.01
75.46
48
155
229
1828
2.12
6.86
10.13
80.88
37
278
344
1601
1.64
12.30
15.22
70.84
36
229
406
1589
1.59
10.13
17.96
70.31
43
413
506
1298
1.90
18.27
22.39
57.43
582
968
25.75
42.83
N
123
67
72
191
27.15
14.79
15.89
42.16
N
Percent (%)
Percent (%)
N
Percent (%)
Q49. I am adequately represented by Faculty
Council.
N
Q54. Are you satisfied with your access to fulltime positions at CSU?
N
Percent (%)
Percent (%)
N
Percent (%)
N
Percent (%)
N
Percent (%)
N
Percent (%)
102. Are you aware of the Commitment to
Campus program?
1381
582
N
Q60. The university administration cares about
my situation.
454
25.75
Q47. My department has taken steps to enhance
the climate for women.
Q59. My department and/or college has
developed good ways of showing that non-tenuretrack faculty are valued members of the
University community.
182
128
N
Q58. I am eligible for promotion and/or merit pay
increases.
373
5.66
Q46. My department has actively recruited
women faculty.
Q57. The process for getting rehired/reappointed
is reasonable.
Agree
Percent (%)
Percent (%)
Q48. The climate in my department for nontenure-track faculty of color is good.
Neutral
N
Percent (%)
Q45. My department has taken steps to enhance
the climate for faculty of color.
Disagree
N
Percent (%)
26
66
96
125
8.31
21.09
30.67
39.94
64
38
56
295
14.13
8.39
12.36
65.12
84
77
71
221
18.54
17.00
15.67
48.79
178
51
91
130
39.56
11.33
20.22
28.89
27
76
139
208
6.00
16.89
30.89
46.22
13
15
12
6
28.26
32.61
26.09
13.04
8
4
7
27
17.39
8.70
15.22
58.70
10
22
2
12
21.74
47.83
4.35
26.09
2
18
10
16
4.35
39.13
21.74
34.78
5
18
14
9
10.87
39.13
30.43
19.57
540
158
645
1047
22.59
6.61
26.99
43.81
32