1. Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) Survey Summary of Fall 2014 Results Presentation to College Council Executive Cabinet August 5, 2015 Office of Institutional Effectiveness

2. Background of PACE Survey Developed and administered by the National Institute for Leadership & Institutional Effectiveness (NILIE) OCC survey administrations – 2008 – 2009 – 2012 – 2014

3. PACE Survey Respondents (2014) Response rate = 19.4% (299 out of 1,539) Response rates differed by employee group – Classified (12.5%) & Faculty (21.4%) response rates based on FT & PT – Administrator/manager response rate (67.5%) higher than other groups – Overrepresented group low population size & does not overly influence responses Proportion of Total Responses by Personnel Classification

4. The PACE Model Leadership of an institution impacts four climate factors which lead to an outcome of student success and institutional effectiveness.

5. Climate Factors Institutional Structure: Extent to which employees are satisfied with institution‐wide policies and practices Supervisory Relationships: Level of employee satisfaction with supervisor’s professional behavior and expectations Teamwork: Level of collaborative environment at the institution Student Focus: Extent to which the institution prepares students for successful futures

6. The PACE Model Categorizes an institution’s environment according to four leadership or organizational systems – The ideal is the Collaborative System (system 4) OCC’s PACE results indicated our overall climate was 3.69, categorized as a high Consultative System (system 3) NILIE analyzed mean scores on climate factors and specific items determine high performing or improvement areas

7. 2014 OCC’s Climate Factor Scores Categorization same as previous years

8. Summary of Findings In 2014: Overall, OCC has a positive and collaborative climate – Student focus continues to be the strongest climate factor Table 1 Table 1 – Some items in Supervisory Relationships and Teamwork now top performing items Institutional Structure factor remains an improvement area – All areas in need of improvement fell under this category Table 2 Table 2 » Many items still need improvement from previous years – Decision making, communication, organizational structure and employee advancement Ratings differed by Employee Group Figure 1 Figure 1 Admin/Managers rated most favorably, Classified employees rated least favorably Overall, OCC slightly lower than Norm Base in Supervisory Relationship and Teamwork, equivalent in Institutional Structure and Student Focus – Majority of items in Supervisory Relationships statistically lower than norm base Table 4 Table 4

9. Summary of Findings Trends: Overall, from 2009 to 2014, climate factors are consistently falling into same categorizations Figure 2 Figure 2 In 2014, climate factors mean ratings dropped from 2012, two statistically below norm base Table 5 Table 5

10. Tables and Figures

11. Table 1: Top Performance Areas Institutional Structure ◊ The extent to which the actions of this institution reflect its mission Supervisory Relationships ◊ The extent to which my supervisor expresses confidence in my work ◊ The extent to which my supervisor is open to the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of everyone ◊ The extent to which I am given the opportunity to be creative in my work Teamwork ◊ The extent to which there is a spirit of cooperation within my work team Student Focus ◊ The extent to which students receive an excellent education at this institution* ◊ The extent to which this institution prepares students for further learning* ◊ The extent to which this institution prepares students for a career* ◊ The extent to which students are satisfied with their educational experience at this institution* ◊ The extent to which classified personnel meet the needs of the students* ◊ The extent to which non-teaching professional personnel meet the needs of the students* ◊ The extent to which student ethnic and cultural diversity are important at this institution * Indicates top performing area in 2012 Return to Slide

12. Table 2: Areas in Need of Improvement Institutional Structure ◊ The extent to which I am able to appropriately influence the direction of this institution* ◊ The extent to which I have the opportunity for advancement within this institution* ◊ The extent to which decisions are made at the appropriate level at this institution* ◊ The extent to which information is shared within this institution* ◊ The extent to which institutional teams use problem-solving techniques* ◊ The extent to which open and ethical communication is practiced at this institution ◊ The extent to which my work is guided by clearly defined administrative processes ◊ The extent to which a spirit of cooperation exists at this institution * ◊ The extent to which this institution is appropriately organized* ◊ The extent to which this institution has been successful in positively motivating my performance* * Indicates area in need of improvement in 2012 Return to Slide

13. Figure 1: Climate Factor Comparisons by Employee Group Return to Slide

14. Table 3: Nationwide Comparisons: Higher than Norm Base OCC Mean Scores Higher than Norm Base Student Focus ◊ The extent to which classified personnel meet the needs of the students ◊ The extent to which students are satisfied with their educational experience Return to Slide

15. OCC Mean Scores Lower than Norm Base Institutional Structure ◊ The extent to which the actions of this institution reflect its mission ◊ The extent to which administrative leadership is focused on meeting the needs of students ◊ The extent to which institution-wide policies guide my work Supervisory Relationships ◊ The extent to which my supervisor is open to the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of everyone ◊ The extent to which positive work expectations are communicated to me ◊ The extent to which unacceptable behaviors are identified and communicated to me ◊ The extent to which my supervisor actively seeks my ideas ◊ The extent to which my supervisor seriously considers my ideas ◊ The extent to which work outcomes are clarified to me ◊ The extent to which my supervisor helps me improve my work ◊ The extent to which professional development and training opportunities are available Teamwork ◊ The extent to which my primary work team uses problem-solving techniques ◊ The extent to which my work team coordinates its efforts with appropriate individuals Student Focus ◊ The extent to which faculty meet the needs of students ◊ The extent to which student ethnic and cultural diversity are important at this institution ◊ The extent to which students’ competencies are enhanced Table 4: Nationwide Comparisons: Lower than Norm Base Return to Slide

16. Figure 2: Climate Factor Comparisons, 2009-2014 Return to Slide

17. OCC 2009OCC 2012OCC 2014Norm Base Institutional Structure3.443.513.433.47 Supervisory Relationships3.633.763.67*3.82 Team Work3.783.813.72*3.84 Student Focus4.014.064.044.05 Overall3.693.763.693.77 Table 5: Climate Factor Comparisons with Norm Base, 2009-2014 * T-test results indicate a significant difference between the 2014 mean and the Norm Base mean (α = 0.05). Return to Slide