|Liaison||Pat Van Duyne|
|Submission Date||June 11, 2015|
Joliet Junior College
PA-5: Assessing Diversity and Equity
Sr. Administrative Assistant
Has the institution assessed diversity and equity in terms of campus climate?:
A brief description of the campus climate assessment(s) :
In May 2012, the Personal Assessment of the College Environment (PACE) survey was administered to 1,504 employees at Joliet Junior College (JJC). Of those 1,504 employees, 472 (31.4%) completed and returned the instrument for analysis. The purpose of the survey was to obtain the perceptions of personnel concerning the college climate and to provide data to assist JJC in promoting more open and constructive communication among faculty, staff, and administrators. Researchers at the National Initiative for Leadership and Institutional Effectiveness (NILIE) and representatives of JJC collaborated to administer a survey that would capture the opinions of personnel throughout the college.
In the PACE model, the leadership of an institution motivates the Institutional Structure, Supervisory Relationships, Teamwork, and Student Focus climate factors toward an outcome of student success and institutional effectiveness.
The PACE Model
NILIE has synthesized from the literature four leadership or organizational systems ranging from coercive to collaborative. According to Likert (1967), the Collaborative System, which he termed System 4, generally produced better results in terms of productivity, job satisfaction, communication, and overall organizational climate. The other systems were Consultative (System 3), Competitive (System 2) and Coercive (System 1). In agreement with Likert, NILIE has concluded that Collaborative (System 4) is the climate to be sought as opposed to existing naturally in the environment. Likert discovered that most of the organizations he studied functioned at the Competitive or Consultative levels. This has been NILIE's experience as well, with most college climates falling into the Consultative system across the four factors of the climate instrument.
At JJC, the overall results from the PACE instrument yield an overall 3.26 mean score within the low Consultative system. The Student Focus category received the highest mean score (3.58), whereas the Institutional Structure category received the lowest mean score (2.82). When respondents were classified according to personnel classification at JJC, the composite ratings were as follows: Administrator (3.28), Campus Police, Facilities, Food Service (3.22), Clerical (3.33), Faculty (3.35), Professional (3.11) and Support (3.15).
How are Results Used?
Ongoing communication and collaboration with employees is important to identifying strengths and weaknesses of current processes and systems associated with valuing people. JJC uses PACE results to lead the institution to develop responsive action plans. The PACE survey is used for Critical Issue Analysis which is essentially a form of “internal scanning” and identifies critical issues and examines JJC’s culture, organizational structure, relevant data, and strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The goals of critical issue analysis are: 1) to identify critical internal issues and 2) present responses to critical issues and the implications of varied responses to JJC leaders.
Has the institution assessed student diversity and educational equity?:
A brief description of the student diversity and educational equity assessment(s):
Joliet Junior College participates in the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). Extensive research has identified good educational practices that are directly related to retention and other desired student outcomes. CCSSE builds on this research and asks students about their college experiences. CCSSE provides information on student engagement, a key indicator of learning and, therefore, of the quality of community colleges. The survey, administered to community college students, asks questions that assess institutional practices and student behaviors that are correlated highly with student learning and student retention.
Has the institution assessed employee diversity and employment equity?:
A brief description of the employee diversity and employment equity assessment(s):
The PACE instrument administered at JJC includes 55 total items. Items #5 and #18 relate directly to diversity. Respondents are asked to rate the extent to which the institution effectively promotes diversity in the workplace and the extent to which student ethnic and cultural diversity are important at this institution.
Also, a utilization analysis is completed to identify those job categories where there is an under-utilization and/or concentration of minorities and females in relation to their availability in JJC’s relevant labor market. The utilization analysis serves as the basis of establishing JJC’s affirmative action goals and timetables, and to correct employment practices that contribute to any identified absences, under-utilization or concentration of minorities or women in JJC’s workforce.
Has the institution assessed diversity and equity in terms of governance and public engagement?:
A brief description of the governance and public engagement assessment(s):
A governance task force has been assembled to identify a governance structure that will define decision-making and communication channels, and clarify expectations for campus constituent groups and individual employees. It is their intent to make sure that administration, faculty, staff and student representation is apparent within decision-making committees where the outcomes have an institutional impact.
Given that the task force is currently assessing the college's governance structure, a website with information is not yet available. The final outcome of the assessment is expected to be completed by July 2015.
The website URL where information about the assessment(s) is available:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE
staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution and complete the Data Inquiry Form.
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution and complete the Data Inquiry Form.