This study was first commissioned by NISOD and Diverse: Issues In Higher education in 2014. The national survey is administered by the Center for Higher Education Enterprise (CHEE) at The Ohio State University, which is directed by professor Terrell Strayhorn.
The purpose of this commissioned study was to examine the extent to which diversity and inclusion permeates aspects (e.g., administrative structures, commitments, work environments, staffing practices) of the campuses of participating community and technical colleges, which are NISOD-member institutions, around the country.
Antelope Valley College
Dyersburg State CC
Front Range CC
Harrisburg Area CC
Montgomery County CC
Mountain View College*
Oklahoma State U. Inst. of Tech
Seward Cty. CC/ Area Tech. School*
Southwest Virginia CC*
|Institution||Chief Executive Officer||Level||Full-Time Enroll||Part-Time Enroll||Inst. Type||Founding Year|
|Antelope Valley College||Edward T. Knudson||2-Yr||10,033||4,427||HSI||1929|
|Dyersburg State CC||Dr. Karen Bowyer||2-yr||1,226||1,631||PWI||1969|
|Front Range CC||Andrew Dorsey||2-Yr||5,805||22,121||PWI||1968|
|Harrisburg Area CC||Dr. John J. “Ski” Sygielski||2-yr||5.516||13,605||PWI||1964|
|Montgomery County CC||Dr. Kevin Pollock||2-yr||3,870||8,872||PWI||1964|
|Mountain View College*||Dr. Robert Garza||2-Yr||15,375||N/A||HSI||1970|
|Oklahoma State U. Inst. of Tech.||Dr. Bill R. Path||4-Yr||1,770||706||PWI||1946|
|Seward Cty. CC/ Area Tech. School*||Dr. Kenneth J. Trzaska||2-yr||866||1,105||HSI||1967|
|Southwest Virginia CC*||Dr. J. Mark Estepp||2-Yr||1,216||1,347||PWI||1968|
|Institution Type Abbreviations:|
|* Institution was included in inaugural list of PPWCC in 2015|
|HSI = Hispanic-Serving Institution||PWI = Predominantly White Institution|
About the Center for Higher Education Enterprise
The Center for Higher Education Enterprise (CHEE) is an interdisciplinary research and policy center that promotes the important role postsecondary education plays in global society, especially the vital roles and responsibilities of public higher education. CHEE is committed to improving student success by doing distinctive research, policy analysis and outreach that will help make higher education more accessible, affordable, engaged and all-around excellent.
CHEE’s mission is to become the country’s preeminent higher education research and policy center, solving issues of national significance. And in terms of vision, CHEE exists to advance the higher education enterprise through the creation and dissemination of distinctive research that informs policy, strengthens communities and enables student success. For more, go to: http://chee.osu.edu.
CHEE Core Goals
Educational Excellence: to ensure student access and success.
Research and Innovation: to make high-quality, distinctive contributions.
Outreach and Engagement: to cultivate mutually beneficial partnerships.
Project Team Biographies
Dr. Terrell Lamont Strayhorn (principal investigator) is a professor of higher education at The Ohio State University, where he also serves as director of the Center for Higher Education Enterprise (CHEE). Author of
8 books, more than 100 journal articles and book chapters, more than 150 papers at international and national conferences, and over 200 keynotes, Strayhorn is a prolific scholar, internationally known student success
expert, highly sought public speaker, and was named one of the top scholars in his field by Diverse: Issues In Higher Education in 2011.
Dr. Derrick L. Tillman-Kelly (project coordinator) is University Innovation Alliance (UIA) Fellow at The Ohio State University, where he also formerly served as special assistant to the director in CHEE. Author of several
journal articles and book chapters, his research interests consider three primary aspects of higher education: (a) leadership and organizational socialization of administrators; (b) minority-serving institutions; and (c)
impact of identity intersections on academic and social experiences of college students with specific consideration of race, gender, sexuality and spirituality as social identities.
New to the 2016 edition of Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges, we highlight specific actions,
initiatives, practices and programs identified by college student educators (i.e., faculty, staff, and senior administrators) as important to their recruitment to and/or retention in this year’s list of Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges.
After notification of their selection as a promising place to work, each campus president and NISOD liaison were invited to provide contact information for five faculty and staff employees at their institution who could share insight into institutional practices that they believe make working at their respective institution a promising place
for community college student educators.
Ultimately, four of this year’s awardees provided contact information in time for inclusion in this issue of Diverse. Based on responses from community college employees with as few as six months to as many
as 32 years of experience at their current institutions, we found that community college professionals generally enjoyed working at institutions where six practices were experienced: (a) demonstrated commitment to access and student success; (b) recognition of good work; (c) intentional focus on meeting the needs of the local
community and larger region; (d) institutional support for continuous improvement and innovation; (e) investment in the professional development of faculty and staff; and (f) institutional and practical support of work-life balance.
Promising Practice #1:
Demonstrated Commitment to Access and Student Success
Community colleges are known collectively for providing people in their local communities with access to higher education. This year’s list of Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges are also celebrated by the faculty, staff and communities for their demonstrated commitment to enabling access to higher education and subsequently ensuring that their students succeed at the college and in life. In addition to continuing to admit all students seeking postsecondary education, community college practitioners noted how their institutions used data to uncover gaps in performance and then fiscal and human capital toward initiatives designed to close those gaps.
For example, Montgomery County Community College (MCCC) was praised by staff for its investment in the Minority Male Mentoring Program and TRiO Upward Bound after college leaders found large gaps in male student success and desired to better prepare local students for college.
In addition, faculty and staff found that most members of the faculty, staff and senior leadership are striving to achieve the same goal. At Southwest Virginia Community College (SWCC), this was proclaimed on a former billboard that read, “We’re here for you!” A staff member shared, “It was not mere propaganda. … As long as the college remains true to that mission, I am happy to contribute as much as I can.”
Similarly, a staff member at Oklahoma State University Institute of Technology shared that faculty, staff and administrators all have the same goal of “serving, educating, training and graduating our students with the confidence that they are prepared. This is true from custodial services to the president’s office.” As a result, faculty-to-student ratios are managed to allow for increased student engagement and interaction and to ensure appropriate attention is paid to students. Commitment to access and student success is not just found in the
mission statement of this year’s Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges, but instead is enacted daily from custodial services up to the president’s office.
Promising Practice #2:
Recognition of Good Work
It is essential to recognize the good work of faculty and staff at the nation’s community colleges. Like many institutions of higher education, this year’s list of Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges hosted formal ceremonies to recognize various members of their college community; these activities were one of the
promising practices individuals noted as a positive attribute of the institutional culture that was beneficial to their and their colleagues’ retention.
Whether it’s the Mustang Awards, end-of-the-year staff picnic or the awarding of the president’s golden glove award for superior grant leadership, faculty and staff know that their institutional leaders notice and value their work. One staff member from SWCC said, “Most of all, I stay here because I believe my efforts are both needed and worthwhile.”
In addition to the institutional awards and ceremonies, many faculty and staff noted that their campus leadership also nominated them for regional and national awards, honors and recognitions.
For example, a staff member at MCCC recalled being nominated by the college’s president for the YWCA Tribute for Exceptional Women. The intentional gesture by the college’s president undoubtedly shaped the way she understood her place in and value to the MCCC
Promising Practice #3:
Intentional Focus on Meeting the Needs of Local Community and Region
Inherent in the name and mission of community colleges is an unapologetic focus on the local community. It is then no surprise that employees of this year’s Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges take to heart the ways in which their institution lives up to this responsibility. By and large, faculty and staff who shared insights in the promising practices of their institutions noted their college’s connection to, service of and appreciation by the communities in which they are located.
One Dyersburg State Community College (DSCC) educator said, “The community values us as ‘their college,’ knowing that, without DSCC, Northwest Tennessee would miss the culture and education we provide.” Another DSCC staff member shared, “we take pride in what we are able to accomplish for all of our stakeholders and we strive to be the true meaning of a ‘community’ college” by being a part of the local community whether they live close to campus or not.
Those at SWCC identified several institutional investments that allow the college to provide “support to the business community through ‘rapid responses’ when there are training needs for new or expanding businesses,” namely through the Small Business Development Centers and Procurement Technical Assistance Centers. As they indicated, “If new needs arise in our service area, the community never doubts SWCC’s ability to provide education and training.” This year’s Most Promising Places are truly committed to being colleges that are members of their communities.
Promising Practice #4:
Institutional Support for Continuous Improvement and Innovation
In addition to their focus on access, student success and serving the needs of its local communities, this year’s group of Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges also provide substantial institutional support for continuous improvement and innovation. Whether it’s a reliance on data in the way that made a senior staff
member at DSCC suggest that “continuous improvement is not just a phrase,” but a way of life for President Karen Bowyer, or the awarding of innovation and innovator of the year awards at MCCC, this year’s Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges are invested in better serving students and their local communities.
Several staff members at SWCC found that college leadership encouraged collaboration and the sharing of data and information to support innovative efforts for solving students’ problems and prepared faculty and staff to work across departments and divisions to continuously improve the institution collectively. At MCCC, this has
resulted in the freedom to experiment to enhance student learning through refined math courses and support services as well as more intentional efforts at cost reduction such as efforts to incorporate more open textbooks.
Promising Practice #5:
Professional Investment in the Development of Faculty and Staff
In connection with their support of continuous improvement and innovation of the colleges, the Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges also prioritized their investment in the development of faculty and staff to better prepare them for leadership within the organization and broader community. As noted previously, some faculty and staff members have worked at their institution for as many as 32 years, averaging 10. This is not by accident. Faculty and staff alike noted numerous occasions in which they felt the institution and their senior leaders invested in their professional development.
At MCCC, faculty and staff noted the numerous ways in which the college demonstrated a commitment to them that suggested they desired for them to be an active contributor to the MCCC community. Two such programs were the Faculty Diversity Fellows program for junior minority faculty and the President’s Leadership Academy for staff members who were seen as rising leaders within the organization.
In addition, DSCC staff members discussed being attracted to the college because of the opportunities for advancement and recounting the numerous ways they were allowed to contribute more and more to the development of the college, while Oklahoma State University Institute of Technology staff members found that there were always resources available to support their pursuit of professional development on and off campus.
Regardless of their length of tenure, faculty and staff appreciated their institution’s commitment to their individual and collective professional development, asserting that their work, continuous improvement and innovation are in part possible because of their leadership’s investment in formal professional development activities.
Promising Practice #6:
Institutional and Practical Support of Work-life Balance
In addition to being recognized for their good work and being invested in professionally, a number of faculty and staff lauded their institutions, senior leaders and colleagues for valuing work-life balance, which included inclusion of family, partners and children as well as the modification of work hours to meet the increased or decreased demand from students.
For example, several members of the MCCC staff noted that the institution operates on four-day workweeks during the summer sessions. In addition, given the institution’s commitment to serving its community, a number of staff members shared that the leadership of MCCC provides flexible work schedules that allow faculty and
staff to engage with the local community in ways that may seem to be unconventional.
Initial planning and development of this national study of community colleges began in summer 2014. The survey was adapted from the Most Promising Places to Work in Student Affairs survey. Given the project’s focus on workplace
diversity, staffing practices and work environment, six initial categories guided the study, including family friendliness, salary/benefits and professional development opportunities, to name a few.
The final web survey was mounted to a secure served managed by the Center for Higher Education Enterprise via Qualtrics, an online survey software. Using a list provided by NISOD, CHEE staff sent electronic invitations to institutional representatives at hundreds of campuses; electronic invitations included a hyperlink to the website on which the survey was placed.
Participants responded to the survey online, typically requiring 60 minutes to complete the instrument once data were assembled. No incentives were offered to encourage participation and respondents understood that their
institutional identity might be released in a special edition of Diverse: Issues In Higher Education. The survey launched in late fall 2014 with release of the initial invitations to all NISOD-member institutions; follow-up reminders were sent at two-week intervals and CHEE staff placed calls to campus presidents/chancellors and NISOD liaisons to call attention to the invitation and encourage their response. Account for bounce-backs and undeliverables, the estimated response rate is 20 percent.
Data from the online, web-based survey were analyzed in several stages. First, descriptive data were computed or reported as is. For instance, institution names, locations and characteristics (e.g., control, enrollment, staff size) were transferred directly from the survey to various parts of this report. Second, quantitative data were averaged, where necessary, across participating institutions within the sample of respondents. For instance, average salaries (by rank) and present diverse representation (% female) were computed and reported in this report. Third, “ratings” were computed using a 3-point scale ranging from “A” to “B” and “C.” For each rating item, we first computed the sample mean (removing any zero “0” scores, which indicate absence of practice/policy) for all participating institutions. Then, we evaluated or benchmarked each item score for the highest overall scoring institutions using the following: A =above average, B = at average, C = below average, for each dimension assessed
by the survey.
Description of Variables
The Most Promising Places to Work in Community Colleges survey is comprised of approximately 60 items, including informed consent, study description and background information. Below are operational definitions for 35 items as they appear on the national survey instrument.
Institution Name. Information was provided by respondents via online survey and distinguishes individual campuses from larger statewide or multicampus systems.
Location. Information was provided by respondent via online survey and subsequently verified using data from the Carnegie Classification website. For more information, go to: http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/
Control. Information was provided using data from the Carnegie website. Publicly controlled institutions include state and tribally controlled institutions. Private universities are universities not operated by state or tribal governments. For more information, go to
Level. Information was provided using data from the Carnegie website. Indicates
whether institution is classified as two-year versus four-year institution, which
generally refers to the average time required to complete basic degree option.
Student Enrollment. Information was provided by respondent via online survey and subsequently verified using data from IPEDS. For more information go to: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx
Institution Type. Information was provided by respondent via online survey.
Number of full-time and part-time staff. Information was provided by respondents via online survey.
Number of full-time and part-time faculty. Information was provided by respondents via online survey.
Average salary(-ies). Information was provided by respondents via online survey, based on rank of professional positions. For comparative data, visit College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) at http://www.cupahr.org
% female faculty, staff and students. Information was provided by respondents via online survey.
% ethnic minority faculty, staff and students. Information was provided by respondents via online survey and compiled to include Black, Latina/o, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiracial.
% LGBT faculty, staff and students. Information was provided by respondents via online survey.
% faculty, staff, and students with disability. Information was provided by respondents via online survey.
Caregiving leave for all. Indicates whether the institution allows all faculty and staff to request leave for caregiving reasons.
Child care services. Indicates whether the institution provides child care services or referrals.
Continuing education. Indicates whether the institution offers continuing education to faculty and staff; includes for-credit and non-credit options.
Education leave. Indicates whether the institution allows all staff to request leave for educational reasons.
Elder care services. Indicates whether the institution provides elder care services or referrals.
Flexible work schedules. Indicates whether the institution allows flexible work schedules.
Mentoring. Indicates whether staff in the division/department of student affairs at the institution receive formal mentoring support.
Stress reduction programs. Indicates whether the institution provides stress reduction programs.
Bias monitoring. Rates the extent to which the institution has a formal reporting system for instances of discrimination or harassment and responds appropriately to reported incidents.
Climate toward diversity. Rates the extent to which faculty, staff and students perceive the institution’s climate toward diversity as friendly versus hostile.
Overall commitment to diversity. Rates the extent to which the institution’s commitment to diversity has changed over the last five years.
Comprehensive new faculty orientation. Rates the extent to which the institution’s new faculty orientation includes the following: educational and operational philosophies and procedures, history and culture, and importance of diversity of the campus, to name a few.
Comprehensive new staff orientation. Rates the extent to which the institution’s new staff orientation includes the following: educational and operational philosophies and procedures, history and culture, and importance of diversity of the campus, to name a few.
Hiring process strategy. Rates the extent to which the institution has a strategy to guide the hiring process, including assessment of need for position to decision to hire.
Long-term planning participation. Rates the extent to which faculty and staff at the institution participate in long-term planning.
Perceptions of leadership towards diversity. Rates the extent to which the administrative leadership of the institution embraces, celebrates and stresses the importance of diversity to the division/department’s work.
Performance evaluation process. Indicates whether the institution has a systematic process for evaluating employee performance.
Professional development. Rates the extent to which the institution provides professional development opportunities for staff members, including conferences, workshops and reading groups.
Autonomy. Rates the extent to which faculty and staff at the institution exercise autonomy in decision-making.
Support for departure. Rates the extent to which the institution is supportive of
faculty and staff as they leave position or institution.
Support for professional development. Rates the extent to which the institution supports professional development of staff, including financial support for conference travel, lodging, registration, research or technical assistance, and sponsored receptions at meetings.