CRI Survey Response Document

Abstract

The CRI Survey generated a significant student response that provides useful feedback to the AMS about its operations and priorities, as well as the relationship it has with its constituents. In general the data presented the picture of an AMS constituency satisfied with the AMS and its businesses, services, and activities. However; the AMS is least able to engage in a comprehensive and meaningful way, that group of students whom naturally feel the most affinity and support for the AMS. These subtle trends may reflect a compromised ability to fully connect to that market, or rather, a somewhat blurred understanding of their market. The accuracy of this analysis will only be borne out by subsequent improved surveying

Therein lays the central flaw of this survey and its resultant response data. As has been mentioned previously, this survey was extremely long. Many questions were laden with biased value statements that compromised the accuracy of the grading. Still others asked questions that required a level of specific knowledge beyond that reasonably expected of most respondents. The result was a very large neutral response from constituents that may not reflect a benign indifference, but rather an inability to respond to the questions as they would like or as they understand.

Introduction

In partnership with CRI, the Alma Mater Society developed and administered an online survey to its constituents. 40,000 members of the Alma Mater Society received this online survey. This survey included 65 questions in the mandatory section, of which a minimum 41 questions needed to be completed in order for the survey response to be recorded. There were an additional 40 questions that needed to be completed for those respondents who elected to complete the optional section of the survey. The average length to completion for this survey ranged between 40 minutes and 1 hour.

7568 individuals completed the mandatory section of the survey. This represents more than 17% of the individuals who were eligible to respond. The demographic make-up of the respondents was broadly reflective of the overall demographics of students at UBC, and in fact all categories of student were well represented in both the main, and optional sections of the survey. A further 2805 individuals completed the optional section of the survey, or almost one-third of all survey respondents.

Note: Throughout this survey you will see numerical ratings between 1.00 and 5.00 in the various included data tables. These ratings reflect an average score of all responses to the specific question.

  • Receiving a score of 5.00 would be the equivalent of 100% of the responses rating the AMS as excellent in that given category.
  • Receiving a score of 1.00 would be the equivalent of 100% rating the AMS as poor in that given category.
  • Receiving a score of 3.00 would be the equivalent of 100% rating the AMS as average in that given category.

Student Demographic Data – The response rate for this survey was good, providing 7568 responses spread across all of the major demographic considerations. While the personal information provided by those respondents indicates the survey population was not perfectly reflective of the UBC student population, given what we know from more specialized and focused recent surveys, there were a sufficient number of responses in all categories to minimize the sampling error that would result from low sample size populations. Employment, residence, an involvement data provide insights into various AMS demographics that might prove instructive.

Issues from Personal Information Section:

The questions contained within this section were relatively straightforward, and there are no recommendations for improvement.

  • 29% of grad students work more than 25 hours per week. This is more than 4 times as many as the next most heavily employed demographic (7% for 4th year students)
  • 1st year students are the least employed, and 56% do not have any paid employment (overall average for no paid employment is 37%)
  • Only 15% of the grad students responding claim to live in residence.

Overall / 1st Year / 2nd Year / 3rd Year / 4th Year / Graduate Students
# of respondents/
% of total / 7568 / 918
12% / 1120
15% / 1531
20% / 2170
29% / 1503
20%
% live in residence / 18% / 27% / 23% / 19% / 13% / 15%
% live away from campus / 51% / 54%
(43% f) / 50% / 51% / 52% / 46%
(31% o)
% public transit / 68% / 71% / 72% / 72% / 68% / 59%
% car / 15% / 9% / 10% / 12% / 19% / 20%
% no paid employment / 37% / 56% / 46% / 42% / 36% / 20%
% work> 25hrs/ wk / 12% / 3% / 5% / 6% / 7% / 29%
Involved in
Campus clubs / 45% / 55% / 55% / 53% / 48% / 22%
Student government / 6% / 5% / 4% / 5% / 7% / 8%
Resource groups / 4% / 3% / 3% / 5% / 5% / 3%
Working for AMS / 2% / 3% / 2% / 3% / 3% / 1%
Residence activities / 11% / 18% / 15% / 13% / 9% / 7%

AMS Satisfaction Data – The AMS is reasonably well regarded by all of the different student demographics at UBC. In particular, the AMS and the SUB are popular with new undergraduates, most of whom are frequent users of the SUB building and the businesses and services contained within. This appears to be a constituent group that is accessible and receptive to strategies of engagement. Conversely, graduate student responses indicate that they view the AMS and the SUB favourably, but less than half of the respondents are frequent users of the SUB. This could be in part because the AMS, and this survey did not effectively reach the graduate students who live in residence. However, if that was the case it would be another issue. The AMS needs to find a way to better engage graduate students, as a service provider and as their representative.

Issues from AMS Satisfaction Section:

  • Reviews of AMS performance appear to be good. Overall the ratings are positive with an average of two positive assessments for every one negative assessment.
  • The number of respondents who are neutral are the single biggest group, and likely most difficult group to understand.
  • Perceptions of the AMS effectiveness appear to decline over time. Between 1st and 4thyear respondents there is a gradual decline in the performance ratings given to the AMS.
  • 1st year perceptions of the SUB are distinctly more favourable than other groups, and in particular graduate students.
  • Undergraduate students are much more frequent users of the SUB relative to graduate students

Overall / 1st Year / 2nd Year / 3rd Year / 4th Year / Graduate Students
Perception of the AMS as a Service Provider / 3.53 / 3.67 / 3.61 / 3.54 / 3.48 / 3.47
Perception of the AMS as a Business Owner / 3.40 / 3.51 / 3.47 / 3.41 / 3.36 / 3.36
Perception of AMS as a Student Advocate / 3.44 / 3.58 / 3.52 / 3.45 / 3.37 / 3.38
Perception of the StudentUnionBuilding / 3.53 / 3.78 / 3.61 / 3.58 / 3.50 / 3.35
Frequency of attending the SUB
(min 2-3 times/ week) / 72% / 81% / 79% / 79% / 77% / 49%

General AMS Efficacy Section – The AMS has a good relationship with both undergraduate and graduate students. 1st year students had the most favourable view of their relationship with the AMS, and graduate students had the least favourable view. However, all groups were relatively closely grouped in terms of their perceived relationship with the AMS. There was a relatively high neutral response in all categories that could best be described as benign indifference. Only 7-10% of those who did not vote in the most recent AMS election cited a lack of affinity with the AMS as a reason for not voting. A lack of awareness or connection with the candidates, or even awareness of the election itself, seemed to be a bigger reason for not voting in AMS elections.

Issues from AMS Efficacy Section:

  • The AMS election voter turnout as claimed by the respondents was 37% on average. This is about 3 times the actual voter turnout, and indicates that the self-selecting survey respondents are not fully reflective of the overall constituency
  • The high neutral response from respondents combined with a general lack of awareness of, or affinity for the AMS electoral process would seem to indicate that the AMS is not reaching constituents in a way that will achieve greater engagement and sustainability

Overall / 1st Year / 2nd Year / 3rd Year / 4th Year / Graduate Students
Rating of Relationship with AMS / 3.22 / 3.26 / 3.22 / 3.25 / 3.23 / 3.16
% voted in last AMS Election / 37% / 36% / 42% / 43% / 42% / 27%
Reasons for not voting in an AMS Election
Didn’t know enough about candidate / 31% / 32% / 34% / 31% / 32% / 27%
Didn’t know about election / 11% / 9% / 10% / 10% / 9% / 13%
Felt no affinity to AMS / 7% / 5% / 5% / 7% / 7% / 11%
Felt no affinity to candidates / 11% / 6% / 9% / 11% / 13% / 10%

AMS Services Section – AMS services are highly regarded by constituents, based on the respondent data. They are regarded highly in terms of their effective operation as an AMS service, and even more highly in terms of their perceived importance to the campus community. A significant share of the respondents have derived value from the existence of one or more of the services during their time at UBC, and by the end of their undergraduate experience most undergraduates are well aware of the AMS services that are available to them. Graduate students are somewhat less aware of AMS services, but they also derive value from a number of the AMS services.

Overall / 1st Year / 2nd Year / 3rd Year / 4th Year / Graduate Students
Advocacy Services
Service Rating / 3.49 / 3.76 / 3.47 / 3.58 / 3.34 / 3.58
Unaware of Service / 21% / 28% / 26% / 23% / 19% / 17%
Ombuds Office
Service Rating / 3.37 / 2.89 / 3.30 / 3.32 / 3.52 / 3.40
Unaware of Service / 35% / 43% / 42% / 41% / 34% / 25%
Speakeasy
Service Rating / 3.83 / 3.72 / 3.86 / 3.79 / 3.90 / 3.80
Unaware of Service / 20% / 23% / 21% / 19% / 16% / 25%
Tutoring
Service Rating / 3.84 / 3.91 / 3.82 / 3.81 / 3.86 / 3.67
Unaware of Service / 4% / 3% / 3% / 4% / 3% / 8%
Safewalk
Service Rating / 4.35 / 4.31 / 4.32 / 4.40 / 4.35 / 4.33
Unaware of Service / 3% / 5% / 3% / 3% / 1% / 4%
Minischool
Service Rating / 4.03 / 4.05 / 3.95 / 4.07 / 4.09 / 3.92
Unaware of Service / 34% / 39% / 33% / 32% / 27% / 45%
Vol. Connections
Service Rating / 3.90 / 3.95 / 3.90 / 3.90 / 3.91 / 3.77
Unaware of Service / 17% / 17% / 14% / 15% / 15% / 23%
Joblink
Service Rating / 4.04 / 3.91 / 4.04 / 3.96 / 4.16 / 3.92
Unaware of Service / 9% / 13% / 9% / 8% / 7% / 12%
SASC
Service Rating / 3.99 / 3.52 / 3.83 / 4.23 / 4.03 / 4.03
Unaware of Service / 6% / 9% / 7% / 5% / 4% / 6%

AMS Food Services Section – AMS Food Services are very well regarded across the range of constituents. This should be qualified somewhat as due to the nature of the question, which asked respondents to review only the one food service they felt most qualified to critique, it is possible that grading was given for only those services that respondents liked the most. As well, with analysis restricted to one food service, the overall respondent data does not allow for a complete reflection of the usage of each of the food services. Revenue and volume data for each of the food services would be useful to complement this issue for a more complete picture.

Issues from AMS Food Services Section:

  • The Honour Roll is proportionately more popular with 1st and 2nd years and less so with 4th year and graduate students. The Pendulum is almost exactly the opposite. The Pit Pub and the Gallery have lower frequency rates amongst 1st year students. Likely due to the serving age requirements
  • There were a number of questions within this section that did not lend themselves to accurate answers. The question regarding accessibility for people/employees with disabilities may not have found an audience capable of accurately answering that. Likewise with regards to questions regarding dietary restrictions
  • A few of the food services only garnered a couple hundred responses each. Broken down into the different demographics this resulted in a couple of smaller size responses. This impacts the margin of error for answers for these food services
  • There were no non-AMS food services included in the review, such as those services contracting with the University in the Pacific Food Court.

Overall / 1st Year / 2nd Year / 3rd Year / 4th Year / Graduate Students
All Food Services / 3.84 / 3.87 / 3.82 / 3.88 / 3.87 / 3.75
Bernoulli’s Bagels / 3.92 / 4.14 / 4.10 / 3.99 / 3.99 / 3.58
AMS Outdoor BBQ / 3.77 / 3.76 / 3.57 / 3.90 / 3.93 / 3.71
Blue Chip Cookies / 4.03 / 3.94 / 3.98 / 4.06 / 4.11 / 3.99
The Pit Burger Bar / 3.75 / 3.80 / 3.77 / 3.77 / 3.74 / 3.65
The Gallery Lounge / 3.60 / 3.26 / 3.56 / 3.98 / 3.59 / 3.31
The Honour Roll / 3.77 / 3.83 / 3.73 / 3.71 / 3.80 / 3.77
The Moon / 3.36 / 3.56 / 3.29 / 3.39 / 3.21 / 3.43
The Pendulum / 4.02 / 4.00 / 4.03 / 4.14 / 4.06 / 3.92
Pie R Squared / 3.93 / 4.06 / 3.94 / 3.95 / 3.92 / 3.80
The Pit Pub / 3.57 / 3.68 / 3.70 / 3.59 / 3.62 / 3.37
Snack Attack / 3.80
Calc.

There were a number of questions asked in regards to the purchasing impact that would occur through the introduction of additional methods of payment. The introduction of Direct Payment methods was seen as the biggest incentive to additional purchases, particularly with students in later years of their undergraduate degree. The introduction of a food card met with limited enthusiasm amongst all groups except 1st year respondents, who were somewhat receptive to this idea. Credit Card introduction had moderate appeal, particularly to the earlier years.

AMS Communications Section–The most effective means of communicating with constituents appear to be those vehicles over which the AMS has limited control or influence. Currently far more respondents receive their information through email and the University website than they do through the AMS website or attending meetings. This discrepancy is particular apparent with first year respondents who receive five and four times as much information through email and the University website, as they do through the AMS website. Campus Newspapers, Flyers, and Word of Mouth are also very strong vehicles for getting information to students.

This information is consistent with data regarding preferred channels of communication, which suggest students prefer to passively receive information, as opposed to the more engaged information exchanges that occur through meetings and blogs. Even though the responses indicate that the AMS is not in possession of the most effective means of reaching students, a significant percentage of the respondents want to know about AMS services, events, lobbying efforts, and campus planning activities. The AMS needs to better access their constituents in order to provide this information.

Issues from AMS Communications Section:

  • Email is a particularly key vehicle for getting information to 1st year students, a group that has shown itself in this survey to be potentially invaluable to the aspirations of the AMS
  • Less tangible information channels such as Word of Mouth and Flyers apparently reach a large market. The effectiveness of strategies that use these vehicles needs to be better understood

Overall / 1st Year / 2nd Year / 3rd Year / 4th Year / Graduate Students
Sources for Campus Activities & Info:
Campus Newspapers / 38% / 34% / 33% / 41% / 45% / 31%
UBC Website / 53% / 55% / 56% / 53% / 49% / 53%
AMS Website / 17% / 15% / 20% / 18% / 18% / 12%
E-mail / 66% / 74% / 67% / 65% / 62% / 67%
Flyers/Posters / 46% / 49% / 50% / 51% / 48% / 35%
Campus Radio / 2% / 2% / 2% / 1% / 3% / 3%
Word of mouth / 62% / 61% / 63% / 66% / 68% / 52%
Attending meetings / 4% / 4% / 4% / 4% / 4% / 3%
Preferred Channels for Campus Activities & Info:
Weekly e-mail / 33% / 43% / 35% / 34% / 29% / 30%
Monthly e-mail / 48% / 43% / 46% / 46% / 47% / 52%
Blogs / 11% / 10% / 12% / 11% / 12% / 12%
Types of Information Desired:
Social Events / 59% / 68% / 68% / 66% / 58% / 44%
Academic Events / 55% / 62% / 59% / 58% / 52% / 51%
Campus planning / 29% / 29% / 30% / 29% / 30% / 27%
Lobbying initiatives / 20% / 20% / 18% / 20% / 20% / 23%
UBC campus news / 36% / 41% / 38% / 39% / 34% / 33%
AMS services / 31% / 37% / 33% / 34% / 30% / 25%
University services / 42% / 48% / 47% / 44% / 41% / 36%
How univ. policies made / 27% / 25% / 26% / 29% / 28% / 27%
Business promotions / 15% / 17% / 17% / 18% / 16% / 10%
Not interested in info / 13% / 8% / 9% / 10% / 15% / 17%

Optional Section – Students were given the option of voluntarily answering and additional number of questions relating to AMS priorities as well as their own viewpoint on some key post-secondary issues. 2805 students chose to complete this section. This response rate represented more than one-third of total respondents and was roughly mirrored across the academic criteria.

Total / 1st Year / 2nd Year / 3rd Year / 4th Year / Grad
Answered Optional Supplemental Section / 2805 / 302 / 417 / 597 / 802 / 582
% of Overall respondents / 37.1% / 32.9% / 37.2% / 39.0% / 37.0% / 38.7%

AMS Initiatives and Priorities Section – Respondents indicated a strong level of support for most of the listed priorities and initiatives. Easily the strongest category of support was for the development of Academic Services. This priority area had very strong support consistently across the continuum of undergraduate and graduate students.Certain priority areas garnered relatively more support amongst different groups. The creation of businesses and social/recreational services for students was most popular with 1st and 2ndyear respondents, gradually declining through to graduate students. Small scale lobbying priorities became increasingly popular to respondents as their educational status advanced, with 4th year and graduate students providing the strongest support for this priority.

Most respondents preferred to engage with the AMS via the internet and individual interviews for the purpose of providing feedback on AMS priorities and initiatives. Given that these same individuals were also most supportive of using lobbying as the means to address the urgent educational concerns cited by half the respondents, one can surmise that they feel these “lobbying” efforts should be of the small scale government relations variety. Relatively few respondents felt that the AMS should not respond at all to current educational concerns held by students.

Issues from AMS Priorities Section:

  • Group feedback strategies listed in the survey found the weakest response. This would seem to suggest that students are resistant to more structured time-consuming engagement activities
  • Lower level undergrads appear to be more internally focused on the AMS services as compared to upper level undergrads and graduates students who would prefer the AMS focus in external efforts
  • Large scale protests had the lowest level of support across the board

Overall / 1st Year / 2nd Year / 3rd Year / 4th Year / Graduate Students
Level of support for prospective AMS initiatives:
Developing businesses to meet student needs / 3.94 / 4.10 / 4.06 / 3.94 / 3.92 / 3.85
Develop academic services / 4.30 / 4.37 / 4.33 / 4.29 / 4.26 / 4.32
Develop social & recreational services / 4.05 / 4.20 / 4.16 / 4.11 / 4.03 / 3.88
Organize large scale protests / 3.34 / 3.44 / 3.25 / 3.32 / 3.29 / 3.41
Conduct small scale lobbying (government/university) / 3.80 / 3.69 / 3.74 / 3.72 / 3.82 / 3.93
Provide space/resources for groups / 3.92 / 4.00 / 3.94 / 3.94 / 3.88 / 3.88
Raise money to expand facilities / 3.96 / 4.04 / 4.01 / 3.98 / 3.95 / 3.88
Willingness to participate in feedback strategies:
Student Assembly / 23% / 32% / 26% / 24% / 21% / 17%
Town Hall Meeting / 14% / 17% / 14% / 13% / 14% / 12%
Small Focus Groups / 25% / 27% / 24% / 26% / 23% / 24%
Individual interviews & surveys / 40% / 37% / 39% / 38% / 42% / 42%
Web-based feedback / 64% / 61% / 66% / 62% / 65% / 64%
% support AMS addressing cost of education concerns / 76% / 73% / 81% / 80% / 80% / 68%

Tuition/Educational Values Section – Respondents were relatively neutral with regards to their support for the different tactics the University can utilize to make up for shortfalls in PSE funding. As a group they are also relatively mixed about their level of support for the prioritization of various funding portfolios within the University. In short this section did not prove to be overly instructive in advising the AMS of the PSE priorities of its constituents. This section should outline respondents priorities vis-à-vis educational funding.