2006 Institutional Performance Survey

2006 Institutional Performance Survey

Summary of Results

Introductory Comments

The Institutional Performance Survey (IPS) is produced by the NationalCenter for Education Management

Systems (NCHEMS). The survey was taken by a sample of full-time faculty and staff in fall 1996 and again in fall 2006 in conjunction with accreditation self-studies. Results on selected items summarized below are taken from analytic reports prepared by NCHEMS researchers. Results on all items with more detailed response breakdowns are available in a Microsoft Excel formatupon request.

Respondent Characteristics

Faculty members with administrative positions may have identified themselves on the survey as being in one of the administrative categories or as faculty. The top administration group(e.g., president, vice president) and middle administration group(e.g., dean, associate dean, department chair, director) likely contain a mix of faculty and staff members. Response rates were relatively high on both surveys – 72% (99 of 137) in 1996 and 67% (173 of 260) in 2006.

Respondents by Type of Position

1996 / 2006
Board of Regents / 9 / 9
Top administration / 5 / 10
Middle administration / 17 / 28
Professional staff / 14 / 43
Support/Clerical staff / 11 / 20
Other / 0 / 5
Instructional faculty / 43 / 58
Total institution / 99 / 173

Executive Summary of Findings

On items related to organizational health and relationships, the 1996 and 2006 overall results are similar in most cases. Student/faculty relationships are viewed as being quite close. On items related to equity of treatment, functioning of the organization, levels of trust, conflict, recognition, feedback, and morale, overall 2006 means vary from 2.8 to 3.1 on a 5 point scale – indicating mid-range satisfaction levels. Throughout the survey, the most common overall institutional mean is in the 3.0 to 3.9 range on items on which a higher mean indicates a more favorable result. The 2006 mean is 4.1 (a positive result) on items related to Concordia’s image in the community and pride in being associated with the university.

In a survey section on institutional culture, response groupings indicate that Concordia is viewed as primarily having a clan culture (much like a family, personal and informal, loyalty and tradition bonding forces, leadership by father figure or mentor) and secondarily a hierarchical culture (formalized, tightly structured, emphasis on efficiency and stability, led by organizers or coordinators). NCHEMS analysis has found that these two cultures have opposite correlations (positive vs. negative) when compared to a variety of variables like long-term planning, administrator credibility, and student-faculty relations.

2006 results throughout the survey are generally similar to results from 1996 or slightly more favorable. Of the 104 items on both surveys on which mean responses are calculated, there are only 16 items on which the overall means differed by 0.4 or more (1 to 5 scale). On all but 1 of these items, 2006 results are more favorable. By far the greatest improvement is seen on items related to library facilities and resources and computer resources and support. These improvements in response levels were anticipated given the construction of the LibraryTechnologyCenter and the transition to a laptop university since 1996. Top administrators and their planning activities are viewed more favorably in 2006. The enrollment and financial feedback they receive has improved. There is a greater sense of a shared definition of mission. More faculty members are involved in professional development. An area of perceived increase in emphasis/activities since 1996 is in regard to community and other exterior constituencies.

The opportunity that Concordia provides for personal development of students is acknowledged as are diversity initiatives. Effective teaching is valued. Concordia is perceived to prepare students to function in a technological society. Student satisfaction is viewed as fairly high.

Concern about competition from other institutions remains high. The availability of financial resources and the ability of Concordia to procure financial resources are concerns. It is perceived that administrators do notadequately provide incentives to conserve resources. Results indicate some ambiguous perceptions of how planning takes place and how resource allocation decisions are made. There is quite a bit of variability in responses within and between groups on planning/allocation items, including variability within the top administration group.

The 3.3 average on the last item, ConcordiaUniversity, St. Paul is well-positioned for success in the future, generally reflects survey results overall. 2006 results are generally more positive than negative but not by a large amount.

Organizational Health/Relationships/Satisfaction

A number of items address the overall health of the organization. Some of them are listed below. In most cases, the 1996 and 2006 overall results are similar. Student/faculty relationships are viewed as being quite close. On items related to equity of treatment, functioning of the organization, levels of trust, conflicts, recognition, feedback, and morale, overall 2006 means vary from 2.8 to 3.1 on a 5 point scale – indicating mid-range satisfaction levels. Estimates of 2006 faculty and staff satisfaction levels have means of 3.7 and 3.9, respectively. The mean is 4.1 on institutional items ConcordiaUniversity, St. Paul has a positive image in the local community andI am proud to be affiliated with ConcordiaUniversity, St. Paul.

Whether a higher mean indicates a more favorable response average or not depends on the phrasing of an item. A higher standard deviation (Std Dev) is an indication of greater variability in responses.

How do you perceive the following?

Student/faculty relationships

1=unusual closeness, lots of informal interaction, mutual personal concern to 5=no closeness, little informal interaction

1=unusual closeness / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5=no closeness / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 44.4% / 33.3% / 22.2% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.8 / 1.8
Top administration / 40.0% / 60.0% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.5 / 1.6
Middle administration / 46.4% / 50.0% / 0.0% / 3.6% / 0.0% / 0.7 / 1.6
Professional staff / 27.9% / 51.2% / 11.6% / 9.3% / 0.0% / 0.9 / 2.0
Support/Clerical staff / 20.0% / 65.0% / 5.0% / 5.0% / 5.0% / 1.0 / 2.1
Instructional faculty / 48.3% / 44.8% / 5.2% / 1.7% / 0.0% / 0.7 / 1.6
Total institution / 38.2% / 50.3% / 6.9% / 4.0% / 0.6% / 0.8 / 1.8
Total institution 1996 / 40.4% / 45.5% / 10.1% / 3.0% / 0.0% / 0.8 / 1.8

Equity of treatment and rewards

1=people treated fairly and rewarded equitably to 5=favoritism and inequity present, unfair treatment exists

1=treated fairly / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5=inequity present / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 22.2% / 55.6% / 22.2% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.7 / 2.0
Top administration / 10.0% / 40.0% / 0.0% / 50.0% / 0.0% / 1.2 / 2.9
Middle administration / 10.7% / 42.9% / 25.0% / 3.6% / 17.9% / 1.3 / 2.8
Professional staff / 16.3% / 39.5% / 16.3% / 16.3% / 9.3% / 1.2 / 2.6
Support/Clerical staff / 10.0% / 25.0% / 35.0% / 15.0% / 15.0% / 1.2 / 3.0
Instructional faculty / 12.1% / 25.9% / 29.3% / 19.0% / 13.8% / 1.2 / 3.0
Total institution / 12.7% / 35.3% / 24.3% / 15.6% / 11.6% / 1.2 / 2.8
Total institution 1996 / 14.1% / 30.3% / 30.3% / 14.1% / 11.1% / 1.2 / 2.8

Organizational health

1=institution runs smoothly, healthy organization, productive internal functioning to 5=institution runs poorly, unhealthy organization, unproductive internal functioning

1=healthy / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5=unhealthy / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 33.3% / 33.3% / 22.2% / 11.1% / 0.0% / 1.1 / 2.1
Top administration / 20.0% / 30.0% / 30.0% / 20.0% / 0.0% / 1.1 / 2.5
Middle administration / 3.6% / 46.4% / 28.6% / 3.6% / 17.9% / 1.2 / 2.9
Professional staff / 4.7% / 30.2% / 37.2% / 25.6% / 2.3% / 0.9 / 2.9
Support/Clerical staff / 0.0% / 35.0% / 30.0% / 30.0% / 5.0% / 0.9 / 3.1
Instructional faculty / 13.8% / 24.1% / 34.5% / 22.4% / 5.2% / 1.1 / 2.8
Total institution / 9.8% / 31.8% / 32.9% / 19.7% / 5.8% / 1.1 / 2.8
Total institution 1996 / 4.0% / 26.3% / 35.4% / 26.3% / 8.1% / 1.0 / 3.1

General levels of trust among people here

1=high suspicion, fear, distrust, insecurity to 5=high trust, security, openness

1=distrust / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5=high trust / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 0.0% / 0.0% / 22.2% / 33.3% / 44.4% / 0.8 / 4.2
Top administration / 10.0% / 50.0% / 20.0% / 10.0% / 10.0% / 1.2 / 2.6
Middle administration / 7.1% / 14.3% / 28.6% / 39.3% / 10.7% / 1.1 / 3.3
Professional staff / 4.7% / 32.6% / 23.3% / 30.2% / 4.7% / 1.0 / 3.0
Support/Clerical staff / 0.0% / 10.0% / 35.0% / 40.0% / 15.0% / 0.9 / 3.6
Instructional faculty / 12.1% / 25.9% / 25.9% / 31.0% / 5.2% / 1.1 / 2.9
Total institution / 7.5% / 23.7% / 25.4% / 32.9% / 9.2% / 1.1 / 3.1
Total institution 1996 / 4.0% / 26.3% / 28.3% / 33.3% / 8.1% / 1.0 / 3.2

Conflicts and friction in Concordia

1=large amount of conflict, disagreements, anxiety, friction to 5=no friction or conflicts, friendly, collaborative

1=friction / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5=no friction / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 0.0% / 0.0% / 22.2% / 77.8% / 0.0% / 0.4 / 3.8
Top administration / 0.0% / 40.0% / 10.0% / 40.0% / 10.0% / 1.1 / 3.2
Middle administration / 3.6% / 25.0% / 21.4% / 50.0% / 0.0% / 0.9 / 3.2
Professional staff / 2.3% / 14.0% / 46.5% / 34.9% / 0.0% / 0.8 / 3.2
Support/Clerical staff / 15.0% / 20.0% / 30.0% / 30.0% / 5.0% / 1.2 / 2.9
Instructional faculty / 6.9% / 29.3% / 27.6% / 34.5% / 1.7% / 1.0 / 2.9
Total institution / 5.2% / 22.5% / 30.1% / 39.9% / 1.7% / 0.9 / 3.1
Total institution 1996 / 4.0% / 27.3% / 42.4% / 26.3% / 0.0% / 0.8 / 2.9

Recognition and rewards received for good work from superiors

1=recognition received for good work, rewarded for success to 5=no rewards for good work, no one recognizes success

1=rewarded / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5=not rewarded / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 11.1% / 66.7% / 22.2% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.6 / 2.1
Top administration / 20.0% / 30.0% / 40.0% / 10.0% / 0.0% / 1.0 / 2.4
Middle administration / 0.0% / 21.4% / 35.7% / 32.1% / 10.7% / 0.9 / 3.3
Professional staff / 4.7% / 30.2% / 23.3% / 20.9% / 18.6% / 1.2 / 3.2
Support/Clerical staff / 10.0% / 20.0% / 30.0% / 25.0% / 15.0% / 1.2 / 3.2
Instructional faculty / 8.6% / 24.1% / 36.2% / 27.6% / 3.4% / 1.0 / 2.9
Total institution / 7.5% / 27.2% / 32.4% / 23.1% / 9.2% / 1.1 / 3.0
Total institution 1996 / 1.0% / 29.3% / 31.3% / 28.3% / 10.1% / 1.0 / 3.2

The amount of information or feedback you receive

1=feel informed, in-the-know, information is always available to 5=feel isolated, out-of-it, information is never available

1=in-the-know / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5=out-of-it / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 22.2% / 55.6% / 11.1% / 0.0% / 11.1% / 1.2 / 2.2
Top administration / 40.0% / 30.0% / 20.0% / 10.0% / 0.0% / 1.1 / 2.0
Middle administration / 10.7% / 42.9% / 21.4% / 25.0% / 0.0% / 1.0 / 2.6
Professional staff / 0.0% / 34.9% / 32.6% / 20.9% / 11.6% / 1.0 / 3.1
Support/Clerical staff / 0.0% / 30.0% / 30.0% / 20.0% / 20.0% / 1.1 / 3.3
Instructional faculty / 3.4% / 31.0% / 34.5% / 27.6% / 3.4% / 0.9 / 3.0
Total institution / 6.9% / 34.1% / 30.1% / 22.0% / 6.9% / 1.1 / 2.9
Total institution 1996 / 5.1% / 27.3% / 37.4% / 21.2% / 9.1% / 1.0 / 3.0

Morale is increasing among members of Concordia.

1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree / Neither / Agree / Strongly Agree / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 0.0% / 0.0% / 11.1% / 77.8% / 0.0% / 0.4 / 3.9
Top administration / 0.0% / 50.0% / 0.0% / 10.0% / 20.0% / 1.4 / 3.0
Middle administration / 10.7% / 28.6% / 17.9% / 32.1% / 3.6% / 1.1 / 2.9
Professional staff / 11.6% / 16.3% / 37.2% / 20.9% / 0.0% / 1.0 / 2.8
Support/Clerical staff / 5.0% / 35.0% / 25.0% / 30.0% / 0.0% / 1.0 / 2.8
Instructional faculty / 15.5% / 24.1% / 24.1% / 24.1% / 3.4% / 1.1 / 2.7
Total institution / 10.4% / 24.3% / 24.3% / 28.3% / 2.9% / 1.1 / 2.9
Total institution 1996 / 12.1% / 34.3% / 23.2% / 27.3% / 0.0% / 1.0 / 2.7

Estimate how many Concordia faculty members are personally satisfied with their employment.

1=a small minority to 5=a large majority

A small minority / Less than half / About half / More than half / A large majority / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 0.0% / 0.0% / 11.1% / 22.2% / 44.4% / 0.8 / 4.4
Top administration / 0.0% / 10.0% / 0.0% / 60.0% / 30.0% / 0.9 / 4.1
Middle administration / 0.0% / 14.3% / 17.9% / 28.6% / 32.1% / 1.1 / 3.8
Professional staff / 0.0% / 9.3% / 20.9% / 32.6% / 16.3% / 0.9 / 3.7
Support/Clerical staff / 0.0% / 5.0% / 15.0% / 40.0% / 15.0% / 0.8 / 3.9
Instructional faculty / 3.4% / 19.0% / 22.4% / 36.2% / 19.0% / 1.1 / 3.5
Total institution / 1.2% / 12.7% / 17.9% / 35.3% / 22.5% / 1.0 / 3.7
Total institution 1996 / 3.0% / 10.1% / 20.2% / 36.4% / 19.2% / 1.0 / 3.7

Estimate how many Concordia administrators are personally satisfied with their employment.

1=a small minority to 5=a large majority

A small minority / Less than half / About half / More than half / A large majority / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 0.0% / 11.1% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 66.7% / 1.1 / 4.6
Top administration / 0.0% / 20.0% / 10.0% / 40.0% / 30.0% / 1.1 / 3.8
Middle administration / 0.0% / 10.7% / 10.7% / 28.6% / 42.9% / 1.0 / 4.1
Professional staff / 0.0% / 14.0% / 32.6% / 18.6% / 20.9% / 1.0 / 3.5
Support/Clerical staff / 5.0% / 5.0% / 35.0% / 30.0% / 15.0% / 1.0 / 3.5
Instructional faculty / 0.0% / 3.4% / 13.8% / 32.8% / 37.9% / 0.8 / 4.2
Total institution / 0.6% / 9.2% / 19.1% / 27.2% / 32.4% / 1.0 / 3.9
Total institution 1996 / 2.0% / 5.1% / 20.2% / 28.3% / 26.3% / 1.0 / 3.9

ConcordiaUniversity, St. Paul has a positive image in the local community.

1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree / Neither / Agree / Strongly Agree / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 22.2% / 66.7% / 0.5 / 4.8
Top administration / 0.0% / 0.0% / 0.0% / 70.0% / 30.0% / 0.5 / 4.3
Middle administration / 3.6% / 10.7% / 7.1% / 60.7% / 17.9% / 1.0 / 3.8
Professional staff / 0.0% / 0.0% / 9.3% / 69.8% / 18.6% / 0.5 / 4.1
Support/Clerical staff / 0.0% / 15.0% / 10.0% / 30.0% / 35.0% / 1.1 / 3.9
Instructional faculty / 1.7% / 1.7% / 12.1% / 50.0% / 27.6% / 0.8 / 4.1
Total institution / 1.2% / 4.0% / 8.7% / 54.3% / 27.2% / 0.8 / 4.1
Total institution 1996 / 3.0% / 11.1% / 8.1% / 49.5% / 26.3% / 1.0 / 3.9

I am proud to be affiliated with ConcordiaUniversity, St. Paul.

1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree / Neither / Agree / Strongly Agree / Std Dev / Mean
Board of Regents / 0.0% / 11.1% / 11.1% / 0.0% / 77.8% / 1.1 / 4.4
Top administration / 0.0% / 0.0% / 10.0% / 40.0% / 50.0% / 0.7 / 4.4
Middle administration / 0.0% / 3.6% / 14.3% / 35.7% / 46.4% / 0.8 / 4.3
Professional staff / 0.0% / 0.0% / 9.3% / 44.2% / 44.2% / 0.7 / 4.4
Support/Clerical staff / 0.0% / 0.0% / 20.0% / 50.0% / 30.0% / 0.7 / 4.1
Instructional faculty / 1.7% / 12.1% / 12.1% / 44.8% / 25.9% / 1.0 / 3.8
Total institution / 0.6% / 5.2% / 12.7% / 41.0% / 38.7% / 0.9 / 4.1
Total institution 1996 / 1.0% / 8.1% / 13.1% / 36.4% / 39.4% / 1.0 / 4.1

Institutional Culture

On each of 4 items respondents were asked to distribute 100 points among 4 descriptive alternative statements. Under institutional characteristics, the alternatives contain the phrases personal place, dynamic and entrepreneurial place, formalized and structured place, and production oriented. For institutional leadership style, alternatives include the phrases support and concern, innovation and risk taking, conservative and cautious, and directive and goal oriented. The alternatives under institutional “glue” include the phrases loyalty and tradition, innovation and development, formal rules and policies, and tasks and goal accomplishment. For institutional emphasis, alternatives contain the phrases human resources, growth and acquisition of new resources, permanence and stability, and competitive actions and achievement.

Responses are grouped into the following "cultures" below as defined in the NCHEMS analytic reports. These terms are not on the survey itself.

A clan is much like a family; it is highly personal and informal. Loyalty and tradition are bonding forces and morale is usual high. Clans are usually led by father or mother figures or by mentors.

An emergent system is dynamic and entrepreneurial; it emphasizes innovation and new ideas. This kind of institution is strongly committed to development and progress and its leader is usually an innovator or entrepreneur.

A hierarchy is a formalized, tightly structured institution governed by formal rules and procedures. As archetypal bureaucracies, such institutions emphasize efficient, well-oiled processes. They value stability and permanence. Hierarchies are usually led by organizers and coordinators.

When a market culture pervades an institution, the school is production-oriented and values the accomplishment of goals. Goals drive the institution's activities and there is a sense of competition and achievement among members. The leader of a market-oriented institution is usually a hard-driving producer who places high priority on results.

As seen below, Concordia is viewed primarily as having a clan culture in 3 areas with hierarchy second, except for institutional emphasis which has hierarchy first and then clan second. This perceived culture mix may account for some of the variability in responses throughout the survey. NCHEMS has researched institutional cultures and has found correlations between culture type and a number of variables. On each of the variables noted in the NCHEMS analytic report, the clan and hierarchical cultures have opposite correlations – when one is positive the other is negative. For example, the clan culturehas a positive correlation with respect to morale, administrative credibility, and student-faculty relations and the hierarchical culture has a negative correlation with respect to these variables. On the other hand, a hierarchical culture correlates positively with centralized decision making, long-term planning, and innovative activity while the clan culture correlates negatively with these variables.

Average point assignments by overall institutional groups are listed below.

Clan / Emergent System / Hierarchical / Market
Institutional Characteristics
Total institution 2006 / 52.7 / 14.7 / 22.3 / 10.2
Total institution 1996 / 56.0 / 8.3 / 25.2 / 10.4
Institutional Leadership Style
Total institution 2006 / 38.9 / 14.9 / 27.4 / 18.8
Total institution 1996 / 38.4 / 8.2 / 37.8 / 15.5
Institutional Glue
Total institution 2006 / 50.5 / 14.7 / 18.0 / 16.8
Total institution 1996 / 54.2 / 7.0 / 23.0 / 15.8
Institutional Emphasis
Total institution 2006 / 27.2 / 22.6 / 30.3 / 19.9
Total institution 1996 / 32.2 / 16.8 / 36.0 / 15.0

Largest Changes in Item Means Overall

For the most part when compared with 1996, 2006 results are similar or slightly more favorable. Of the 104 items on both surveys on which mean responses are calculated (1 through 5 scale), there are only 16 items on which the overall means differed by 0.4 or more. Those items are listed below. Institution-specific items are identified with an I. On all but 1 of these items, 2006 results are more favorable. By far the greatest improvement is seen on items related to library facilities and resources and computer resources and support. These improvements in response levels were anticipated given the construction of the LibraryTechnologyCenter and the transition to a laptop university since 1996. Top administrators and their planning activities are viewed more favorably in 2006. The enrollment and financial feedback they receive has improved. There is a greater sense of a shared definition of mission. An area of perceived increase in emphasis/activities since 1996 is in regard to community and other exterior constituencies. More faculty members are involved in professional development. There is a greater concern expressed in 2006 about Concordia’s financial picture (no place to cut expenditures).

Unless otherwise indicated, a 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree scale is used in calculations of mean and standard deviation. A completely neutral, neither agree nor disagree average would be 3.0.

1996 Mean/Std Dev / 2006 Mean/Std Dev
University library facilities are adequate. I / 2.1 / 4.4
1.1 / 0.7
University computer resources are adequate. I / 2.0 / 4.3
1.1 / 0.9
University technological support services are adequate. I / 2.0 / 3.7
1.0 / 1.2
University library resources are adequate. I / 2.3 / 3.9
1.2 / 1.1
Our top administrative team receives rapid and accurate feedback about enrollment and financial conditions. / 2.9 / 3.9
1.2 / 0.9
Top administrative positions are now held by individuals who were promoted within Concordia. / 3.7 / 4.3
1.0 / 0.8
There is a high emphasis on institution-community and institution-environment activities. / 3.2 / 3.8
0.9 / 0.9
A very large number of community-oriented programs, workshops, projects, or activities were sponsored by Concordia last year. / 3.1 / 3.7
1.1 / 0.9
Top administrators are often scapegoats. / 2.8 / 2.3
1.0 / 1.0
People associated with Concordia share a common definition of its mission. / 3.1 / 3.5
1.3 / 1.2
We have no place that we could cut expenditures without severely damaging Concordia. / 3.0 / 3.4
1.4 / 1.3
Top administrators have high credibility. / 3.2 / 3.6
1.1 / 1.1
Our top administrative team has developed multi-year strategies to achieve long-term institutional objectives. / 2.9 / 3.3
1.1 / 1.2
Resource allocation decisions are based on what objectively seems best for Concordia as a whole. / 3.0 / 3.4
1.2 / 1.1
1996 Mean/Std Dev / 2006 Mean/Std Dev
How many faculty members are now actively engaged in professional development activities--e.g., doing research, getting an advanced degree, consulting, etc.?
1=small minority to 5=large majority / 2.9 / 3.3
1.2 / 1.2
Concordia is highly responsive and adaptive to meeting the changing needs of its external constituencies. / 3.0 / 3.4
0.9 / 1.0

Items with Highest 2006 Disagree-Agree Means

Concern about competition from other institutions remains high. Financial resources are a concern. 2006 satisfaction with library facilities and computer resources is high. The opportunity that Concordia provides for personal development of students is acknowledged as are diversity initiatives. Effective teaching is valued. Concordia is perceived to prepare students to function in a technological society.

1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree

1996 Mean/Std Dev / 2006 Mean/Std Dev
Competition with other colleges and universities for student enrollments has increased over the past few years. / 4.3 / 4.4
0.8 / 0.6
University library facilities are adequate. I / 2.1 / 4.4
1.1 / 0.7
Top administrative positions are now held by individuals who were promoted within Concordia. / 3.7 / 4.3
1.0 / 0.8
One of the outstanding features of Concordia is the opportunity it provides students for personal development / 4.0 / 4.3
0.8 / 0.8
Competitive actions of other colleges and universities now affect Concordia in more areas (e.g., price, programs, area served) than in the past. / 4.0 / 4.3
0.9 / 0.8
University computer resources are adequate. I / 2.0 / 4.3
1.1 / 0.9
We are changing the composition of our student body, making it more diverse. / 4.0 / 4.2
0.8 / 0.7
Financial resources have become more difficult to obtain over the past few years. / 3.9 / 4.1
1.0 / 0.9
There are actions the administration could take now to prevent enrollments from declining in the next year. / 4.2 / 4.1
0.7 / 0.7
ConcordiaUniversity, St. Paul has a positive image in the local community. I / 3.9 / 4.1
1.0 / 0.8
1996 Mean/Std Dev / 2006 Mean/Std Dev
I am proud to be affiliated with ConcordiaUniversity, St. Paul. I / 4.1 / 4.1
1.0 / 0.9
The university values effective teaching. I / NA / 4.1
NA / 0.9
The university adequately prepares students to live and work responsibly in a technological society. I / NA / 4.1
NA / 0.8
Concordia has many administrators performing specialized functions. / 4.1 / 4.0
0.9 / 0.9
The academic programs offered here reflect the mission of Concordia. / 3.9 / 4.0
0.8 / 0.8

Items with Lowest 2006 Disagree-Agree Means

Concordia is perceived to be unable to attract top in the country faculty members. Incentives for conserving resources are not viewed as being provided by top administrators. There is concern about being able to procure financial resources. Low means on student dissatisfaction items indicate that there is an impression that student satisfaction is fairly high.

1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree

1996 Mean/Std Dev / 2006 Mean/Std Dev
When hiring new faculty members, Concordia can attract the leading people in the country in their respective fields to take a job here. / 1.9 / 2.0
0.8 / 0.9
Our top administrative team provides incentives for conserving resources. / 2.0 / 2.2
0.9 / 0.8
I am aware of a large number of student complaints regarding their educational experience here as reflected in the campus newspaper, meetings with faculty members and administration, or other public forums. / 2.3 / 2.2
1.0 / 0.9
Decreasing full-time equivalent enrollments are inevitable next year. / 2.1 / 2.2
0.8 / 0.8
Top administrators are often scapegoats. / 2.8 / 2.3
1.0 / 1.0
Resource allocation is decided by coincidence; it is a matter of organized anarchy. / 2.6 / 2.3
1.1 / 1.1
Concordia has a very high ability to obtain financial resources in order to provide a high quality educational program. / 2.3 / 2.3
1.0 / 1.1
There seems to be a feeling that dissatisfaction is high among students at Concordia. / 2.6 / 2.4
1.0 / 1.0
1996 Mean/Std Dev / 2006 Mean/Std Dev
Relatively large numbers of students do not return because of dissatisfaction with their educational experiences here. / 2.7 / 2.4
1.1 / 1.0

Other Institutional Characteristics/Strategy/Resource Allocation Items of Interest