2015 Service Quality Comparison Report Safety Rating...2015 Service Quality Comparison Report The purpose of this report is to provide a three-year comparison (2013, 2014, and 2015)

2015 Service Quality Comparison Report

The purpose of this report is to provide a three-year comparison (2013, 2014, and 2015) of responses in the areas of safety and overall service as gathered from the Service Quality Survey.

Safety Rating

The area of safety was examined for both off-campus and on-campus locations. Figures 1 and 2 combine the scores for “very safe” and “safe” and exclude “don’t know” responses for the three years of safety responses. Figure 1 examines those areas found on the main campus whereas figure 2 examines those areas found off the main campus. Corresponding to Figures 1 and 2, table 1 provides the detail for the response populations in the areas of response total, “very safe” and “safe” response total and percent.

Figure 1. Safety Ratings of Very Safe and Safe for the Main Campus Location

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2013

2014

2015

1

Figure 2 examines those areas found off the main campus.

Figure 2. Safety Rating of "Very Safe" and "Safe" for Off-Campus Locations

Table 1. “Very Safe” and “Safe” Response Percent and Total and Response Total for 2012- 2015 Years

2013 2014 2015

Very Safe and Safe Response

Response total


Response total


Response total

% n n % n n % n n PVCC's Main Building 95% 112 118 93% 124 133 97% 99 102 PVCC's Dickinson Building 90% 72 80 87% 90 103 87% 72 83 Theodore E. and Patt Hart Keats Science Building 90% 62 69 92% 79 86 97% 71 73 Stultz Center for Business and Career Development 84% 43 51 85% 55 65 88% 42 48 PVCC Eugene Giuseppe Center 96% 25 26 86% 37 43 94% 32 34 PVCC's Jefferson School Center (Downtown) 82% 18 22 78% 38 49 87% 34 39 Lounges/Common Areas 97% 109 112 82% 106 129 86% 85 99 Parking Lots (Main Campus) 84% 100 119 83% 109 132 91% 92 101 Parking Lots (Off Campus Sites) 83% 24 29 76% 38 50 91% 41 45 Buildings Off Campus (e.g., high schools or community centers) 90% 18 20 87% 34 39 96% 27 28 Campus Safety, overall 90% 104 115 91% 118 130 96% 99 103

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

PVCC EugeneGiuseppe Center

PVCC's JeffersonSchool Center(Downtown)

Parking Lots (OffCampus Sites)

Buildings OffCampus (e.g., high

schools orcommunity

centers)

Campus Safety,overall

2013

2014

2015

Note: Excludes “Don’t Know” responses

2

Overall Service

Overall service was examined and compared for each unit. Responses for “excellent” and “good” have been combined. The resulting percentage, response size, and total response have been provided by unit for three years and can be found in corresponding figures and tables. The Finance and Administrative Services unit has been separated into contract services and institutional services.

Figure 3. Overall Rating of “Excellent” and “Good” for Instruction and Student Services

Table 2. “Excellent” and “Good” Response Percent and Total and Response Total for Overall Service, Instruction and Student Services Unit for 2013-2015

2013 2014 2015

Excellent and Good Response

Response Total


Response Total


Response Total

% n n % n n % n n VPISS 80.70% 46 57 90.00% 63 70 85.24% 52 61 HFASS 94.83% 55 58 86.79% 46 53 93.61% 44 47 BMT 95.75% 45 47 95.00% 57 60 95.74% 45 47 HLS 95.55% 43 45 85.72% 42 49 86.95% 40 46 WFS 94.29% 33 35 91.66% 33 36 89.74% 35 39 Library 100.00% 61 61 100.00% 66 66 100.00% 50 50 Testing Center 100.00% 67 67 98.57% 69 70 94.64% 53 56 Fitness Center 100.00% 24 24 96.42% 27 28 94.44% 17 18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

VPISS HFASS BMT HLS WFS Library TestingCenter

FitnessCenter

2013

2014

2015


3

Figure 4. Overall Rating of “Excellent” and “Good” for Finance and Administrative Services, Institutional Service

Table 3. “Excellent” and “Good” Response Percent and Total and Response Total for Overall Service, Institutional Advancement and Development Unit, for 2013-2015

2013 2014 2015


Response Total


Response Total


Response Total

% n n % n n % n n

Building and Grounds 87.61% 106 121 91.66% 121 132 93.13% 95 102

Human Resources 59.09% 52 88 65.91% 58 88 82.19% 60 73 Business Office 91.66% 55 60 88.89% 56 63 95.08% 58 61 Security 69.87% 51 73 68.05% 49 72 84.44% 38 45

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Buildings and Grounds Human Resources Business Office Security

2013

2014

2015


4

Figure 5. Overall Rating of “Excellent” and “Good” for Finance and Administrative Services, Contract Services

Table 4. “Excellent” and “Good” Response Percent and Total and Response Total for Overall Service, Finance and Administrative Services Unit, Contract Services for 2013-2015

2013 2014 2015


Response Total


Response Total


Response Total

% n n % n n % n n

Copy Center 97.96% 96 98 90.47% 95 105 98.76% 80 81 Bookstore 89.19% 33 37 84.49% 49 58 95.34% 41 43 Vending 94.45% 34 36 74.28% 26 35 84.00% 21 25 Mermaid Express 93.34% 42 45 91.30% 42 46 97.50% 39 40 First Run Cafe 65.28% 47 72 60.00% 39 65 78.57% 44 56

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Copy Center Bookstore Vending Mermaid Express First Run Cafe

2013

2014

2015


5

Figure 6. Overall Rating of “Excellent” and “Good” for Institutional Advancement and Development

Table 5. “Excellent” and “Good” Response Percent and Total and Response Total for Overall Service, Institutional Advancement and Development Unit, for 2013-2015

2013 2014 2015


Response Total


Response Total


Response Total

% n n % n n % n n Marketing and Media Relations 64.87% 24 37 78.73% 37 47 87.80% 36 41

Grants 100.00% 22 22 100.00% 23 23 96.42% 27 28

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Marketing and Media Relations Grants

2013

2014

2015


6

Figure 7. Overall Rating of “Excellent” and “Good” for Informational Technology

Table 6. “Excellent” and “Good” Response Percent and Total and Response Total for Overall Service, Informational Technology Unit, for 2013-2015

2013 2014 2015 Excellent and

Good Response Response

Total Excellent and


Total Excellent and


Total % n n % n n % n n

IT Help Desk 80.19% 85 106 79.44% 85 107 65.90% 58 88

Media Services 88.46% 46 52 95.12% 39 41 81.81% 27 33

Administrative Computing 69.39% 34 49 74.42% 32 43 69.38% 34 49 Network Infrastructure 80.27% 61 76 81.25% 65 80 67.14% 47 70

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

IT Help Desk Media Services AdministrativeComputing

NetworkInfrastructure

2013

2014

2015


7

Figure 8. Overall Rating of “Excellent” and “Good” for Institutional Research, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness

Table 7. “Excellent” and “Good” Response Percent and Total and Response Total for Overall Service, Institutional Research, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness, for 2013-2015

2013 2014 2015 Excellent and


Total Excellent and


Total Excellent and


Total

% n n % n n % n n IRPIE 100.00% 36 36 83.78% 31 37 81.81% 36 44

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

IRPIE

2013

2014

2015


8

2015 Service Quality Overcrowding

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of faculty and staff’s perceptions on overcrowding at PVCC and their perception on how overcrowding has impacted themselves and the students.

Overcrowding, Faculty and Staff

The figure below depicts the faculty and staff responses on areas they perceived as overcrowded in certain PVCC locations either “Often” or “Sometimes” excluding “N/A”. The resulting percentage, response size, and total response have been provided in the corresponding figure and table.

Figure 9. Areas at PVCC perceived as overcrowded by Faculty and Staff, Total Response Percentages for “Often” and “Sometimes”

Table 8. Areas at PVCC perceived as overcrowded by Faculty and Staff, Total Response Percentages for “Often” and “Sometimes”, Response Total for “Often” and “Sometimes”, Response Total

Response Percent, "Often" & "Sometimes"

Response Total, "Often"&

"Sometimes" Response Total Parking 94% 89 95 First Run Café 79% 66 83 Computer Labs 71% 42 59 Bookstore 70% 46 66 Fitness Center 50% 21 42

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Parking First Run Café Computer Labs Bookstore Fitness Center

Note: Excludes “N/A” responses

9

Student Success Areas

Faculty and Staff respondents were asked to indicate the level to which greater space devoted to certain areas of student services would improve student success. The figure below depicts the total responses for “very much” and “somewhat” while excluding for “no opinion” responses. The corresponding table provides the resulting percentage, response size, and total response.

Figure 10. Faculty and Staff Response Percentages for "Very Much" and "Somewhat" on Areas to Promote Student Success

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

10

Table 9. Areas to Promote Student Success, Faculty and Staff Perception, Total Response Percentages for “Very Much” and “Somewhat”, Response Total for “Very Much” and “Somewhat”, Response Total

Response Percent, "Very Much," "Somewhat"

Response Total "Very Much"

and "Somewhat" Response Total

Study Areas 93.68% 89 95 Areas for Student Organizations to Meet 91.95% 80 87 Financial Aid 90.41% 66 73 Testing 90.00% 72 80 Areas for Social Interaction among Students 88.29% 83 94 Advising 87.95% 73 83 Computer Labs 87.17% 68 78 Library 84.52% 71 84 Student Parking 80.68% 71 88 Career Services 75.40% 46 61 Math Lab 67.79% 40 59 Writing Lab 67.18% 43 64 Veterans Services 55.55% 30 54

11

Faculty and Staff Success Areas

Faculty and Staff were asked to provide comments (n=30) as to the impact that overcrowding has had on them as a professional. Comments were grouped by themes and an overview of responses is presented in the table and figure below.

Figure 11. Faculty and Staff Response Percentages for the Impact that Overcrowding has had on them as a professional

Space limitations on campus was cited as impeding the ability of faculty and staff to meet with students regarding classes, difficulty in discussing sensitive information with students, or students not having adequate quite spaces to study and work. Distracting noise in places such as hallways was mentioned as making it difficult to hold classes. Limited parking was mentioned as making it difficult for faculty and staff to find spaces if they left and returned to campus throughout the day.

Table 10. Faculty and Staff Response Percentages and Response Total for the Impact that Overcrowding has had on them as a professional

Response Percent* Response Total Space limitations that impede work and/or student interaction/success 63% 19 Distracting noise 20% 6 Parking difficulties 17% 5 *Responses are approximate and may not equal to 100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Space limitations that impedework and/or studentinteraction/success

Distracting noise Parking difficulties

12

PVCC as a Place to Work

Faculty and staff were asked to provide comments about the overall quality of PVCC as a place to work and recommendations for improvements. Forty five (n= 45) respondents provided response. Comments were grouped by themes1 and are presented in the following figures and tables. Figure 12 and table 11 highlight positive faculty and staff comments on overall quality and figure 13 and table 12 highlight areas of improvements.

Figure 12: Positive faculty and staff comments on overall quality of PVCC as a place to work

Table 11: Positive faculty and staff comments on overall quality of PVCC as a place to work

Response Percent Response Total Great place to work 58% 26 Friendly and caring faculty/staff

27% 12

PVCC provides great service to students and community

11% 5

1Individual comments were counted within corresponding themes to provide a numeric response total and response percent for figures and tables.

58%

27%

11%

Great place to work

Friendly and caringfaculty/staff

PVCC provides great serviceto students and community

*Responses are approximate and may not equal to 100%

13

Figure 13: Faculty and staff recommendations for improvements at PVCC

Table 12: Faculty and staff recommendations for improvements at PVCC

Response Percent Response Total Employee morale 18% 8 Work/student space on campus

13% 6

Employee benefits/pay 13% 6 Customer service 13% 6 Understaffed offices/areas 9% 4 Improve IT/technology services

7% 3

Office cross collaboration 2% 1 Faculty staff diversity 2% 1

The majority of faculty and staff commented that PVCC was a great place to work and is committed to providing excellent service to its students and community.

18%

13%

13%

13%

9%

7% 2% 2%

Employee morale

Work/student space oncampusEmployee benefits/pay

Customer service

Understaffed offices/areas

Improve IT/technologyservicesOffice cross collaboration

Faculty staff diversity

*Responses are approximate and may not equal to 100%

14

Documents

2015 Service Quality Comparison Report Safety Rating...2015 Service Quality Comparison Report The purpose of this report is to provide a three-year comparison (2013, 2014, and 2015)