UMass Amherst is one of a select group of institutions conducting assessments on CDSJ. Among the Doctoral Research Universities collecting CDSJ assessment information from faculty and/or staff over the last decade are Pennsylvania State University (2000), Ohio State University (1999), University of Arizona (2000), University of Michigan, and San Diego State University. Those collecting assessment information from students include University of Maryland College Park (1995), North Carolina State University (2000), and University of Washington (2000). The Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles has also conducted a national survey (2003) of faculty members' attitudes and experiences that includes items relevant to CDSJ issues.

None of these assessments uses the same instruments, which is not surprising given that such assessments rise out of local concerns and interests, just as does ours at UMass Amherst. And not all institutions make their results publicly available. For these reasons, these assessments cannot be used for benchmarking purposes. In fact, because survey items are worded differently, and in some cases the populations were sampled differently, direct comparisons must be made with caution. Still, some of the survey instruments address some of the same questions raised in our Employee Survey and the results can provide a broader context for viewing the UMass Amherst findings. [See Appendix F: UMass Amherst Findings in Broader Context.]

UMass Amherst employees appear to share a number of common experiences with employees at those universities concerned enough with CDSJ issues to conduct assessments and make results available to the public. These common experiences relate to findings in our report in the areas of Personnel Practices, Work Environment, and Management Practices. For example, employees in Academic Affairs at UMass Amherst are similar to employees at other research universities on perceptions of fairness of pay, quality of relationships with co-workers, satisfaction with direct supervision, and overall job satisfaction. Employees' experiences with harassment and unfair treatment based on race/ethnicity and gender also appear similar in magnitude.

With respect to other central findings from the UMass Amherst assessment, however, no comparative indicators emerge. That is, we find no comparable surveys that address employees' beliefs about the importance of CDSJ issues to various components of the university mission, and to their own day-to-day responsibilities (Goals and Values). We were also unable to find assessment information directly related to classism within the employee ranks - the experiences of classified staff as compared to other university employees appears to go unexplored at other campuses.

Other sources of comparative data exist for findings from the Personnel Policies and Teaching and Learning sections. With respect to Personnel Policies, the larger demographic context is provided by the availability and utilization data provided by the Equal Opportunity and Diversity Office (see pages 4-5). Issues of Teaching and Learning are informed by results from the National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE), which provides UMass Amherst with comparisons of students at other research universities. These comparisons consistently show that UMass Amherst students report more opportunities for positive interactions with others of a different race/ethnicity and a greater opportunity to learn about others of a different race/ethnicity than students at other Research Universities report.

In sum, while UMass Amherst appears similar to other institutions committed to looking at issues of diversity on some selected aspects of the CDSJ assessment, these comparisons are suggestive at best, given the substantial gaps in available comparative data. While we might wish for comprehensive and directly comparable external benchmarks, the context-linked nature of such surveys makes that unlikely. What is more important is internally derived benchmarks (that is, levels of improvement that we as members of the campus community wish to see) that can serve as important tools for assessing our own improvement in creating an inclusive and equitable learning, working, and living environment