DUPLICATE: Institution Assessment Tool

Introduction:

“A key question is how we create the political conditions that will lead the U.S. Congress to enact a pro gram of black reparations…Joining the charge for a national campaign for reparations would give these institutions an excellent opportunity to demonstrate both a recognition of their own complicity and the importance of mobilizing their considerable resources to compensate for harms.”
(William Darity and Kristen Mullen, From Here to Equality: Reparations for Black Americans in the Twenty-First Century, 2020, p. 269-270)

In the present moment of reckoning with racial injustice and the challenges of reshaping American democracy and democratic institutions, PROJECT HERE offers an opportunity for institutions of higher education to attend to restorative and transformative justice on campus through creating a process for ex ploring how the legacies of slavery and colonialism are embedded in the institutional life of the campus, even if there is no formal relationship with slavery in the institution’s history. If there is a history of profit ing from slavery and colonialism, the campus can be transparent about its past and move towards ac knowledgement, repair, and healing. If exploration implicates the campus in the legacies of slavery and colonialism in the present, then there is an opportunity for the campus leaders to commit to implementing a process towards acknowledgement, repair, and healing. This may mean examining how racial injustice continues at present in campus policies and practices, from teaching and learning, to research practices, to admissions and assessment, to financial aid, to campus policing, to health and wellness, to community engagement, and all aspects of campus life.

PROJECT HERE also encourages campus leaders and other on campus to attend to restorative and trans formative justice in the local community by collaborating with local civic and political leaders and with community-based organizations to support efforts to explore and enact local reparations or encourage the creation of such efforts.

There is a special role for campus leaders – Chancellors, President, Provosts – to attend to restorative and transformative justice nationally by supporting a national program of reparations. Specifically, this means a public statement on behalf of the campus in support of current congressional legislation, the bill HR 40.

This bill calls for a “commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery.” HR 40 references educational disparities in explaining why a commission to study the persistent harms of slavery is necessary. It describes economic and educational hardships suf fered by Black Americans since 1865 as “debilitating” and notes that differences in educational funding have perpetuated this inequality. Further, it calls for the proposed commission to study how slavery direct ly benefited certain “societal institutions, both public and private, including higher education” and the ways in which contemporary “instructional resources” are used “to deny the inhumanity of slavery and the crime against humanity of people of African descent.”

Purpose of the Tool and Institutional Assessment Process:

The PROJECT HERE Institutional Assessment Tool was designed to help institutions in their ongoing work to be more diverse, inclusive, equitable, and supportive of the full participation and success of all their members. This tool is designed for use by a team of institutional and community stakeholders to as sess the current infrastructure, alignment, and practice of the institution around its commitment to anti racism and full participation. It is intended to help spur conversation, reflection, and further action by the institution to work towards being a fully inclusive, multicultural, and anti-racist institution. As a tool for self-assessment, using the tool may help the institution to identify concrete strategies that it might take to move further along the continuum to equity.

The tool is designed as a rubric. Each indicator has five levels which describe the current practice. Level one is intended to describe an institutional context that is resistant to inclusion. Level five is intended to describe an institution actively working (across levels and units) to practice full participation. At the high est levels, the institution may even be considering forms of reparations and reconciliation for historical wrongdoing. Because the tool is intended, however, to motivate productive change, we recommend that the team completing it be fair, comprehensive, and ethical in its use.

Additionally, the team of stakeholders should be diverse across many dimensions – including age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, viewpoints, position, role, status, rank, years of association, and so forth. The team should include students, staff, faculty, institutional partners, senior leaders, and communi ty residents. While we recommend that senior leaders embrace the use of the tool and support the en gagement of a team, a team may also form and use this as an exercise to identify areas for their own focus and work as change agents.

Some reparations principles that may be applied when assessing each indicator in the rubric. Is the indica tor addressing:

Closing the racial wealth gap?
Preventing further harm (so future repair is not needed)?
The changing of racist policies?
The elements of ARC – Acknowledgement, Repair, and Closure – ie. history and current practices, corrective action, and healing.

Involving a Team in the Review Process:

Using a facilitative approach: We suggest that you use facilitative approaches and techniques to guide the entire process of reviewing and completing this tool. For instance, you may want to convene the team (in person or online) and pick one indicator to walk through together. While it may be easy for some to answer immediately, engage the group in thinking about how they might gather, review, and share related evidence to pick a level. Each indicator lists some of the types of evidence and data to consider.

Create mixed sub-teams but ensure specific participation based on experience: Then, perhaps you want to delegate indicators to mixed sub-teams (by role) especially so that individuals with the most direct ex perience are involved. For instance, you may especially want students’ perceptions of items 1, 2, 3, and 4. You may especially want faculty and staff perceptions’ of items 6-10. There may be particular unit leaders whose input should be consulted for specific items that relate to their work. For instance, you may need to talk with a CFO about items 14 and 15 and with Admissions and Financial Aid about items 1 and 2. Re view the items and make a list of key people whose input can be sought.

Specify a time frame for individuals to gather relevant evidence and data and complete the review: Depending on the pace you want to use, you may then want to specify a time (such as two weeks) for a later meeting. At that meeting, you may want to ask sub-teams to share their individual ratings of particu lar indicators. You’ll want to facilitate a process that helps the sub-teams and the group, to arrive at a shared rating. (You will want to define the agreement process in a way that meshes with the culture of your team and institution. Use democratic processes. This may include a vote, if ratings are different. Some may choose to forge consensus or a compromise).

Review and utilize different types of evidence, data, and artifacts: After each indicator, there are checklists of what types of policies, practices, and supports are in place. We encourage you to consider a range of qualitative, quantitative, and other forms of evidence. For instance, review the built environment and place from an open lens, making notes of what team member see, feel, hear, and experience. What images, messages, and values are encoded? Do the same for mission state ments, rhetoric, strategic plans, printed materials, website pages, news stories, curriculum, reading lists, names of buildings, office placards, photographs, signs, demographic data, social media feeds, etc. Addi tionally, you may want to include interviews and focus groups, especially with students, staff, and faculty.

Use dialogue techniques to elicit different viewpoints and spur conversation: As a group shares its re flections, notes, and rating, you may want to use some techniques that help individuals and groups, so that every person has a voice and you encourage honest conversation. For instance, you could invite people to write down their rating on a post-it and share them concurrently. Then, invite individuals (especially those whose ratings are different) to explain their choice. You can also do this through hand gestures (where people hold up a rating at one time). Such techniques can invite dialogue, sharing, and learning.

Be strategic and focus on realistic goals for improvement: After your team completes the review, you may want to provide some time for individuals to reflect on, and even process, the emotions that come up. The process may be discouraging, especially if there are few areas where policies and practices point to institutional anti-racist and inclusive work. For the short term, and to build momentum, it may be helpful for your team to identify a few areas where you can promote movement and change, working with key allies. Then, identify medium-term and longer range goals.

Identify areas of strength as well as areas for change: After completing the tool, you’ll have a complete set of ratings across all areas. In many ways, those ratings will speak for themselves. In written and oral communication with stakeholders across the institution and community, be savvy about how you present this information. Highlight areas where progress is being made, even if by individuals or small units, as well as areas where diligent focus is needed.

PROJECT HERE (Higher Education Reparations Engagement)

Institutional Assessment Tool Designed for Use by Campus and Community Teams

INDICATORS OF COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, ANTI-RACIST AND ANTI-OPPRESSIVE PRACTICES

Note: There are a total of seventeen indicators. Your institution may choose to add others. Each indicator has five levels, with five signifying the commitment to full participation, inclusion, and liberators prac tices. Indicators are roughly organized around students, personnel (faculty and staff), campus-community relationships, and broader institutional operations. We suggest that your team be comprised of individual with diverse roles, backgrounds, levels of experience, and demographics. You may find it helpful to dele gate particular indicators to sub-team members for first review.

Review the descriptions of the indicators on the pages that follow. Each indicator has a five-point level scale, which describe the current level of institutional practice. Use this worksheet to record the assess ment level for each indicator. Your team can also record notes about its choice. The table will expand with your notes.

	AREA AND INDICATORS	LEVEL	NOTES
1	Admissions
2	Financial Aid
3	Student Support
4	General Education Requirements
5	Curriculum
6	Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Hiring
7	Faculty and Staff Advancement
8	Faculty and Staff Professional Development
9	Personnel Salary, Benefits, and Incentives
10	Advancement, Development, and Fundraising
12	Place-Based Partnerships
13	Land and Natural Resource Use
14	Supplier and Vendor Diversity
15	Budgetary Allocations
16	Appropriate Acknowledgment of History
17	Institutional Benchmarking and Policy Review

1. Admissions: This indicator examines the institution’s commitment to attracting and admitting a diverse student body as reflected in its policies, practices, and results.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
Oppositional/ Lack of Commitment		Working on Progress		Fully Inclusive/ Liberatory
The institution does not intentionally recruit diverse students and offers little or no attention to issues of race, class, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of marginalized identity. Consequently, the institution’s admitted and enrolled students are predominantly white (and often assumed to possess mainstream and/or privileged identity status).	The institution provides a minimal amount of attention to issues of race, class, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of marginalized identity in admissions. Consequently, there are pockets of “diversity,” but these students often perceive themselves to be in the minority, tokens, and/or marginalized.	The institution provides some attention to issues of race, class, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of marginalized identity in admissions. The institution may have some targets for the demographic composition of the student body, resulting in some proportions of students of color and from other historically underrepresented backgrounds.	The institution is actively working on issues of race, class, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of marginalized identity in admissions. The institution is increasing the demographic diversity of the student body, with representation of students of color and from other historically underrepresented backgrounds that matches the state and region.	The institution intentionally addresses issues of race, class, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of marginalized identity in admissions. It can cite strategies, such as holistic review, testing policies, and recruitment pipelines, that support this work. As a result, the institution demonstrates demographic diversity of the student body, with representation of students of color and from other historically underrepresented backgrounds that exceed the state and region.

Teams assessing this indicator may want to look for:

• Holistic reviews

• Flexible/Optional Test Policies (SAT/ACT)

• Programs /pipelines for students of color and underrepresented students for admissions (early college high school, etc.)

• Students who are descendants of enslaved people or other historically marginalized communities connected to the institution’s history

Notes:

2. Financial Aid: This indicator examines the institution’s commitment to successfully enrolling and support ing a diverse student body as reflected in its financial aid policies, practices, scholarships, awards, and funding sources.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
Oppositional/ Lack of Commitment		Working on Progress		Fully Inclusive/ Liberatory
The institution does not have or offer financial aid that intentionally addresses inequities or disparities in income and/or race. Financial aid is mostly merit-based with little attention to systemic inequities.	The institution has small pockets of financial aid that addresses inequities or disparities in income and/or race. These programs, often tied to specific units or departments, may help students of color from higher achieving academic backgrounds.	The institution is working to make financial aid (grants, scholarships, work study) intentionally available to students of color. Programs are sensitive to both race/ethnicity and income, so that students from different academic and other backgrounds, may access assistance.	The institution offers some financial aid (including scholarships, work study, grants) that is sensitive to and aims to intentionally address inequities and disparities in income and/ or race. These programs support increasing enrollment and completion by students of color from multiple backgrounds.	The institution offers a range of financial aid (including scholarships, work study, grants) that is sensitive to and aims to intentionally address inequities and disparities in income and/or race. These programs support higher levels of enrollment and completion by students of color from multiple backgrounds.

Teams assessing this indicator may want to look for:

• Work Study (especially tied to community engagement and student success programs) • Dedicated scholarships for students of color

• Need blind financial aid

• Financial aid for students (especially those of color) from low-income backgrounds

Notes:

3. Student Support: This indicator examines the institution’s commitment to educating and supporting the full participation and success of a diverse student body as reflected in its services, centers, structures, and activities.

Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5
Oppositional/ Lack of Commitment		Working on Progress		Fully Inclusive/ Liberatory
The institution does not have formal, visible and functioning support services for students, especially students of color, such as centers or programs where students can access culturally sensitive and relevant resources. Additionally, mainstream programs and services, such as orientation, largely assume students’ who are White identified.	The institution has a few informal support services for students, especially students of color, such as centers or programs where students can access culturally sensitive and relevant resources. There is token recognition of students from different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds in campus-wide programs and services, such as orientation.	The institution has several formal support services for students, especially students of color, such as centers or programs where students can access culturally sensitive and relevant resources. Student facing programs are working to include and recognize students from different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds in campus-wide programs and services, such as orientation.	The institution has formal support services for most students, especially students of color with significant populations at the school, such as centers or programs where students can access culturally sensitive and relevant resources. Student-facing programs include and recognize students from different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds in campus wide programs and services, such as orientation.	The institution has formal support services for all students, including an anti-racist and equity lens, such as centers or programs where students can access culturally sensitive and relevant resources. Student-facing programs support the full participation and recognition of students from different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds in campus-wide programs and services, such as orientation.