Evaluating social inclusion : An adaptable measure for use on college campuses

Gender and sexual identity discrimination are commonly reported among persons of non-heterosexual or non-cisgender identities. Sexual and gender minority (SGM) students are more likely to experience discrimination, hate crimes, poverty, sexually transmitted infections, anxiety, and depression compared to heterosexual and cisgender individuals. These marginalized experiences create a unique need for education, resources, support, and community. Greater awareness of sexual and gender minorities encourages college students to feel comfortable sharing their experiences, and openly identifying as a sexual and/or gender minority. Consequently, to retain the full breadth of diversity within university communities, centers on campus that provide programming, education, and advocacy for minority students are essential for an inclusive campus climate that nurtures diverse student populations. Given the dearth in empirical instruments to support social inclusion among Sexual and Gender Minorities on college campuses, the purpose of this research was to, 1.) Develop a meaningful measure for use in the evaluation of gender identity and sexuality among college students and their perceived social inclusion through the lens of a social inclusion center; and 2.) Include questions addressing efficacy of relevant social inclusion centers for SGM students, staff, faculty, and their allies. This research focuses on self-report data collected through the Gender and Sexual Inclusion, Knowledge, and Attitude Survey from staff, faculty, and undergraduate students from a small liberal arts college in the Pacific Northwest (N = 218).

In a recent national survey among sexual and gender minority (SGM) youth, 64% feel unsafe at school because of sexual identity prejudice and 44% feel unsafe as a result of their gender expression (Kosciw, et al., 2012). Sexual and gender minorities often face social stigma early, beginning in school, that affects their global health and well-being. The disparities in mental and physical health among SGMs are often attributed to structural discrimination including increased rates of poverty, homelessness, depression, anxiety, suicidality, interpersonal violence, and sexually transmitted infections (Durso & Gates, 2012;CDC, 2013;National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 2016;Mullaney, 2016;Coulter & Miller, 2018;Hunt,, et al., 2018;Lim et al., 2018). Sexual and gender minorities are confronted not only by social stigma and health disparities, but also by the many professionals who do not have the education, training, or field-related knowledge necessary to provide adequate, appropriate guidance and services. As a result, roughly one in six LGBTQIA+ people say they have avoided medical care (18%) or calling the police (15%), even when in need, due to fear of discrimination on the basis of their minority identity (Harvard Opinion Research Program, 2017).
Gaps in SGM knowledge range from teachers not knowing how to intervene when they hear discriminatory language (Coulter & Miller, 2018) to intensive care (ICU) nurses not knowing how to respond to severe complications of gender reassignment surgery (Lim, et al., 2018). Stigma, discrimination, and lack of education result in biological, psychological, and social disparities that are largely preventable. According to Gahagan and Subirana-Malaret s (2018) analysis of SGM health issues, lack of culturally competent healthcare can result in increased costs to society, including reduced life expectancy, a lower quality of life, and higher burden of acute and chronic illness among LGBTQ populations.
Fortunately, researchers are beginning to identify concrete steps that can be taken to maximize wellness of SGM populations (CDC, 2013;Coulter & Miller, 2018;Gahagan & Subirana-Malaret, 2018;Harvard Opinion Research Program, 2017;Hunt, et al., 2018;Lim, et al., 2018;Mullaney, 2016). This acts as a reminder that, as Lim et al. asserted, identifying as LGBTQ [IA+] is not biologically hazardous to health, enduring social stigma and homophobia is (2018). Many of the identified steps in reducing disparities confronting SGM communities require resources and efforts to remain visible and accessible to target populations. Implementation of resources for students and educational initiatives for staff and faculty is one pivotal role institutions of higher education play (Taylor, 2015). Social inclusion centers can provide a structured way for institutions approaching such needs.
According to the 2019 GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) Accelerating Acceptance report, people ages 18 to 34 are less likely to identify with heteronormative (i.e., heterosexual, cisgender) terminology than previous generations. In fact, one in every six people ages 18 to 34 (16%) identify as a sexual and/or gender minority (GLAAD, 2017) and that number is projected to increase (Newport, 2018). Although SGM populations have achieved greater visibility, reports indicate a decline in overall acceptance of those who identify as a sexual and/or gender minority (GLAAD, 2019). In other words, roughly 20% of the population experiences some level of social exclusion at work, school, in public, and among peers.
Lowered social acceptance is a pressing issue, as demonstrated by a 6% increase in hate crimes against SGMs from 2018 to 2019 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2019; GLAAD, 2019). These numbers become more alarming once broken down, indicating a 42% increase in hate crimes against transgender individuals (Kozuch, 2019). Colleges are an important integrator, as acceptance and social climate are core contributors to SGM students wellbeing and academic success (Coulter & Miller, 2018;Garvey, et al., 2017;Woodford, et al., 2018). Hatchell, et al. (2017 conducted a longitudinal study of SGM high school students demonstrating that peer sexual harassment victimization precedes depressive episodes. They also found that school belonging mediated this interaction, suggesting schools have the capacity, and perhaps the institutional responsibility, to mitigate disparities in SGM student populations. In a mixed-methods qualitative study of 60 queer and trans* collegians in the U.S., Pitcher, et al. (2018) identified two primary subsystems for the success of LGBTQIA+ students: LGBTQIA+ resource centers and LGBTQIA+ student organizations. In fact, the majority of participants attributed their academic success to the LGBTQIA+ resource center on their respective campuses. Pitcher, et al., asserted that if not for the LGBTQIA+ student organizations and the connections made there, some LGBTQIA+ students may not stay at their institutions and might have left higher education all together. Their findings demonstrate the critical role an institution plays in the recruitment, retention, and success of minority students.
Social inclusion and support centers are important for a variety of reasons, as they fill a large need for minority communities. In order to continue institutional growth and strengthen opportunities for external funding, centers require empirical evidence of their efficacy, including basic needs and climate assessments. Empirical evidence is essential for outcome efficacy, so centers can support their mission and the target populations within their communities.
The paucity of empirical literature addressing evidence-based protocols, and resources for sexual and gender minority programs and social inclusion centers on undergraduate campuses, illustrates the need for greater attention in empirical research.
Undergraduate institutions rarely collect gender or sexual identity information in student applications, resulting in information deficits for retention data (Windmeyer, et al., 2013). Beyond basic retention data, there are few assessments available or investigated to evaluate the availability and efficacy of resources for minority students (Garvey, et al., 2017).
Given the dearth in empirical instruments to support social inclusion among sexual and gender minorities on college campuses, the purpose of this research was to 1. develop a meaningful measure for use in the evaluation of gender identity and sexuality among college students and their perceived social inclusion; 2. include questions addressing relevant social inclusion centers for SGM students, staff, faculty, and their allies. The Center for Gender Equity (CGE) at Pacific University Oregon (PUO) is a social inclusion center we evaluated as a case example for generalization to other colleges social inclusion centers, especially converging on SGMs. Relative to CGE, we focused on the following empirical questions: 1. Does the community value the social inclusion center in recruitment and retention of SGM students, faculty, and staff? 2. Do SGM feel the social inclusion center provides educational programs relevant to issues important to them? 3. Are there significant differences across members of the community in the perception of the social inclusion center s visibility on campus? 4. Does the campus community feel the social inclusion center contributes to their knowledge, attitudes, and understanding of identities other than their own? 5. Are there significant differences across members of the community in their perception of safety and inclusion on campus?

Methods
Participants. Our sample of the revised Gender and Sexuality Inclusion, Knowledge, Attitude Survey (IKAS) yielded 218 responses from students (n = 183), faculty (n = 22), and staff (n = 13) of PUO. When asked, What sex were you assigned at birth? 77% of participants indicated female (n = 172) and 23% male (n = 46); none of the participants selected the option of intersex. The gender identities of participants differ from the question of assigned sex (i.e., male, female, or intersex). Representative of PUO s student population, 70% identified as cisgender female (n = 153) and 19% as cisgender male (n = 41). For statistical purposes and to maintain participant anonymity, we combined all transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) identities (n = 23) after the data collection period closed. Due to PUO s lack of demographic data regarding gender identity, it is unclear whether the TGNC statistic (n = 23) is representative of the PUO community.
When asked, How would you describe your sexuality? 66% of participants self-identified as heterosexual (n = 143); 22% as pan-or bisexual (n = 47); 5% as homosexual (n = 10); and the remaining 7% as either queer, asexual, or demisexual (n = 18). To preserve power, we collapsed sexual minority categories into a single grouping of non-heterosexual and compared those scores to heterosexual students, faculty, and staff. Although we did ask participants to provide ethnic identity information, some categories were small (e.g., African American, Native American, Hispanic) and therefore to preserve individual identities, especially among faculty and staff, we did not report ethnicity by community member or age. See Figure 1 for the demographic composition of the sample.

Procedure. Research involving human
subjects was reviewed and approved by the PUO Institutional Review Board (1172554-2). The IKAS was available via paper copy and digitally on Qualtrics®. All participants opted to use Qualtrics® to record their responses. Participants were solicited through snowball and convenience sampling via email, social media, and verbal communication. Research description was provided and we received informed consent prior to the beginning of participation. Participation was voluntary with no incentive offered. All participant data remains anonymous and confidential through assigned participant ID numbers and/or anonymous survey collection online.

Results
Scores on the domains of the IKAS as well as the Cronbach alpha coefficients were analyzed for comparison. Score reliability ranged from .51 (Visibility and Accessibility) to .92 (Education and Understanding) with a total score reliability for the IKAS of .93. Aside from the Visibility subscale, internal consistency among our samples was good to very good (see Table 1).
In an effort to evaluate the five empirical questions of this study, we conducted univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) across all subscales of the IKAS relative to gender (female and male), sexual identity (non-heterosexual and heterosexual), and community role (student, faculty, and staff). The first empirical question, 1. Does the community value the social inclusion center (e.g., PUO s CGE) in recruitment and retention of sexual and gender minority (SGM) students, faculty, and staff? All minority groups perceived the value of CGE in retention and recruitment more favorably than did the majority relative to gender, sexual identity, and sex. By contrast, there were no significant differences across student, faculty, and staff scores on the IKAS subscale of Perceived Value in Retention and Recruitment relative to the CGE.
2. Do SGM participants feel the social inclusion center (e.g., PUO s CGE) provides educational programs relevant and important to them? There were also no significant differences across any of the groups (Gender, Sexual Identity, Assigned Sex, or Community Role) with respect to the IKAS subscale of Education as it related to CGE s programs (see Table 1). There were no significant differences in perceived inclusion and safety on the PUO campus between students, faculty, and staff (see Figures 2 and 3). These findings can assist the relevant social inclusion center identify target audiences as well as issues they may want to focus their educational efforts on in order to develop a campus climate of inclusive and tolerant personal attitudes.

Discussion
The impetus of this project was to 1.) Develop a meaningful measure for use in the The results of the IKAS measure suggest that the Center is valued among undergraduate students, faculty, and staff. The results also suggest that SGM members of the target population(s) hold higher perceived value of the center, and/or that the Center plays a more significant role in their decision to be part of the university s community. These findings differ from our pilot study which suggested no significant difference of perceived value between SGM participants and their heterosexual/cisgender counterparts. It is possible that our findings differ from the pilot study due to this distribution yielding a higher SGM participant response. The data further suggest the Center may play an important role in retention, recruitment, and education of gender equity issues and understanding of those issues that directly affect sexual and gender minorities.
Within the Perceived Value subscale, SGM participants indicated a higher agreement with the Center acting as an outlet to issues important to them. This discrepancy likely pertains to the disproportionate social, biological, and legal obstacles faced by SGM populations in the U.S. Although the Center s mission is inclusive of all sexual and gender identities, a majority of their programs attempt to focus on minority populations to mitigate disparities in resources available through mainstream channels. This finding suggests that the Center provides particularly The lack of significant findings for the center s Role in Education and Understanding is a meaningful finding for the center, as it suggests they are equally reaching SGM and heterosexual participants in their programming efforts. This enables the Center to provide education to SGM populations as well as their allies.
SGM participants reported lower Perceived University Safety and Inclusion scores than their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. This disparity is one for both the Center and the larger university community to be aware of as they continue with programming and strategic diversity planning. It would be reasonable for the Center and the University s administration to take a role in addressing this disparity through further education of staff and faculty on campus regarding the importance of respect and dignity for community members of all sexual and gender identities. The disparity may also be addressed through diversity awareness on hiring committees.
The goal of this project was to develop a measure that could be adapted to meet ongoing evaluation needs at PUO as well as provide a framework for other institutions to adapt and implement in evaluating student inclusion and program evaluation of inclusion centers. This outcome is already underway; Cordima et al. (2020) developed a comprehensive social inclusion measure using the IKAS as a model. Their goal was to address social inclusion across veterans, SGMs, students of color, religious minorities, students with learning and physical accommodations, and nontraditional students (i.e., transfer students) to see how colleges may better integrate these groups into the broader, dominant community.
Although the IKAS has already begun to support further research on the PUO campus, we hope this measure can be adapted for social inclusion centers on other college campuses and organizations to better serve their communities. In 2015, The American Psychological Association s Division 16 (School Psychology) and Division 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues) published a five-part resource series for school administrators, health personnel, and educators to promote resiliency and inclusion in schools. It should be noted, however, todate there are no published protocols or evaluative resources to gauge the efficacy of such implementation.
The results of this research and the development of the IKAS may help support and cultivate other social inclusion program evaluations. Through needs and climate assessments, universities can continue to establish efficacy and determine target population(s) for funding, resources, and support. One such mechanism is through the use of social inclusion centers which act as a social hub and central location for resources. Centers, such as PUO s CGE, function as determining factors in minority students decisions to stay at a university as well as their success while at the university and decision to continue in academia as a whole. Through continued data collection with the IKAS or similar measures, as well as establishing a norm for collecting gender and sexual identity demographic data of incoming students, universities may establish more tolerant and inclusive environments for a diverse array of students, staff, and faculty.